Q4. (a) “The concept of Just and Unjust is contextual. What was just a year back, may turn out to be unjust in today’s context. Changing context should be constantly under scrutiny to prevent miscarriage of justice.” Examine the above statement with suitable examples. (Answer in 150 words) 10 Marks

Introduction:

The concept of “just and unjust” is dynamic and evolves with changing social, cultural, and legal contexts. What may be considered just at one point in time may become unjust as societal values and norms progress. Therefore, justice must be seen through the lens of context, keeping in mind the fluidity of time and circumstances.

Changing social values and context leading to miscarriage of justice:

• Decriminalization of homosexuality: Homosexuality was once criminalized under Section 377 of the IPC, seen as a “just” law in colonial times.

E.g. In 2018, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized it, reflecting a shift towards individual freedoms and dignity.

• Gender discrimination in religious practices: ractices such as the exclusion of women from Sabarimala Temple were once justified by religious customs.

E.g. The Supreme Court ruling in 2018 allowed women entry, signaling progress towards gender equality.

• Economic reforms and licence raj: The Licence Raj was initially seen as just to promote social equality through state control of the economy.

E.g. It was later viewed as unjust, with economic liberalization in 1991 opening up markets for greater efficiency and growth.

• Gender-based violence (marital rape): Marital rape laws once seemed just, upholding marital sanctity over individual consent.

E.g. Modern debates demand these laws be revised to protect women’s autonomy and rights, addressing outdated views of justice.

Adapting to changing contexts to prevent miscarriages of justice:

• Recognizing the right to privacy: As digital surveillance expanded, what was once seen as justified for national security now faces scrutiny for infringing privacy rights.

E.g. The Supreme Court of India recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

• Ensuring equal representation: Discriminatory practices like the Triple Talaq were socially accepted but were criminalized to ensure gender justice.

E.g. The Triple Talaq law of 2019 protected Muslim women from arbitrary divorces.

• Balancing religious sentiments with free expression: Films like Padmaavat faced backlash for hurting religious sentiments, but banning artistic expression can be unjust.

E.g. The movie was released after legal scrutiny, reflecting the balance between expression and religious sentiments.

• Redefining dissent in a democracy: Dissent was historically viewed as part of healthy democratic discourse.

E.g. Recent arrests under laws like UAPA for dissent have highlighted the need to protect freedom of expression and prevent its misuse.

Conclusion:

“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.” – Thomas Jefferson. Constant re-evaluation of legal and social norms is essential to ensure justice aligns with evolving societal values, avoiding the pitfalls of outdated practices.