(a) Analyse John rawls's concept of social justice in the Indian Context. (150 word) (b) Discuss the Public Services Code as recommended by the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission.

(a) Rawls’s social justice in the Indian context

• John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice, asks what principles people would choose in an “original position” behind a “veil of ignorance”, not knowing their caste, class, gender or talent.
• First principle: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with the same liberties for others.
• Second principle: social and economic inequalities are allowed only if offices are open under fair equality of opportunity, and if they most benefit the least advantaged (the difference principle).
• In India the Preamble’s justice — social, economic and political — and Articles 14 to 18 already speak Rawls’s first language: equal liberty and the attack on status hierarchy.
• Directive Principles push the difference principle: living wage, nutrition, education, and the weaker sections in Article 46.
• Reservations in education, jobs and legislatures are an Indian tool for fair equality of opportunity where caste and historical exclusion blocked the starting line. Rawls allows inequalities that help the least advantaged; he would still test a creamy-layer capture.
• Land reform, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the National Food Security Act, 2013, and school entitlements under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are difference-principle cousins: they shift primary goods toward the worst-off.
• Limits in the Indian context: Rawls assumed a relatively closed, well-ordered society. India has deep group identities, religious personal laws, and informal labour that his two principles do not automatically sort.
• Group justice versus individual veil: Ambedkar’s emphasis on annihilating caste is close to Rawls on status; some Indian debates on group rights go beyond Rawls’s individualist frame.
• Judicial review, basic structure, and Article 21 jurisprudence expand basic liberties in a Rawlsian spirit, while still fighting over property, environment and affirmative action.
• A Rawlsian civil servant therefore asks: does this file enlarge equal liberty, keep offices fairly open, and improve the life of the person who would do worst if the policy fails?

(b) Public Services Code, Second Administrative Reforms Commission

• The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, in Ethics in Governance and in the report on Refurbishing of Personnel Administration, wanted values written as a Public Services Code, not only as scattered Conduct Rules.
• It distinguished a short code of ethics (values) from a detailed code of conduct (enforceable do’s and don’ts).
• Recommended values included allegiance to the Constitution and the law; function in a politically neutral manner; objectivity and impartiality; integrity; accountability for decisions; transparency; and courtesy and responsiveness to the public.
• It sought statutory backing, including through a Civil Services law, so that values were not only academy posters.
• It linked the code to integrity systems: a Lokpal, whistle-blower protection, restriction of arbitrary transfer, and ethics training.
• The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 already punish some breaches; the Commission found them necessary but insufficient as a living ethic.
• A Public Services Code would tell an officer what kind of trustee to be; Conduct Rules tell what will start a charge sheet.
• In Rawlsian terms the Code is fair equality of opportunity inside the State: the citizen meets a referee, not a faction.
• Implementation remains partial: Conduct Rules and mission karmayogi-type training exist; a single statutory Public Services Code of the ARC’s full ambition is still more aspiration than daily booklet.
• For practice, the ARC list is still the right desk test: Constitution first, no party work, reasons on file, no private gain, answer to the public, and a civil tongue at the counter.