"The concept of Just and Unjust is contextual. What was just a year back, may turn out to be unjust in…

Question

"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.

Ghissu Editorial · Accepted Answer

The statement is largely valid because the application of justice changes with knowledge and values, though its core of dignity and equality stays fixed. Navtej Johar (2018) undid the Supreme Court's own 2013 view by holding that constitutional morality must guide law.

**Introduction**

Justice is a constant ideal, but what counts as just is read through the knowledge and values of each age. The statement is largely valid, which is why the Supreme Court treats the Constitution as a living document.

**How Changing Context Reshapes Justice**

SKETCH: comparison | Once Just, Now Unjust
a: Earlier View
b: Revised View
- ADM Jabalpur (1976) :: Puttaswamy (2017)
- Sedition, Section 124A :: Abeyance, Vombatkere (2022)
- Adultery a crime :: Joseph Shine (2018)
- Instant triple talaq :: Shayara Bano (2017)

1. **Constitutional morality**: *Navtej Johar* (2018) held that constitutional, not popular, morality must guide law, undoing the Court's 2013 view.
2. **New knowledge**: Attempted suicide was a crime for over 150 years, but the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 presumes severe stress and directs care.
3. **Gender roles**: *Babita Puniya* (2020) rejected "physiological limits" as a ground to deny women permanent commission in the Army, calling it stereotyping.
4. **Recognition of identity**: *NALSA* (2014) gave transgender persons a legal identity that earlier law simply denied.

**Limits of the Contextual View**

1. **Non-negotiable core**: Dignity and equality do not change with time; untouchability was unjust even when customary, and Article 17 only recognised that.
2. **Risk of relativism**: If justice is only contextual, a majority can redefine it; the basic structure doctrine of *Kesavananda Bharati* (1973) guards the core.
3. **Constant scrutiny**: Reviewing inherited laws prevents miscarriage of justice, as with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replacing the colonial IPC from 1 July 2024.

**Conclusion**

The statement holds for the application of justice, not its foundations. Principles of dignity and fairness stay fixed while their reach must widen with context, and scrutinising inherited rules against them is how institutions prevent yesterday's justice from becoming today's injustice.

"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.

Model answer

Practise this question

Essence, determinants and consequences of Ethics in human actions12 questions

Ghissu