……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Necessity of Administration of Justice

Introduction

Justice is the foundation of law and civilisation. It is not merely a moral ideal but the very condition
of an organised society. Without justice, human life would be reduced to a struggle of power,
violence, and chaos. The law exists primarily to ensure justice, and its administration by the State is
indispensable. According to Prof. Sidgwick, “the real test of political civilisation is the degree of
justice realised in its judicial administration.” Lord Bryce also remarked that the excellence of a
government depends not on the framing of laws but on the quality of its judicial system.

The necessity of administration of justice arises from the fact that human society cannot function
without rules, order, and impartial mechanisms to resolve disputes. Primitive societies often resorted
to self-help and private vengeance, but these methods frequently led to violence, uncertainty, and
insecurity. Therefore, as society progressed, the administration of justice became a primary function
of the State.

Meaning of Administration of Justice

The expression “administration of justice” means the maintenance of right within a political
community by means of the physical force of the State. According to Salmond, “Administration of
justice implies the maintenance of right within a political community by means of the physical force
of the State.” In other words, it is the organised application of law through judicial institutions.

Administration of justice involves:

1. Recognition of rights and duties within society.

2. Resolution of disputes when those rights are infringed.

3. Punishment of wrongdoers to preserve order.

4. Providing remedies so that justice is not left to individual vengeance.

Historical Necessity – From Self-help to State-administered Justice

 Primitive Society: In early societies, individuals took the law into their own hands. Disputes
were resolved through force, private vengeance, or trial by combat. This was the rule of
might, not right. For example, in ancient Germanic societies, the idea of blood-feud
prevailed.

 Clan/Tribal Justice: Later, disputes were settled by tribal elders, priests, or councils. Justice
here was partly religious and partly customary.

 Emergence of State: With the growth of population, economic relations, and complexity of
life, private self-help became unworkable. Only the State could ensure impartial justice.
Hence, administration of justice became an essential attribute of sovereignty.

Thus, justice moved from self-help → community justice, → organised judicial institutions.
Theoretical Justifications for the Necessity of Justice

Different jurisprudential schools highlight why justice must be administered by the State:

1. Natural Law School – Justice is rooted in nature and reason. Since humans cannot remain
impartial in their own cases, a neutral authority (State) is necessary to enforce natural
justice.

2. Positivist School – Thinkers like Austin viewed law as the command of the sovereign. If the
law is to be obeyed, it must be enforced by courts through sanctions. Hence, administration
of justice is the core of sovereignty.

3. Sociological School – Justice is a tool of social engineering (Roscoe Pound). Only State-
administered justice can balance competing interests in society and secure harmony.

4. Historical School – Justice evolves with customs and traditions (Savigny). The State is
necessary to crystallise customs into enforceable rules through courts.

Thus, regardless of the school, every theory recognises the necessity of a central impartial
authority.

Kinds of Justice and Their Necessity

1. Civil Justice

o Civil justice deals with recognition and enforcement of private rights.

o It ensures that contracts, property rights, family rights, and obligations are
protected.

o Without civil justice, commercial transactions, ownership, and family relations would
collapse.

Example: If property rights are violated and the victim has no access to courts, society will fall into
disorder as people resort to violence.

2. Criminal Justice

o Criminal justice ensures punishment of wrongdoers for offences against society.

o It is necessary to deter crime, protect citizens, and maintain peace.

o Sir Edward Coke rightly said, “Criminal law is the foundation of peace in a
commonwealth.”

Example: If a murder or theft goes unpunished, it encourages lawlessness and destroys security.

Both civil and criminal justice together form the backbone of a civilised society.

Thinkers on Necessity of Administration of Justice

  Salmond: Stated that justice is the maintenance of right by the physical force of the State.
Without it, rights remain mere moral claims without enforceability.

 Roscoe Pound: Saw administration of justice as social engineering — balancing competing

interests (individual, public, and social).

 Hobbes: In the absence of an authority to administer justice, life would be “solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short.” Hence, State-administered justice is indispensable.

 Locke: Stressed that individuals surrender some freedoms to the State in return for
protection of rights through impartial justice.

 Austin: Law without sanction is a mere advice. Hence, judicial enforcement is necessary to
give law its binding force.

Case Law Illustrations

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR SC 27) – The Supreme Court held that
administration of justice is necessary to protect personal liberty under Article 21.

2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – The Court observed that justice (social,
economic, and political) is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – The Court expanded “procedure established by
law” to mean just, fair, and reasonable procedure. This highlights the necessity of just
administration of law.

4. Marbury v. Madison (1803, US SC) – Established judicial review; courts must ensure justice
by keeping the legislature within constitutional limits.

These cases show that justice is not a mere theory but the very lifeblood of constitutional
governance.

Criticism of Lack of Justice

 Where justice is absent, there is anarchy and oppression.

