NCERT Solutions for Class 11 Political Science Chapter 4: Social Justice (NCERT 2026–27)
These Class 11 Political Science Chapter 4 solutions cover Social Justice from the NCERT textbook Political Theory, updated for the 2026–27 session. The chapter explains what justice means, traces the idea of “giving each person his due”, sets out the three principles of justice — equal treatment for equals, proportionate justice and the recognition of special needs — and examines just distribution, including John Rawls’ famous argument from the veil of ignorance and the debate between free markets and state intervention. Below you get answers to every NCERT exercise question, key terms, extra practice, MCQs, Assertion–Reason questions and FAQs.
Class: 11Subject: Political ScienceBook: Political TheoryChapter: 4 – Social JusticeKey thinker: John RawlsSession: 2026–27
Chapter 4, Social Justice, begins with the intuitive idea that justice concerns our life in society — the way public life is ordered and the principles by which social goods and duties are distributed. The classical idea that justice means “giving each person his due” is traced from Plato’s Republic to Kant’s notion of human dignity. The chapter then sets out three principles of justice — equal treatment for equals, proportionate justice (rewarding effort and skill), and the recognition of special needs (helping the disabled, the aged and the deprived) — and explains that governments must constantly harmonise them. It examines just distribution and presents John Rawls’ argument that a fair society can be designed from behind a veil of ignorance, where rational self-interest leads us to protect the worst-off. Finally, it weighs the debate between free markets and state intervention in securing a basic minimum for all.
Key Terms & Concepts
Social justice: the principles by which social goods, opportunities and duties are fairly distributed among the members of a society, giving each person his/her due and ensuring basic equality of life conditions.
Giving each person his due: the classical definition of justice (Plato, Kant); today “due” is understood as the dignity, rights and equal consideration owed to every person as a human being.
Equal treatment for equals: because all share certain characteristics as human beings, they deserve equal rights (civil, political, social) and must not be discriminated against on grounds of class, caste, race or gender.
Proportionate justice: while equals should be treated equally, different kinds of work may justly be rewarded differently in proportion to the effort, skill and danger involved.
Recognition of special needs: a just society takes account of people’s special needs — disability, age, or lack of access to education and health care — and may treat them differently to extend, not contradict, equal treatment (e.g. reservations for SCs and STs).
Distributive justice: the just distribution of goods, services and resources between groups and individuals (and between nations), which may require the redistribution of resources such as land.
Veil of ignorance (John Rawls): a thought-experiment in which we design society’s rules without knowing what position — rich or poor, ‘upper’ or ‘lower’ caste — we will occupy in it; rational self-interest then leads us to choose rules fair to the worst-off.
Basic minimum: the conditions needed to live a healthy and productive life — nourishment, housing, clean drinking water, education and a minimum wage — which a democratic government is responsible for providing.
Free market vs state intervention: the debate over whether open competition through free markets, or state action and redistribution, is the better way to help the disadvantaged without harming the better-off.
NCERT Exercise — Full Solutions
All questions below are reproduced verbatim from the NCERT Political Theory end-of-chapter Exercises. Answers are original, written in exam-ready style.
1. What does it mean to give each person his/her due? How has the meaning of “giving each his due” changed over time?
ANSWERTo give each person his/her due means to treat people in a way that secures their well-being and gives them what they are rightfully entitled to. Justice, in this view, is not merely doing good to friends and harm to enemies or pursuing one’s own interest; it involves a genuine concern for the well-being of all people — just as a doctor is concerned with the well-being of every patient, a just ruler must be concerned with the well-being of every citizen.How the meaning has changed: In Plato’s time, “due” was understood largely in terms of well-being and a just social order. Today our understanding is closely linked to what is due to each person as a human being. Following the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, we hold that every human being possesses dignity. If all persons are granted dignity, then what is due to each of them is the opportunity to develop their talents and pursue their chosen goals. Justice therefore now requires giving due and equal consideration to all individuals — recognising their equal rights and worth, not merely their material welfare.
