Introduction to Law - May 02, 2026

The instructor opens the session by soliciting questions from the previous class, which focused on the right to equality and non-discrimination. A student raises a question about wrongful taxation and progressive taxes, inquiring if these violate the right to equality. The instructor clarifies that equality does not mean uniform treatment; rather, it applies to people situated equally, while those unequally situated can be treated differently.

To illustrate the concept of equality, the instructor uses the example of cricketer Virat Kohli and discusses whether his higher tax rate, or an additional 'entertainment tax,' violates his right to equality. Students offer varied opinions, with some arguing against additional taxes, emphasizing Kohli's talent and hard work, while the instructor encourages a more philosophical perspective.

The instructor introduces the concepts of 'moral luck' and 'moral desert' from philosophers like John Rawls and Michael Sandel. The argument is made that talent, and the value placed on it by society, is often arbitrary and influenced by factors like birth country. Therefore, what one 'owns' from their talent is not solely due to individual effort but also social circumstances, justifying redistributive taxation to minimize the impact of moral luck.

Connecting 'moral luck' to real-world policy, the instructor explains that reservation for Schedule Castes and Tribes in India is an example of equality law aiming to minimize 'moral bad luck.' These policies address historical disadvantages and generational deprivation, recognizing that individuals did not choose their caste and the subsequent stigmatization or lack of access.

The discussion on taxation and talent is framed within two rival theories of justice: libertarianism (Robert Nozick), which asserts one owns everything earned by talent and labor, and substantive equality theories (Rawls, Sandel), which argue that many advantages are due to 'accident of birth' or social capital. The latter supports redistribution to mitigate these unearned inequalities.

A student asks why India continues to follow colonial-era laws, which were made with an 'oppressing mindset.' The instructor briefly responds by referencing Article 332, which allows pre-constitutional laws to continue if they do not violate fundamental rights, implying that their historical origin alone isn't a disqualifier if they align with modern constitutional principles.

The instructor announces the premature end of the class due to persistent internet connectivity problems, apologizing for the inconvenience and promising a longer make-up session in the future.