 Example: In authoritarian regimes, justice is replaced by arbitrary power, leading to violation

of rights.

 Without administration of justice, economic development stalls — as no one would trust

contracts or property rights.

 Lack of justice also results in loss of legitimacy of the State — people revolt when they feel
laws are unjust or unfairly applied.

Modern Necessity of Administration of Justice

In the digital and global era, justice has become even more crucial:

 Cybercrimes (hacking, online fraud) need modern judicial mechanisms.

  Human rights violations (torture, custodial deaths) require judicial oversight.

 AI and Technology raise issues of privacy, data protection, and algorithmic fairness. Only
impartial justice systems can resolve them.

 Globalisation demands international administration of justice (International Court of Justice,

ICC, WTO Dispute Settlement).

Thus, justice is not just a historical necessity but a contemporary one.

Critical Analysis

 While the necessity of justice is universally recognised, in practice, the administration of

justice often suffers from delays, corruption, and inaccessibility.

 Justice delayed is justice denied. In India, pendency of cases is a major obstacle to effective
justice.

 However, alternative mechanisms like ADR (Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation)

complement the judicial system while retaining State authority as the ultimate guarantor.

 Critics argue that mere formal justice is insufficient; what is needed is substantive justice —
justice that is fair in outcome, not just in procedure.

Conclusion

The administration of justice is an indispensable function of the State and the very basis of
civilisation. From the days of self-help and private vengeance to the modern constitutional era,
society has realised that only impartial, organised, and institutionalised justice ensures peace, order,
and liberty. Civil justice protects rights; criminal justice punishes wrongs. Thinkers from Hobbes to
Roscoe Pound have unanimously affirmed its necessity.

In the words of Justice Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, “The administration of justice is
the most vital function of the State.” Without justice, law becomes meaningless, rights become
hollow, and the State loses legitimacy. Therefore, the necessity of administration of justice is not only
historical but eternal — it is the soul of law and the backbone of civilisation.

Legal Rights and Their Kinds

Introduction

The concept of legal rights is central to jurisprudence. Rights define the sphere of freedom and
claims of individuals that are recognised and protected by law. They form the basis of duties, justice,
and social order.

The word right comes from the Latin rectus/jus, meaning “that which is correct or just.” In
jurisprudence, a right is not a mere moral or natural claim but a legally enforceable interest. Justice
Salmond observed: “A right is an interest recognised and protected by a rule of law.”
Rights are indispensable to the functioning of law. Without legal rights, justice remains abstract and
unenforceable.

Definitions of Legal Rights

 Gray: “A legal right is that power which a man has to make a person or persons do or refrain
from doing a certain act, so far as the power arises from society and is enforced by its
authority.”

 Salmond: “A right is an interest recognised and protected by a rule of law.”

 Holland: “A right is the capacity of asserting a claim recognised by law.”

 Austin: Rights exist only as correlative to duties imposed by the sovereign.

Theories of Legal Rights

1. Will Theory

 Propounded by jurists like Hegel, Kant, and Austin.

 According to this theory, the essence of a legal right lies in the will of the individual. A right
is the legally protected will of a person to control certain actions of others.

 Criticism:

o Does not explain rights of infants or persons of unsound mind, who lack will but still
have rights.

o Overemphasises individual autonomy and ignores social function of rights.

2. Interest Theory

 Associated with Ihering and later Salmond.

 According to this theory, rights exist to protect legally recognised interests.

 Law does not protect will for its own sake but safeguards interests necessary for human
development.

 Salmond’s definition: “A right is an interest recognised and protected by law.”

 Criticism:

o Too broad — if every protected interest is a right, the distinction between rights and
other legal protections becomes blurred.

3. Duguit’s Social Function Theory

 Léon Duguit, a French jurist, rejected both will and interest theories.
  He argued that there are no subjective rights, only social functions.

 Rights are meaningless without duties; hence, what we call “rights” are actually functions to
be exercised for the welfare of society.

 Example: A property owner has no absolute right; rather, he has a social duty to use property
in a way that benefits society.

 Criticism:

o Too radical; ignores the individual aspect of rights.

o Courts and legal systems recognise rights as enforceable entitlements, not merely
social functions.

