(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. (b) “Mindless addiction to Form, ignoring the Substance of the matter, results in rendering of injustice. A perceptive civil servant is one who ignores such literalness and carries out true intent.” Examine the above statement with suitable illustrations.

(a) The contextual nature of just and unjust

Justice is not frozen; what was fair in one context can become unfair as circumstances, knowledge and values change. Constantly scrutinising the changing context prevents a miscarriage of justice.

• Section 377 was long treated as valid; changed social and constitutional understanding made its criminalisation of homosexuality unjust (Navtej Johar, 2018).
• Practices once accepted — untouchability, sati, marital-rape immunity debates — are re-examined as morality evolves.
• A frozen rule applied to a transformed reality can itself become injustice.

The ethical administrator therefore reviews context rather than applying yesterday's standard mechanically.

(b) Substance over mindless form

Blind literalism — obeying the letter while ignoring the spirit — can defeat the very purpose of a rule and render injustice. A perceptive civil servant discerns and serves the true intent behind a rule.

• Rejecting a poor widow's pension over a trivial documentary error is form defeating substance; a sensitive officer finds a lawful way to grant the genuine entitlement.
• Disaster relief that clears procedure but reaches no victim betrays its purpose.
• Purposive interpretation, empathy and discretion within law realise substantive justice.

Conclusion

Both statements demand a living ethic: context-sensitive judgment of what is just, and substance-driven administration that honours intent over empty formality — the mark of a truly responsive civil servant.