KSLU Solved Question Papers
Political Science (State and Political Obligations)
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 3
2026 Jan (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 3 Political Science (State and Political Obligations) 2026 Jan (100 marks) 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 2026 Jan (100 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2026 Jan (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2026 Jan (100 marks) 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 100 · 13 questions answered
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.
Q1Define political obligations and explain its nature and characteristics.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: a definition of political obligation and the problem it names; its nature (moral, owed to the state, content independent, prima facie, reciprocal), with Raphael's distinction between obligation and authority; its characteristics, one by one; a table separating it from legal duty, moral duty and mere obedience; the challenges to it (Wolff, Marx); two Indian cases (Gokaraju Rangaraju, Navtej Singh Johar); and a conclusion.
Definition
Political obligation is the moral duty of a person to obey the laws and lawful commands of his state. He owes it because that state has made them. The word "obligation" comes from the Latin obligare, to bind. Political obligation is the bond between the citizen and the state.
The subject asks five questions. Does such a duty exist? On what ground does it rest? To whom is it owed? How far does it reach? And what may a person do when it conflicts with his conscience? The answers make up the problem of political obligation, which is one of the oldest questions of political philosophy. Socrates faced it in his prison cell, and every theory of the state since has had to answer it.
The nature of political obligation
1. It is moral, not merely legal. The law itself creates a legal duty. But the question "why should I obey the law?" cannot be answered by "because the law says so", which is circular. Nor can it be answered by "because I will be punished". A robber with a gun can also punish. Political obligation asks for a moral reason to obey, beyond fear.
2. It rests on will, not force. T. H. Green put this in his famous phrase: "will, not force, is the basis of the state". People obey because they accept the state's right to rule, not mainly because they are compelled.
3. It is content independent. The duty attaches to a law because of its source, not because of its content. Driving on the left is the test case. Nothing makes the left side morally better. If a duty exists, it comes only from India's choice of the left.
4. It is prima facie, not absolute. The duty holds unless a stronger duty outweighs it. Almost every thinker accepts this. That is why civil disobedience is a coherent idea and not a contradiction.
5. It is reciprocal. The citizen owes obedience, and the state owes protection, justice and welfare. Laski said that "power is always a trust" and that the citizen's obligation depends on how far the state achieves its purpose.
6. Obligation is different from authority. D. D. Raphael, in Problems of Political Philosophy (1970), separated two questions. The problem of obligation asks why the citizen should obey. The problem of authority asks what entitles the state to command. The two can come apart. A state may be entitled to govern while a citizen owes it no duty, as the philosophical anarchist holds. "The government had no business making this rule" is an argument about authority. "I need not obey it" is an argument about obligation, and it does not follow automatically.
Characteristics of political obligation
- It is owed to a particular state. An Indian citizen owes it to India, not to Sri Lanka, however well Sri Lanka may be governed. This is called particularity.
- It is general. It covers the whole body of law, not only the parts a person approves of.
- It binds all members, in different degrees. Citizens owe full allegiance; aliens owe a local and temporary allegiance while they are in the country.
- It covers positive and negative duties. It requires some acts, such as paying taxes and defending the country, and forbids others, such as theft and violence.
- It is mostly voluntary in practice. Most people obey out of habit, conviction and convenience, so force is needed only at the margins.
- It depends on legitimacy. People feel bound to a government they regard as rightful. A regime seen as a mere usurper commands obedience only by fear.
- It varies with the form of state. Under monarchy it was framed as loyalty to the king. In a democracy it rests on consent and participation. In a welfare state it is matched by the state's duty to provide.
- It is limited. It does not require obedience to plain injustice. Locke allowed resistance after "a long train of abuses", and Green allowed it where a law destroys the common good.
- It is stated in the Constitution. Article 51A lists the fundamental duties of every citizen of India, beginning "to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions".
The grounds on which it is said to rest
Its nature also shows in the reasons given for it. Each ground explains some features and fails on others.
- Consent. A person is bound because he agreed, expressly or tacitly. This explains particularity well, but almost nobody has actually consented.
- Gratitude. The state gives security, roads, courts and schools, and gratitude calls for a return. But a benefit not asked for does not usually create a debt.
- Fair play. Hart and Rawls argued that one who enjoys the benefits of a system of rules must not refuse its burdens. This explains generality, but Nozick replied that benefits thrust on a person do not bind him.
- The common good. Green held that we obey because the state secures the conditions of a good life. This explains why the duty is moral and why it has limits.
- Utility. Bentham held that subjects should obey "so long as the probable mischiefs of obedience are less than the probable mischiefs of resistance". This makes the duty depend on a calculation of consequences.
The modern view is that the obligation rests on several of these grounds together, and on no single one.
Distinctions that carry marks
| Legal duty | Moral duty | Political obligation | Mere obedience | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | A statute | Morality | The state's title to command | Fear, habit, interest |
| How settled | By reading the law | By argument | By argument about the state's title | Not a question of right at all |
| Depends on content? | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Enforced by | Courts | Conscience | Not directly; it explains why enforcement is rightful | Sanction |
The challenges
The anarchist challenge. Robert Paul Wolff argued that a person's first duty is autonomy, to decide for himself what he ought to do. Authority requires him to act because he is told. So, Wolff said, there is no political obligation at all. The usual reply is that the argument proves too much. It would also abolish the duty to keep a promise or to accept a court's decision in one's own case.
The Marxist challenge. Marx and Engels wrote that "Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another". On this view the duty to obey is part of the machinery of class rule. There is no general obligation to the state at all.
Two Indian cases
Why the duty must be general. Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 132. Two District Judges had convicted the appellants, but their appointments were later declared void under article 233. The appellants argued that their convictions fell with the appointments. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the judges "were not usurpers or intruders" and had acted "under colour of lawful authority", so their acts stood. The case shows why obedience must cover the whole working of the law. A citizen cannot audit every officer's title before he complies with an order.
Why the duty is only prima facie. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1. Section 377 of the Penal Code had punished consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex since 1860. The Supreme Court struck it down to that extent as manifestly arbitrary and against articles 14, 15 and 21. It held that constitutional morality, not popular morality, governs. The case shows that a law can be validly enacted, long-standing and still unjust. In a constitutional democracy, the remedy for such a law is first sought in the courts.
Conclusion. Political obligation is the moral duty to obey the state's law because the state made it, resting on will and not on force. It is moral, content independent, owed to a particular state, general, reciprocal and limited. It is distinct from legal duty, from private morality and from mere obedience, and from the separate question of the state's authority. Wolff and Marx deny it altogether. But the mature view, and the Indian constitutional view, is that it is a strong duty capable of being outweighed. Gokaraju Rangaraju shows why it must be general. Navtej Singh Johar shows that it is never a duty to accept injustice without remedy.
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, and so does the syllabus.
What should we fix or add?
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.