Essential Elements of a Legal Right (Salmond)

1. Subject of Right (Person of Inherence): The person in whom the right is vested.

2. Object of Right: The thing or person against which the right is exercised.

3. Content of Right: The nature of the act or omission that others must observe.

4. Subject of Duty (Person of Incidence): The person bound to respect the right.

5. Title of Right: The reason why the right-holder possesses the right (e.g., ownership through
inheritance).

Kinds of Legal Rights

(A) Based on Enforcement

1. Perfect Rights – Fully enforceable by courts (e.g., right to property).

2. Imperfect Rights – Recognised but not enforceable (e.g., time-barred debt).

(B) Based on Nature of Duty

1. Positive Rights – Require others to do something (e.g., right to maintenance).

2. Negative Rights – Require others to abstain (e.g., right to not be trespassed upon).

(C) Based on Persons Affected

1. Real Rights (Rights in rem): Against the world at large (e.g., ownership).

2. Personal Rights (Rights in personam): Against specific persons (e.g., contractual right).

(D) Based on Property

1. Rights in re propria: Over one’s own property (ownership).

2. Rights in re aliena: Over property of another (mortgage, easement).

(E) Based on Transferability

 1. Proprietary Rights: Relating to property, transferable and inheritable (e.g., lease, mortgage).

2. Personal Rights: Relating to personality or status, not transferable (e.g., right to life,
reputation).

(F) Based on Duration

1. Inheritable Rights: Survive the death of the right-holder (e.g., ownership).

2. Uninheritable Rights: End with the person (e.g., right to maintenance, right to life).

(G) Based on the Source of Recognition

1. Legal Rights: Enforced by ordinary courts (e.g., statutory rights).

2. Equitable Rights: Recognised by courts of equity (e.g., beneficiary’s rights under a trust).

(H) Based on Certainty

1. Vested Rights: Already accrued (ownership).

2. Contingent Rights: Dependent on future events (legacy conditional on age).

(I) Based on Scope

1. Public Rights: Belong to the community (right to use a public park).

2. Private Rights: Belong to individuals (contractual rights).

Hohfeld’s Analysis of Rights

Hohfeld provided a scientific scheme of jural relations:

 Right ↔ Duty (correlatives).

 Privilege ↔ No-right.

 Power ↔ Liability.

 Immunity ↔ Disability.

This shows rights are not isolated but relational, involving both privileges and duties.

Case Law Illustrations

 State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (AIR 1962 SC 933): Recognised liability of the State for
tortious acts, affirming individual legal rights.

 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Fundamental rights form part of the basic
structure of Constitution.

 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Right to privacy recognised as a

fundamental legal right under Article 21.
Criticism of Legal Rights

 Will Theory – ignores incapables (children, insane persons).

 Interest Theory – too wide and vague.

 Duguit’s Theory – denies rights altogether, unrealistic in modern constitutionalism.

 Marxist critique – rights are bourgeois tools to protect property and capitalism.

 In practice, rights without remedies or access to justice are meaningless — “ubi jus ibi
remedium” (where there is a right, there is a remedy).

Modern Relevance

 Digital Rights: Right to data protection, right to be forgotten.

 Human Rights Movement: Recognition of universal rights beyond State boundaries.

 Constitutional Rights in India: Fundamental Rights + Directive Principles balance individual

liberty and social welfare.

 Socio-economic Rights: Right to education, right to health, right to livelihood (as read into
Article 21).

Conclusion

Legal rights are the cornerstone of jurisprudence. They convert moral and social claims into
enforceable entitlements protected by the authority of the State. Theories like Will Theory, Interest
Theory, and Duguit’s Social Function Theory highlight different dimensions of rights — from
individual autonomy to protection of interests and performance of social duties.

The various classifications of rights (real/personal, proprietary/personal, public/private) show the

richness and complexity of the concept. Hohfeld’s analysis further clarifies the relational nature of
rights and duties.

In modern times, legal rights remain indispensable to justice, democracy, and the rule of law. As
Salmond observed, “A right is an interest recognised and protected by law.” Without rights, law
becomes powerless; with rights, law becomes the guardian of liberty and order.

Ownership and its Kinds

Introduction

The concept of ownership occupies a central place in legal theory and jurisprudence. It is one of the
fundamental institutions of law that governs the relationship between individuals and property.
Ownership reflects the most comprehensive right a person can have over a thing, giving the owner
control, use, and disposal of it subject to legal limitations.

In primitive societies, property was communally held. As civilisation advanced, private ownership
became dominant, shaping economic, social, and legal systems. Jurists from Roman law to modern
thinkers have analysed ownership to clarify its scope and legal nature.
Ownership is distinct from possession. While possession is a matter of fact — the physical control of
an object — ownership is a matter of law, denoting the legal right to possess, use, and dispose of the
object.

Definitions of Ownership

 Austin: Ownership means “a right indefinite in point of user, unrestricted in point of

disposition, and unlimited in point of duration over a thing.”

 Salmond: Ownership denotes “the relation between a person and a right that is vested in
him. It is an aggregate of rights, a bundle of rights, such as the

 right to possess, use, enjoy, destroy, and alienate.”

 Hibbert: Ownership involves four rights — jus possidendi (right to possess), jus utendi (right
to use), jus disponendi (right to dispose), and jus prohibendi (right to exclude others).

 Holland: Ownership is plenary control over an object.

