What a Future Perspectives Question Is Asking For

In one line

A future perspectives question asks what the law should become, and it is answered with propositions supported by the present law, not with predictions about what will happen.

What MU asks, in her own words

Module IV is printed as "Future Perspectives of the Human Rights of the Disadvantaged."

Q6 on the 2025-26 paper is: "Discuss the future perspectives of protecting the human rights of disadvantaged groups in India."

That is the module label with three words added. She has taken her own heading and made it a question, which tells you two things. The question is broad by design, so a narrow answer on one group will not do. And there is no hidden trap: she is asking exactly what the syllabus says.

Q7(a) on stateless persons and Q7(c) on people living with HIV and AIDS are also Module IV, because those are the two groups the constitutional scheme does not name.

The mistake to avoid

Do not predict. An answer that says India will have an ageing population, technology will improve, and awareness will increase is not a law answer. It has no authority in it and nothing in it can be marked right or wrong.

A future perspectives answer in law is an argument about what should change, with the present law as the evidence. Every proposition needs three things: a statement of what the law now is, a statement of what is wrong with it, and a statement of the specific change, naming the section or article to be amended or enacted.

The five things that make a future perspectives answer good

One: it is anchored in what exists. Say what the 2016 disability legislation does before saying what a future statute should do. The examiner marks the accuracy of the present law at least as heavily as the ambition of the proposal.

Two: the change is specific. Not more awareness, but: make section 21 of the 1993 Act mandatory. Not better enforcement, but: give the commissions the ordering power section 26 of the 2017 Act gives the Ombudsman. A named section is worth ten sentences of aspiration.

Three: it uses the paper's own trajectory. This subject has a direction of travel that the statutes themselves show. 1976 abolishes. 1989 punishes. 1990, 1992 and 2005 create commissions. 2007 and 2017 create bodies that decide. 2016 and 2019 confer rights on individuals. The trajectory is from prohibition, through machinery, to entitlement, and a future perspective is the next step along a line already drawn.

Four: it is fair about what has worked. MU asks for perspectives, not for a complaint. An answer that says nothing has been achieved is both wrong and unpersuasive. The Forest Rights Act recognising a pre-existing right, the disability legislation enacting a convention almost provision for provision, and the reservation scheme are real achievements and should be named as such.