The concept of Just and Unjust is contextual. What was just a year ... | UPSC Mains Model Answer

The concept of Just and Unjust is contextual. What was just a year back, may turn out to be unjust in today's context. Examine this statement with suitable examples.

Based on 50 evaluated answers to this question on CollectorBabu: here is what aspirants most often missed, the mistakes that cost marks, and a model answer.

What most aspirants missed

Concrete examples of unjust becoming just, such as Section 377 decriminalised in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and the Sati ban of 1829
Institutional scrutiny mechanisms: judicial review (Article 13, Kesavananda), PILs (Vishaka, 1997) and Law Commission reports, since the question explicitly asks how change is examined
Examples of just becoming unjust, such as colonial sedition (Section 124A) or Emergency preventive detention, overruled by Puttaswamy (2017)
Counter-examples showing lag or miscarriage, such as the marital rape exception still in criminal law
A line on whether context can override universal principles like human dignity
Brief reference to the danger of legal uncertainty when standards change too often

Common mistakes

Listing examples without explaining how context changed and why the earlier practice became unjust or just
Ignoring the directive to examine scrutiny, so the answer says that change happens but not how it is monitored
Inverting the just and unjust labels in examples, which undermines credibility
Weak conclusion that repeats the statement without weighing when context should override universal principles

What the better answers did

Pairing each example with a date, forum and outcome, such as Navtej Singh Johar (2018) or Shayara Bano (2017)
Covering both directions, unjust becoming just and just becoming unjust, to show a balanced examination
Naming specific scrutiny tools, such as judicial review, PILs and Law Commission reports, and explaining what each prevents
Adding a counter-view on timeless principles and legal uncertainty, which lifts the answer above a list

Introduction

Open by defining justice as fairness in law and society, then state that context changes what counts as fair while constitutional values set limits.

Conclusion

Close by weighing when context should override universal principles and naming the institutions, such as courts and the Law Commission, that keep this change accountable.

Model answer

Justice is shaped by social, economic and technological context, so a law or practice once seen as fair can later be recognised as discriminatory. Courts, legislatures and public debate act as the check that tracks this change, though context cannot justify everything.

Unjust becoming just

Section 377 of the IPC criminalised homosexuality. In Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court read it down, recognising constitutional morality over majoritarian social norms.
Sati was tolerated under custom until the Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829 made it criminal, a change driven by reformers and colonial policy.
Triple talaq was upheld as personal-law practice until Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) struck it down, and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 criminalised it.

Just becoming unjust

Preventive detention was accepted during the Emergency (1975-77), and ADM Jabalpur (1976) upheld the suspension of habeas corpus. Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017) overruled that view.
Industrial growth was once seen as unquestioned progress. Today environmental laws and climate commitments treat unchecked pollution as unjust to future generations.
Colonial sedition under Section 124A remained on the books long after its context ended, and the Supreme Court kept it in abeyance in 2022 pending reconsideration.

Mechanisms that track change

Judicial review under Article 13 and the basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) allow courts to test laws against evolving constitutional values.
Public Interest Litigation produced the Vishaka guidelines (1997) on workplace sexual harassment, filling a legislative gap.
The Law Commission's 262nd Report (2015) recommended abolishing the death penalty except for terrorism, showing how expert review informs reform.

Limits of context

Human dignity and equality are timeless tests. No change in context can justify slavery or untouchability.
Frequent shifts create legal uncertainty, so reform must be deliberate, reasoned and tied to constitutional principles.

The statement holds, but justice evolves through scrutiny rather than whim. Judicial review, Law Commission reports and PILs ensure that outdated laws are re-examined, while constitutional values anchor the process.

Write this answer and get it evaluated

Handwritten answers, expert-reviewed, back in under 24 hours. Start with the ₹49 Trial.

Evaluate my answer