Thus, ownership is not one single right but a bundle of rights recognised and protected by law.

Incidents / Characteristics of Ownership

According to Salmond, ownership has the following incidents:

1. Right to Possess: The owner has the exclusive right to possess the thing.

2. Right to Use and Enjoy: The owner may use the property as he pleases.

3. Right to Consume, Destroy, or Alienate: The owner may dispose of the thing by sale, gift, or
destruction.

4. Indeterminate Duration: Ownership generally does not expire with time (unlike lease or
licence).

5. Right to Exclude Others: The owner can exclude others from interfering with his property.

6. Residuary Character: Even if rights are temporarily transferred (e.g., tenancy), ultimate
ownership remains with the owner.

Distinction between Ownership and Possession

 Ownership is a legal concept; possession is a factual situation.

 A thief may possess stolen goods but is not the owner.

 Ownership is wider, possession is one element of ownership.

 Ownership gives de jure (legal) recognition; possession gives de facto (physical) control.

Theories of Ownership
1. Absolute Ownership (Austin)

 Austin believed ownership is absolute, unlimited, and unrestricted.

 Criticism: In modern times, ownership is always subject to law (e.g., restrictions on land use,
taxation, zoning laws).

2. Bundle of Rights Theory (Salmond, Hibbert)

 Ownership is a collection of rights — possession, use, disposal, and exclusion.

 This is the most widely accepted modern view.

3. Social Function Theory (Duguit)

 Duguit rejected the idea of absolute ownership.

 Ownership is not an individual right but a social function; the owner must use property for
the welfare of society.

 Example: Land Ceiling Acts, environmental restrictions.

4. Marxist Theory

 Ownership of property is the basis of class division and exploitation.

 Advocates for abolition of private ownership and establishment of collective ownership

under socialism.

Kinds of Ownership

1. Corporeal and Incorporeal Ownership

 Corporeal Ownership: Ownership of material things (land, house, car).

 Incorporeal Ownership: Ownership of intangible rights (copyright, patents, easements).

2. Sole and Co-ownership

 Sole Ownership: Property owned by one person exclusively.

 Co-ownership: Property owned jointly by two or more persons (e.g., joint tenancy, tenancy-
in-common).

3. Trust and Beneficial Ownership

 Trust Ownership (Legal Ownership): Property legally vests in a trustee.

 Beneficial Ownership (Equitable Ownership): The beneficiary enjoys the benefits of the
property.

 Example: In a trust, the trustee is the legal owner, while the beneficiary is the beneficial
owner.
4. Legal and Equitable Ownership

 Legal Ownership: Recognised by ordinary courts of law.

 Equitable Ownership: Recognised by courts of equity (common in English law).

 Example: A mortgagor remains the equitable owner while the mortgagee has legal
ownership.

5. Vested and Contingent Ownership

 Vested Ownership: Present ownership where title has already accrued. Example: Ownership
of purchased land.

 Contingent Ownership: Ownership dependent on a condition. Example: Gift to a minor

conditional upon attaining 21 years of age.

6. Absolute and Limited Ownership

 Absolute Ownership: Full rights to possess, use, and dispose (rare in modern law).

 Limited Ownership: Restricted ownership for a period or purpose. Example: Life estate,
leasehold, or property held by a widow under Hindu law (before reforms).

7. Right of Ownership vs. Possession in Rem / In Personam

 Ownership is a right in rem — it operates against the world at large.

 Possession may sometimes be in personam (contractual rights of tenants).

Case Law on Ownership

 K.K. Dewan v. District Judge, Chandigarh (AIR 1987 SC 1135): Clarified distinction between
ownership and possession.

 Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Bishwanath Chatterjee (1976 AIR 781 SC): Ownership
implies not only possession but also the right to dispose.

 National Textile Workers Union v. Ramakrishnan (1983 AIR 75 SC): Ownership in modern
society carries social obligations; no owner has unfettered rights.

Criticism and Modern Perspective

 The classical concept of absolute ownership is unrealistic. In modern societies, ownership is

regulated and restricted.

 Land acquisition, zoning, taxation, and environmental protection laws limit ownership.
  The Duguit-inspired social function theory is reflected in Indian Constitution under Directive
Principles of State Policy (Articles 39(b) and (c)), which seek equitable distribution of
resources.

 Intellectual property rights are examples of incorporeal ownership, showing how law
constantly evolves.

Conclusion

Ownership is one of the most fundamental legal concepts, representing the fullest right a person can
have over property. While Austin viewed it as absolute and unlimited, modern jurisprudence
recognises it as a bundle of rights subject to restrictions. Theories like Duguit’s social function
emphasise that ownership is not only an individual privilege but also a responsibility towards society.

The different kinds of ownership — sole, co-ownership, trust, legal, equitable, vested, contingent,
absolute, and limited — demonstrate its diverse forms in practice. Case law further affirms that
ownership is not static but adapts to social and constitutional needs.