2. Briefly discuss the three principles of justice outlined in the chapter? Explain each with examples.
ANSWERThe chapter discusses three principles of justice that societies use to give people their due:(i) Equal treatment for equals: Since all individuals share certain characteristics as human beings, they deserve equal rights and equal treatment — civil rights (life, liberty, property), political rights (the right to vote) and social rights (equal opportunities). People must not be discriminated against on grounds of class, caste, race or gender. Example: if two persons from different castes do the same work, they should receive the same reward; a female teacher should not be paid less than a male teacher for the same job.(ii) Proportionate justice: Treating everybody equally is not always just. Provided everyone starts from the same baseline of equal rights, it is fair to reward people in proportion to the scale and quality of their effort, and to reward different kinds of work differently, taking into account the effort, skill and danger involved. Example: students should be awarded marks according to the quality of their answer papers, not given equal marks merely because they sat the same exam; risky, skilled professions deserve higher reward.(iii) Recognition of special needs: A just society takes into account the special needs of people while distributing rewards and duties. Factors such as physical disability, age, or lack of access to good education or health care can be grounds for special help. This does not contradict equal treatment but extends it, since people who are unequal in important respects may justly be treated differently. Example: the Constitution provides reservations in government jobs and educational institutions for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
3. Does the principle of considering the special needs of people conflict with the principle of equal treatment for all?
ANSWERNo, the principle of considering special needs does not necessarily conflict with the principle of equal treatment; rather, it extends it. The principle of treating equals equally itself implies that people who are not equal in certain important respects may be treated differently.In terms of basic status and rights, all members of society should be treated equally. But non-discrimination and proportionate reward alone may not be enough to ensure that everyone actually enjoys equality in other aspects of life. People with disabilities, the aged, or those denied basic education and health care may be unequal in particular respects and so deserve special help.If those who enjoy very different standards of living and opportunities are treated identically with those deprived of even the basic minimum, the result is an unequal, not an egalitarian, society. Hence taking account of special needs is a way of promoting genuine social justice. In India, lack of access to education and health care often combines with caste discrimination, which is why the Constitution allows reservations for SCs and STs — a recognition of special need that serves, rather than violates, the goal of equal treatment.
4. How does Rawls use the idea of a veil of ignorance to argue that fair and just distribution can be defended on rational grounds?
ANSWERJohn Rawls argues that the only way to arrive at a fair and just rule is to imagine ourselves designing the rules and organisation of society without knowing which position we ourselves would occupy in it. We would not know what family we would be born into, whether we would be of an ‘upper’ or ‘lower’ caste, rich or poor, privileged or disadvantaged. Rawls calls this thinking under a ‘veil of ignorance’.The strength of this idea is that it does not demand morality, benevolence or self-sacrifice. It expects people to be their usual rational, self-interested selves. But because no one knows who they will be, each person will reason from the standpoint of the worst-off — for they themselves might be born into a disadvantaged section with few opportunities. Acting purely in self-interest, each will therefore choose rules that guarantee reasonable opportunities (education, health, shelter) to the weaker sections.At the same time, since one might also be born into a privileged position, rational people will ensure that the chosen policies benefit society as a whole and do not needlessly weaken the better-off. Thus fairness emerges as the outcome of rational action, not generosity. This is why Rawls’ theory shows that a fair and just distribution — one that helps the least privileged — can be defended on purely rational grounds.
5. What are generally considered to be the basic minimum requirements of people for living a healthy and productive life? What is the responsibility of governments in trying to ensure this minimum to all?
ANSWERBasic minimum requirements: Although methods of calculating basic needs differ between governments and international bodies like the World Health Organisation, it is generally agreed that the basic minimum includes the amount of nourishment needed to remain healthy, housing, a supply of clean drinking water, education, and a minimum wage. These conditions enable people to live healthy and secure lives, develop their talents and pursue their chosen goals.Responsibility of governments: Providing people with their basic needs is considered one of the chief responsibilities of a democratic government. A just society should ensure that even the relatively deprived have a real chance to improve their condition. Justice does not require absolute equality of living standards, but a society is unjust if the gulf between rich and poor is so wide that the poor have no chance to improve their lot.Governments may have to do more than treat individuals fairly in law — they may need to redistribute resources to provide a level playing field. However, supplying these basic conditions to all citizens can place a heavy burden on governments, especially in countries like India with a large number of poor people. There is also an ongoing debate over whether this is best achieved through free markets or through direct state provision and redistribution.
6. Which of the following arguments could be used to justify state action to provide basic minimum conditions of life to all citizens?
(a) Providing free services to the poor and needy can be justified as an act of charity.(b) Providing all citizens with a basic minimum standard of living is one way of ensuring equality of opportunity.(c) Some people are naturally lazy and we should be kind to them.(d) Ensuring basic facilities and a minimum standard of living to all is a recognition of our shared humanity and a human right.
