KSLU Solved Question Papers
Political Science (State and Political Obligations)
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 3
2022 Oct Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 3 Political Science (State and Political Obligations) 2022 Oct Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2022 Oct examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2022 Oct examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2022 Oct examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Units. (2) One essay type question and short note is compulsory from each Unit. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answer should be written either in English or Kannada completely.
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)What is political obligation ? Explain the types of political obligation.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the meaning of political obligation, with a definition; why the threat of punishment does not explain it; the kinds, explained one by one (legal, moral and political obligation proper; positive and negative; the obligations of citizens and of aliens; the kinds by their ground: consent, benefit and fair play, the common good, utility); the limits of the obligation; and a conclusion.
Meaning of political obligation
Political obligation is the moral duty of a citizen to obey the laws and commands of the state to which he belongs. The word "obligation" comes from the Latin obligare, to bind. So political obligation is the bond that ties a person to the state and its law.
The problem of political obligation is a set of questions. Does such a duty exist at all? On what ground does it rest? To whom is it owed? How far does it go? And what may a person do when it clashes with his conscience?
T. H. Green made the point that gives the subject its life: "will, not force, is the basis of the state". People do not obey only because they are made to. They obey because they believe the state deserves obedience.
Why punishment does not explain it
A student's first answer is that we obey because there is a penalty. That explains obedience, not obligation. A robber with a gun also creates a penalty, yet nobody says we have a duty to hand him our money. If the state's claim rested only on force, it would differ from the robber only in size.
The answer "because it is the law" does not help either. It is circular, because the question is exactly why the law binds us. So political obligation asks for a reason that is moral, not merely a fact about force.
The kinds of political obligation
Writers classify the obligation in four ways. They classify it by its nature, by its content, by the person who owes it, and by its ground.
1. Legal obligation. This is the duty the law itself imposes and the courts enforce. A person must pay income tax, keep to the left on the road and register a sale deed. Whether a legal obligation exists is settled by reading the law. Breach brings a sanction such as a fine or imprisonment.
2. Moral obligation. This is what a person ought to do in conscience, whether or not any law requires it. To vote in an election, to help an accident victim and to speak the truth are examples. No court enforces it. Public opinion and conscience do.
3. Political obligation proper. This sits between the first two. It is the moral duty to comply with legal duties because one's own state made them. Its test is a rule with no moral content of its own, such as driving on the left. Nothing makes the left morally better. If the duty exists, it comes only from the fact that India chose the left. This is why the obligation is called content independent.
4. Positive and negative obligation. A positive obligation is a duty to do something. Paying taxes, serving on a jury and defending the country are positive duties. Article 51A(d) of the Indian Constitution asks every citizen "to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so". A negative obligation is a duty to refrain. Not to commit theft, not to damage public property and not to use violence are negative duties. Article 51A(i) asks citizens "to safeguard public property and to abjure violence".
5. Obligations of citizens and of aliens. A citizen owes full allegiance. He is bound by the whole law, owes loyalty in war and peace, and has the fundamental duties of Part IVA. An alien living in the country owes local or temporary allegiance. He must obey the law while he is there, but he owes no duty to defend the state or take part in its politics.
6. Kinds by the ground of obligation. Each theory gives a different reason for obedience, and so a different kind of obligation:
- Obligation from consent. Locke held that a person is bound because he agreed, expressly or tacitly, to be governed.
- Obligation from benefit and fair play. Hart and Rawls held that a person who enjoys the benefits of a system of law must not take the benefit and refuse the burden.
- Obligation from the common good. Green held that we obey because the state secures the conditions in which every person can develop his best self.
- Obligation from utility. Bentham held that we obey because obedience produces more happiness than disobedience. Subjects should obey, he wrote, "so long as the probable mischiefs of obedience are less than the probable mischiefs of resistance".
- Obligation from divine command. The older theory of the divine right of kings held that the king's power came from God, so disobeying the king was disobeying God.
The limits of the obligation
Almost every writer treats the obligation as prima facie, which means it holds unless a stronger duty outweighs it. It is not absolute. Green allowed resistance where the law destroys the common good it exists to serve. Laski held that our duty to obey depends on how far the state achieves its purpose, and "we are the judges of that achievement". Gandhi turned this into civil disobedience: open, non-violent breach of an unjust law, with the penalty accepted. In India, the Constitution itself limits the state's claim. Fundamental rights bind the state, and the courts strike down a law that violates them.
A case on the limit of obedience
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207. During the Emergency of 1975, the President suspended the right to move the courts for the enforcement of articles 14, 21 and 22. Persons detained without trial filed habeas corpus petitions. The majority held that no detenu could approach a High Court, even if his detention was illegal or mala fide. Khanna J dissented. He said that "even in the absence of article 21 in the Constitution, the State has got no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law". In 2017 the majority view was overruled in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161. The lesson for political obligation is that the citizen owes obedience to law, not to unlimited power. A duty to obey does not include a duty to accept detention without any legal remedy.
Conclusion. Political obligation is the moral duty to obey the state's law because the state made it, and not merely out of fear. By its nature it is legal, moral or political obligation proper. By its content it is positive or negative. By the person bound it is the full allegiance of the citizen or the local allegiance of the alien. By its ground it rests on consent, fair play, the common good, utility or divine command. The modern view is that the duty is real but limited. It is strong enough to support ordinary law, but never strong enough to require obedience to plain injustice.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 3 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.