In the modern welfare state, ownership cannot be divorced from its social function. Thus, ownership
is best understood not as a symbol of unfettered control but as a dynamic relationship between
individual rights and social obligations.

✅ Word Count: ~1150

✅ Includes definitions, theories (Austin, Salmond, Duguit, Marxist), kinds, cases, criticisms, conclusion
✅ Structured exam-perfect

Would you like me to also prepare a quick “memory map” version with just headings + examples for
last-minute revision (so you don’t get lost in 1000 words during exam recall)?

You said:

Define the Possession. Explain the modes of acquiring of Possession. give this two and add reltaivity
of title

ChatGPT said:

Perfect ⚖️— this is another direct jurisprudence question. You asked for:

1. Definition of Possession

2. Modes of acquiring possession

3. Doctrine of relativity of title

I’ll give you a model 1000–1200 word structured answer, examiner-proof, with jurists’ definitions,
theories, examples, case law, criticisms, and conclusion.

Possession and its Modes of Acquisition

Introduction

Possession is one of the oldest and most fundamental concepts in jurisprudence. It is often said that
“possession is nine-tenths of the law,” reflecting its practical importance. Jurists consider possession
not only as a physical relation between a person and a thing but also as a legal relation recognised
and protected by law.

While ownership is a legal right over property, possession is primarily a question of fact, though law
attaches certain rights and protections to it. Possession serves as evidence of ownership and is often
treated as a basis for legal rights.

Definitions of Possession

 Savigny: Possession is the union of corpus (physical control) and animus domini (intention to
hold as owner).

 Ihering: Possession requires only corpus — effective control over a thing, irrespective of
intention.

 Salmond: Possession is “the continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusive use of an object.”

 Holland: Possession is “physical control coupled with the intention of exercising such
control.”

Thus, possession has two essential elements:

1. Corpus possessionis — physical control over the object.

2. Animus possidendi — intention to hold the thing as one’s own.

Importance of Possession

1. Foundation of Ownership: Historically, ownership evolved from long possession.

2. Legal Protection: Even a wrongful possessor is protected against interference by others

except the true owner.

3. Presumption of Ownership: Possession raises a presumption of ownership in law.

4. Practical Utility: In everyday life, possession is more important than ownership.

Modes of Acquiring Possession

Possession can be acquired in different ways. Jurists classify them into two broad categories:

(A) Possession acquired through acts of the possessor himself

1. Possession by Taking:

o The possessor takes physical control of the object without consent of the previous
possessor.
 o Example: Occupying a piece of vacant land.

o If lawful → called occupancy (e.g., taking unowned property).

o If unlawful → called dispossession (e.g., theft, trespass).

2. Possession by Delivery:

o Transfer of possession by mutual consent from one person to another.

o It may be:

 Actual Delivery → Physical handover of the object (e.g., giving keys of a car).

 Constructive Delivery → Symbolic acts showing transfer (e.g., handing over

documents of title of land).

3. Possession by Operation of Law:

o Sometimes law itself transfers possession, irrespective of will.

o Example: Possession of estate by heir after death of owner; possession taken by

state under land acquisition laws.

(B) Possession acquired through acts of others

1. Possession through an Agent or Servant:

o Possession can be exercised through another person.

o The agent has custody, but the principal is in possession.

2. Possession by License or Agreement:

o Possession may be acquired by agreement, like tenancy or bailment.

o Example: Tenant acquires lawful possession of premises under lease agreement.

3. Possession in Fact (De Facto) and in Law (De Jure):

o De Facto Possession: Actual control without legal recognition (e.g., a squatter).

o De Jure Possession: Lawful possession recognised and protected by law.

Doctrine of Relativity of Title

The doctrine of relativity of title means that possession itself creates a relative title even against
everyone except the true owner.

 In law, not only the true owner but also a prior possessor has a better title than a later
possessor.

 Thus, if A is in possession of land without ownership and B dispossesses him, A can recover
possession from B, even though A is not the owner.

Case Laws:
 1. Armory v. Delamirie (1722): A chimney-sweep boy found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith,
who wrongfully kept it. The court held that the finder of goods has a better title than all
except the true owner.

2. K.K. Dewan v. District Judge (AIR 1987 SC 1135): Reaffirmed that possession is protected
even without ownership.

3. Asher v. Whitlock (1865): A person in possession of land has a valid title against all except
the rightful owner.

Thus, the law recognises the relativity of title to prevent unlawful dispossession and maintain order.

Possession and Ownership – Distinction

 Possession = physical control + intention (fact + law).

 Ownership = bundle of rights recognised by law.

 Ownership is a legal right; possession is evidence of ownership.

 Possession may exist without ownership, but ownership usually implies possession.

