Q.Examine the following situations and discuss whether they are just. In each case discuss the principle of justice that might be used in defence of your argument.

• Suresh, a visually impaired student, gets three hours and thirty minutes to finish his mathematics paper, while the rest of the class gets only three hours.
• Geeta walks with a limp. The teacher decided to give her also three hours and thirty minutes to finish her mathematics paper.
• A teacher gives grace marks to the weaker students in class, to boost their morale.
• A professor distributes different question papers to different students based on her evaluation of their capabilities.
• There is a proposal to reserve 33 per cent of the seats in the Parliament for women.

Each situation can be judged using the chapter's three principles — equal treatment, proportionate justice, and recognition of special needs — depending on whether the different treatment given is genuinely tied to a real disadvantage or ability. …

1. Suresh (visually impaired) gets an extra thirty minutes, while the rest of the class gets three hours: This is just, and a straightforward case of Recognition of Special Needs. A visual impairment is a genuine disability that puts Suresh at an unfair disadvantage in a strictly time-equal written exam; the extra time is not a special favour, but what is needed to give him a genuinely equal opportunity to demonstrate what he knows — consistent with the chapter's point that recognising special needs extends, rather than contradicts, equal treatment.

2. Geeta (who walks with a limp) is also given the same extra thirty minutes: This is questionable on the very same principle. A limp affects mobility, not the ability to read, write or think within a timed written mathematics exam — unlike a visual impairment, it does not obviously create the same kind of disadvantage in completing a written paper. Applying the special-needs principle properly requires that the extra provision be genuinely connected to the disadvantage a person actually faces; simply extending Suresh's accommodation to Geeta without asking whether her particular need calls for it is not a principled application of the principle — it would, in fact, be an unjustified departure from equal treatment, unless her limp is somehow shown to affect her ability to complete a written exam, which the situation gives no reason to think.

3. A teacher gives grace marks to weaker students to boost their morale: This is not really justifiable as a principle of justice in the chapter's terms. It does not fit Recognition of Special Needs (no disability or genuine disadvantage is mentioned), nor does it fit Proportionate Justice, which links reward to the actual quality and effort of work, not to marks added afterwards regardless of performance — if anything, it undermines proportionate justice. It may be a kind, morale-boosting gesture, but by the chapter's own logic (recall the J.S. Mill quote — justice is what can be claimed as a right, not simply an act of generosity), this looks more like charity than a principled application of justice.

4. A professor distributes different question papers based on her evaluation of students' capabilities: This could be defended under Proportionate Justice, provided the professor's evaluation is a fair and accurate assessment of each student's actual ability and preparation. It becomes unjust, however, if the "evaluation" is really based on bias, favouritism, or group identity such as caste or gender rather than genuine individual capability — which would violate Equal Treatment for Equals by judging students according to their group rather than their own individual work. So the justice of this case depends entirely on whether the professor's evaluation of capability is itself a fair, individual, merit-based judgment. …