View answer copy →Answered a very similar question
Their question: “Whether established law cannot answer moral aspects of new situations / need for new moral laws — law vs morals with contemporary examples (10m/150w)”
The PYQ asks for cases where an act is ethically right but not legal (and vice versa) to show law alone is insufficient, exactly the law-vs-morals gap Madhavi argues, with a ready bank of precise legal examples a student can lift.
Key learnings from their answer
- ›She wrapped abstract ethics prompts in hard current affairs instead of textbook theory, Q3a (politics/power overshadowing ethics in IR) was answered with Russia-Ukraine loss of lives, SIDS facing submersion, China-Taiwan, and Taliban's violation of women's rights, while Q1b (law vs morals) cited Article 377 decriminalisation, a cancelled transgender 'priest' appointment, UAPA clashing with Art 21/22, and anti-conversion/abortion laws -> stock real-world cases pinned to each specific clause of the question turn a vague ethics answer into a concrete, gradeable one; build a small bank of dated examples you can map onto recurring GS-4 themes.
- ›For the law-vs-morals question (Q1b) she didn't just list examples, she landed the precise legal hooks, Shreya Singhal, Puttaswamy, Srikrishna committee, SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, Prohibition of Manual Scavenging Act, and named constitutional articles (Art 21, 22) -> citing the exact case/Act/Article rather than 'a Supreme Court judgment' signals genuine command and is the difference between a generic and an authoritative ethics answer.
What they cited: Article 377 decriminalisation as moral law catching up with changing times (Q1b) · Transgender 'priest' appointment cancelled due to gender (Q1b) · UAPA conflicting with Art 22 (protection against detention) and Art 21 (Q1b) · Anti-conversion laws and abortion rights vs right to reproduction (Q1b) · SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act and Prohibition of Manual Scavenging Act (Q1b, Q11)