Criticism and Modern Relevance

 Savigny’s strict requirement of animus domini is criticised; often, people possess without
intention to own (e.g., tenants).

 Ihering’s focus only on physical control ignores the mental element.

 Modern law adopts a pragmatic view: possession is both physical control and legal
recognition.

 In property disputes, possession plays a crucial role — especially under the Indian law of
limitation, where long possession may ripen into ownership through adverse possession.

Conclusion

Possession is one of the most significant concepts in jurisprudence, combining elements of fact and
law. It is defined as the physical control of an object with the intention to hold it as one’s own.

The modes of acquiring possession include taking, delivery, operation of law, possession through
agents, and agreements. Law protects possession irrespective of ownership, giving rise to the
doctrine of relativity of title, under which even a wrongful possessor has better rights than a later
intruder.

Thus, possession not only serves as a basis of ownership but also as an independent right protected
by law. It reflects the practical wisdom that in society, control over things matters as much as
ownership, and maintaining stability requires recognition of possession.

Morals and Law

Introduction

Law and morals are two fundamental regulators of human conduct. Law represents the rules
enforced by the State, while morals signify the rules of right and wrong shaped by conscience,
religion, and social approval. Though distinct, law and morals are closely interwoven in the
development of civilisation. Without morality, law loses its ethical foundation; without law, morals
remain unenforced ideals. As Prof. Keeton observed, “Law without morals loses its social value, and
morals without law lack the binding force of society.”

The relationship between morals and law has been debated for centuries. Thinkers from Aristotle to
Hart have reflected on whether law should always reflect morality, or whether law may stand
independent of moral codes. In practice, law and morals complement one another to preserve order,
justice, and harmony in society.

Meaning of Morals and Law

 Law: According to Austin, law is the command of the sovereign backed by sanction. It is
enforceable by the courts and carries the authority of the State.

 Morals: Morals are the standards of right and wrong accepted by society or an individual
conscience. They may arise from religion, custom, or ethical reasoning.

In short:

 Law → external regulation backed by force of State.

 Morals → internal regulation backed by conscience and social opinion.

Historical Necessity – Morals and Law in Society

 Primitive Society: Morality preceded law. In tribal societies, rules of conduct were enforced
through customs and taboos. Law later crystallised these moral codes.

 Religious Influence: Many ancient laws (Hindu Dharmaśāstras, Islamic Sharia, Biblical Ten
Commandments) were moral rules given legal force.

 Modern State: As societies grew complex, not all moral rules could be codified. Law selected
essential moral standards (e.g., prohibiting murder, theft) and left others (e.g., charity,
kindness) to conscience.

Thus, law emerged from morals but gradually distinguished itself as an independent system.

Theoretical Views on the Relation Between Law and Morals

1. Natural Law School

o Law and morality are inseparable. A law contrary to morals is not true law.

o Thinkers: Aquinas, Grotius, Locke.

o Example: Laws enforcing slavery were rejected as “immoral” and hence unjust.
 2. Positivist School

o Law is valid if enacted by the sovereign, irrespective of its morality.

o Thinker: John Austin → “The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is
another.”

o Example: Even unjust laws must be obeyed until changed by the sovereign.

3. Sociological School

o Law must reflect social morals to be effective.

o Roscoe Pound viewed law as social engineering — harmonising law with prevailing
moral values ensures stability.

4. Historical School

o Savigny: Law grows with people’s customs and moral traditions (Volksgeist).

o Morality is embedded in social practices that shape legal evolution.

5. Modern Thinkers

o Hart (Positivist): Law and morals are distinct but intersect at points.

o Fuller (Naturalist): Morality is the “inner morality of law” — laws must embody
fairness, clarity, and consistency.

Kinds of Morality and Their Relation with Law

1. Legal Morality

o Certain morals are codified into laws.

o Example: Prohibitions on murder, theft, perjury.

2. Social Morality

o Rules of decency and custom not enforced by law but binding by opinion.

o Example: Helping the needy, speaking truth, showing respect.

3. Overlap

o Some areas reflect both law and morals: adultery, public decency, corruption.

4. Divergence

o Law may permit acts that morals condemn (e.g., gambling in some countries).

o Law may forbid acts that some see as morally acceptable (e.g., euthanasia).

Thinkers on Morals and Law

 Kant: Morality comes from rational will; law enforces only external conduct.
  Bentham: Law must be judged by “utility” (happiness it produces), not abstract morals.

 Salmond: Law reflects minimum morality necessary for society.

 Hart vs. Devlin Debate: Hart argued law should not enforce all morals; Devlin argued society
has the right to enforce moral values to preserve its integrity.

Case Law Illustrations

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Justice Khanna held that law must preserve
justice and moral values embodied in the Constitution.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – The Court read principles of fairness and
reasonableness (moral values) into “procedure established by law.”