ANSWERThe arguments that can justify state action to provide a basic minimum to all citizens are (b) and (d).(b) is correct because ensuring a basic minimum standard of living gives everyone a fair starting point, securing equality of opportunity so that people can compete on equal terms and pursue their goals.(d) is correct because providing basic facilities is a recognition of our shared humanity and of each person’s human rights and dignity — it is a matter of justice, not favour.(a) is not acceptable: treating help to the poor as “charity” reduces a right to an act of generosity that can be withdrawn, denying the poor their rightful due. (c) is not acceptable: it is based on a false and demeaning assumption that the poor are “naturally lazy”, and bases help on pity rather than on justice or rights.
Extra Practice Questions
Short Answer Type Questions
Q1. Why are questions of justice of central importance for politics?
ANSWERUnlike love, which concerns relationships with a few people we know well, justice concerns our entire life in society — the way public life is ordered and the principles by which social goods and duties are distributed among all members. Because politics is about ordering public life fairly, questions of justice are central to it.
Q2. What did Socrates tell the young people about why we should be just?
ANSWERSocrates argued that if everyone were unjust and manipulated rules for self-interest, no one could be sure of benefiting and nobody would be secure, harming all. Hence it is in our own long-term interest to obey the laws and be just; justice also involves the well-being of all people, not just our own.
Q3. Why is the statue of justice shown blindfolded?
ANSWERThe statue of justice is blindfolded to show that justice must be impartial — it should treat everyone equally without being influenced by their status, wealth or identity. (The chapter also notes the puzzle that being blindfolded, she must still find ways to see the special needs of people.)
Q4. What is meant by ‘just distribution’?
ANSWERJust distribution means the fair sharing of goods, services and resources between groups, individuals and even nations. Where serious economic or social inequalities exist, it may require redistributing important resources — such as land through land reforms — so that citizens enjoy some basic equality of life conditions and opportunities.
Q5. State two arguments put forward in favour of free markets.
ANSWER(i) Free markets are said to be neutral — they do not care about a person’s caste, religion or gender and reward only talent and merit. (ii) Markets give people more choices as consumers, allowing them to choose, for instance, the goods they buy and the schools they attend, provided they can pay for them.
Long Answer Type Questions
Q1. Explain how the three principles of justice may come into tension with one another, and why it becomes the function of governments to harmonise them.
ANSWERThe three principles — equal treatment for equals, proportionate reward for effort and skill, and provision for special needs — can pull in different directions. Pursuing equality of treatment by itself may sometimes work against giving due reward to merit, because it would treat unequal efforts identically. On the other hand, emphasising the rewarding of merit as the main principle may place marginalised sections at a disadvantage, since they have often lacked access to good nourishment, education and health care and so cannot compete on equal terms. Different groups in society favour different policies depending on which principle they emphasise. No single principle can deliver justice on its own. It therefore becomes the function of governments to harmonise the three principles — balancing equal treatment, proportionality and special help — so as to promote a society that is genuinely just for all its members.
Q2. Critically examine the debate between free markets and state intervention as ways of securing social justice.
ANSWERSupporters of free markets argue that if markets are left free of state interference, the sum of free transactions will produce a just distribution: people should be free to own property and compete, those with merit will be rewarded and the market is neutral to caste, religion and gender, caring only for talent. Markets also expand consumer choice. Many free-market supporters today, however, accept that the state should ensure a basic minimum so that people can compete on equal terms, perhaps by empowering people to buy services from private agencies and by helping the old and the sick who cannot compete.Critics reply that what matters for basic goods is the availability of good-quality services at an affordable cost. Private agencies avoid unprofitable areas, so remote rural regions get few and low-quality schools, health care or housing. Private services may be of higher quality but are often too costly for the poor. Free markets thus tend to work in favour of the strong, wealthy and powerful, denying rather than extending opportunities to the weak. This is why many argue the state should step in to ensure basic facilities for all. In a democracy such disagreements are inevitable and even healthy, since they force us to defend our views rationally; politics is the negotiation of these disagreements through debate.
Q3. “Rational thinking, not morality, can lead us to be fair.” Discuss this claim with reference to Rawls’ veil of ignorance.