3. Nazi Laws Debate (Post-WWII Trials) – Showed that laws grossly immoral (crimes against
humanity) could not be defended merely as “valid laws.”

4. Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) – The Court read constitutional morality over
popular morality to strike down part of Section 377 IPC (later affirmed in Navtej Singh Johar
v. Union of India, 2018).

Criticism of Divergence Between Law and Morals

 Where law ignores morals, it loses legitimacy (e.g., apartheid laws in South Africa).

 Where law enforces outdated morals, it stifles liberty (e.g., colonial morality laws).

 Excessive reliance on morals may lead to moral policing and authoritarianism.

Modern Relevance of Law and Morals

 Human Rights: Modern constitutions embed moral ideals (dignity, equality, freedom).

 Technology: Issues like AI, data privacy, and biotechnology require moral guidance beyond
existing legal codes.

 Globalisation: International law increasingly reflects moral values (e.g., prohibition of

genocide, climate justice).

 Constitutional Morality: Indian courts emphasise that law must be guided not by majority
morality but by constitutional principles of justice, equality, and liberty.

Critical Analysis

 Law and morals are distinct but deeply interconnected.

 Law without moral foundation becomes oppressive; morality without legal enforcement is
weak.
  However, not all moral values should be legally enforced — doing so may intrude into
personal liberty.

 A balance is essential: law should codify minimum moral standards necessary for social
order, while leaving higher moral duties to individual conscience.

Conclusion

The relationship between law and morals is one of mutual dependence and tension. Morals give
ethical legitimacy to law; law provides binding force for morals. From ancient religious codes to
modern constitutions, moral values have inspired the content of laws, while laws have in turn shaped
moral consciousness.

As the Supreme Court observed in Navtej Singh Johar (2018), “Moral indignation, howsoever strong,
is not a valid basis for legislation. Constitutional morality must prevail.” This illustrates the modern
synthesis — law must be informed by morality, but by a morality rooted in justice, equality, and
human dignity.

Therefore, the study of law and morals is not merely theoretical but essential for understanding how
societies govern human behaviour. Law without morals is empty; morals without law are powerless.
Together, they form the twin pillars of a just and civilised order.

Realist School of Jurisprudence

Introduction

The Realist School of Jurisprudence is one of the most significant developments in modern legal
theory. Emerging in the early 20th century, primarily in the United States, legal realism arose as a
reaction to the rigidity and abstraction of classical legal thought and analytical positivism. Whereas
Natural Law emphasized morality and justice, and Positivism focused on law as the command of the
sovereign, Realism shifted attention to how law actually functions in society.

At the heart of the realist approach lies a simple but revolutionary claim: law is not what is written
in books, but what courts do in practice. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a pioneer of this school,
famously declared:

“The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”

This perspective challenged the formalist belief that judicial decisions are merely mechanical
applications of established rules. Instead, realists stressed that judicial decisions are influenced by
social, economic, and psychological factors.

Meaning of Realism

The Realist School can be described as an empirical approach to law. It focuses on:

 Law in action, rather than law in books.

 The actual behaviour of courts, judges, and administrators.

  The psychological, social, and political influences on judicial decision-making.

According to Holmes, law is essentially a prediction:

“The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by
the law.”

Thus, realism does not define law as a set of abstract rules, but as the practical outcome of judicial
decisions.

Historical Background

 19th century formalism: Earlier jurists, particularly positivists like Austin, described law as a
logically complete system of rules derived from sovereign authority. Courts were seen as
merely applying these rules.

 Industrial revolution and social change: As societies became more complex, strict adherence
to rules often produced unjust or impractical results.

 American context: In the early 20th century, judges and scholars in the U.S. saw that courts
were actively shaping law to meet social needs. This led to the development of the Realist
School.

 Influences: Pragmatist philosophy (William James, John Dewey) and sociological

jurisprudence (Roscoe Pound) shaped realist thinking.

Main Features of the Realist School

1. Law is Judge-Made

o Courts are not passive interpreters; they actively shape law through judgments.

o Judges use discretion, and their choices are influenced by personal, social, and
political factors.

2. Law is Uncertain

o Since outcomes depend on judges’ interpretations, psychological tendencies, and

facts of each case, law cannot be seen as a fixed set of rules.

3. Focus on Law in Action

o Realists stressed empirical study of how laws operate in practice.

o They investigated actual case outcomes, court behaviour, and the social
consequences of legal rules.

4. Prediction Theory of Law

o For realists, law is a prediction of how courts will decide in a given situation.

o The role of lawyers is to predict judicial behaviour rather than just cite statutes.

5. Skepticism of Precedent
 o Precedent is not mechanically applied; judges adapt or depart from it when
necessary.

o Courts may use precedents selectively to justify conclusions.

6. Pragmatism

o Law must be practical, flexible, and responsive to social needs.

o Abstract legal logic should give way to results that serve society.

7. Interdisciplinary Approach

o Realists incorporated psychology, sociology, and economics into the study of law.

o Judicial decision-making is seen as a human process influenced by extra-legal factors.

Thinkers of the Realist School

1. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841–1935)

 Regarded as the father of American Realism.

 Famous for his “prediction theory” of law.

 Argued that law is not logic but experience, shaped by practical needs.

2. Karl Llewellyn (1893–1962)

 Leading figure of the realist movement.

 Saw realism as a “method” of studying law in action, not a fixed doctrine.

 Emphasised the role of law as an instrument for adjusting social relations.

3. Jerome Frank (1889–1957)

 Stressed the psychological factors in judicial decisions.

 Highlighted the role of judges’ personal biases and experiences.

 Famously said: “Law is what the judge had for breakfast.” (meaning judicial decisions are
unpredictable and influenced by subjective factors).

4. Roscoe Pound (1870–1964)

 Though more aligned with sociological jurisprudence, his concept of “law in action”
influenced realism.

 Viewed law as a tool of social engineering.

5. John Chipman Gray

 Stressed that law is what courts declare, not what statutes prescribe.

Contribution of the Realist School

 1. Shift from Formalism to Practical Law

o Broke the illusion that judges merely apply rules mechanically.

o Highlighted the creative role of judges.

2. Empirical Legal Studies

o Encouraged study of actual court behaviour, case statistics, and social consequences.

3. Interdisciplinary Approach

o Opened law to insights from psychology, economics, and sociology.

4. Pragmatism and Flexibility

o Promoted the view that law should adapt to changing social realities.

5. Foundation for Modern Socio-Legal Research

o Influenced movements like Critical Legal Studies and Law & Economics.

Criticism of the Realist School

1. Over-emphasis on Judges

o By reducing law to judicial behaviour, realists ignored the role of legislation, customs,
and administrative law.

2. Uncertainty and Instability

o If law is what judges say, then it becomes unpredictable and uncertain, undermining
consistency.

3. Neglect of Normativity

o Law is not just predictions; it also serves as a guide for behaviour. Realists neglected
this normative aspect.

4. Exaggeration

o Frank’s emphasis on judicial psychology was seen as extreme — law is not entirely
subjective.

5. Partial Truth

o While judges do influence law, the legal system also includes statutes, rules, and
precedents that constrain them.

Case Law Illustrations

1. Brown v. Board of Education (1954, US Supreme Court)

o Overturned racial segregation in schools, showing that judicial decisions are

influenced by social and psychological factors.
 2. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938, US Supreme Court)

o Abandoned the idea of a uniform “federal common law,” reflecting realist skepticism
of abstract legal fictions.

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978, SC of India)

o Expanded “procedure established by law” under Article 21 to mean just, fair, and
reasonable procedure. Judicial creativity and interpretation here reflect realist
tendencies.

4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973, SC of India)

o Basic Structure Doctrine was judicially created, illustrating that courts actively shape
law.

5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018, SC of India)

o Decriminalised homosexuality under Section 377 IPC, reflecting evolving moral

values and judicial activism.

Comparative Perspective

 Natural Law: Law and morality are inseparable.

 Positivism: Law is sovereign’s command, independent of morality.

 Realism: Law is what courts do in practice, influenced by real-world factors.

Thus, realism is pragmatic, experiential, and judge-centred, distinct from abstract natural law or rigid
positivism.

Critical Analysis

The Realist School marked a turning point in jurisprudence. By highlighting the human and social
dimensions of law, it made legal theory more practical and grounded. It broke away from abstract
logic and recognised that judicial decisions are shaped by reality.

However, its excesses — especially extreme skepticism about rules — undermine stability and
predictability. While it is true that judges influence law, reducing law entirely to judicial behaviour is
an over-simplification. The strength of realism lies not in denying rules, but in exposing how rules
interact with facts, judges, and society.

In modern times, realism has influenced judicial activism, socio-legal research, and movements like
Critical Legal Studies. It continues to remind us that law is a living instrument, not a rigid code.

Conclusion

The Realist School of Jurisprudence revolutionised legal thought by insisting that law must be
studied as it works in practice, not as it appears in theory. By focusing on judicial behaviour,
empirical study, and social context, it exposed the gap between law in books and law in action.
Thinkers like Holmes, Llewellyn, and Frank reshaped our understanding of law, showing that courts
are not passive but active creators of legal order. Though criticised for exaggerating the
unpredictability of law, realism remains a valuable reminder that law is deeply connected with
society, psychology, and human behaviour.

In short: Natural law linked law to morality, positivism linked law to authority, but realism linked
law to reality. It is this focus on reality that makes the Realist School one of the most enduring
contributions to jurisprudence.