ANSWERRawls accepts a realistic view of human nature: people usually act in their own interest, and most find it difficult to be self-sacrificing or to share their good fortune with strangers — which is why we associate self-sacrifice with heroism. A workable theory of justice should therefore not require extraordinary moral virtue. The merit of the veil of ignorance is that it asks people only to be their usual rational, self-interested selves. Because they design society’s rules without knowing whether they will be born privileged or disadvantaged, rational self-interest leads each person to protect the position of the worst-off (in case that is where they end up) while also ensuring the policies benefit society as a whole (in case they are born privileged). Both must go hand in hand. Thus fairness emerges as the outcome of rational action, not of benevolence or generosity. Rawls’ argument is compelling precisely because it shows that even self-interested, rational individuals, reasoning impartially, would arrive at just and fair rules of distribution.
MCQs & Assertion–Reason
1. The classical idea that justice means “giving each person his due” is associated with which philosopher’s book The Republic?
(a) Aristotle (b) Plato (c) Confucius (d) Kant
2. According to Immanuel Kant, what do all human beings possess that justice must respect?
(a) Wealth (b) Power (c) Dignity (d) Property
3. Paying a female teacher less than a male teacher for the same work violates which principle?
(a) Proportionate justice (b) Equal treatment for equals (c) Recognition of special needs (d) Veil of ignorance
4. Rewarding students according to the quality of their answer papers is an example of:
For each Assertion–Reason question, choose: (A) Both true and the Reason correctly explains the Assertion; (B) Both true but the Reason is not the correct explanation; (C) Assertion true, Reason false; (D) Assertion false, Reason true.
A-R 1. Assertion: Justice concerns our life in society, not merely our relationships with a few people.
Reason: Justice deals with the way public life is ordered and how social goods and duties are distributed among members of society.
A-R 2. Assertion: The recognition of special needs always contradicts the principle of equal treatment.
Reason: Treating equals equally implies that people who are unequal in important respects may be treated differently.
A-R 3. Assertion: Rawls’ theory requires people to be self-sacrificing and benevolent.
Reason: Behind the veil of ignorance, people are expected only to be their usual rational, self-interested selves.
A-R 4. Assertion: Providing a basic minimum to all citizens is a responsibility of a democratic government.
Reason: Basic conditions like nourishment, housing, clean water, education and a minimum wage enable people to live healthy and productive lives.
A-R 5. Assertion: Free markets, left entirely to themselves, always ensure social justice for the poor.
Reason: Private agencies tend to avoid unprofitable areas, so basic services in remote regions may be few and of low quality.
Answer key: 1-(A), 2-(D), 3-(D), 4-(A), 5-(D).
Exam Tips & Common Mistakes
How to score full marks in this chapter
Memorise the three principles of justice (equal treatment for equals, proportionate justice, recognition of special needs) and give a clear example for each — this is the most frequently asked question. For Rawls, stress two points together: rational self-interest leads people to (1) protect the worst-off and (2) benefit society as a whole, with fairness as the result of rational action, not morality. Link “giving each his due” to Plato and to Kant’s idea of dignity. For the free-market debate, write a balanced two-sided answer and conclude that markets tend to favour the privileged, so the state must ensure a basic minimum.
Common mistakes to avoid
Saying that special needs contradict equal treatment — they extend it.
Confusing equal treatment for equals (same reward for same work) with proportionate justice (different reward for different effort/skill).
Claiming Rawls relies on morality or generosity — he relies on rational self-interest.
Forgetting that behind the veil of ignorance people protect both the worst-off and society as a whole.
Treating the basic minimum as “charity” — it is a matter of rights and shared humanity.
Describing free markets as fully just — note that they tend to favour the strong and wealthy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Chapter 4 of Class 11 Political Science (Political Theory) about?
Chapter 4, Social Justice, explains what justice means, the idea of giving each person his due, the three principles of justice (equal treatment for equals, proportionate justice and recognition of special needs), just distribution, John Rawls’ veil of ignorance, and the debate between free markets and state intervention.
What are the three principles of justice in Class 11 Political Science Chapter 4?
The three principles are: (1) equal treatment for equals — equal rights and no discrimination by class, caste, race or gender; (2) proportionate justice — rewarding people in proportion to their effort, skill and the work’s difficulty; and (3) recognition of special needs — giving special help to the disabled, the aged and the deprived.
What is John Rawls’ veil of ignorance?
It is a thought-experiment in which we design society’s rules without knowing what position — rich or poor, ‘upper’ or ‘lower’ caste — we will occupy in it. Reasoning rationally and in self-interest, each person then chooses rules that are fair to the worst-off while also benefiting society as a whole, so fairness becomes the outcome of rational action.
