Jurisprudence: Complete Notes

About this subject

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (0:00)

Jurisprudence covers the whole range of legal theory, from the first question (why study this subject at all) to the latest debates on justice, gender and the Indian Constitution.

Names like Kelsen, Hart and Dworkin, and words like Grundnorm, need not be feared. Every theory began with a simple question that anyone could ask:

• What is law?
• Why should I obey it?
• What is justice?

The subject is best studied like a story. Every thinker was trying to solve a problem, very often one left behind by the thinker before. So each new theory answers, improves, challenges or rejects an earlier one. Remembering who was answering whom prevents theories from being mixed up.

Why Study Jurisprudence

Meaning of the word

Jurisprudence comes from two Latin words: juris, meaning "of law", and prudentia, meaning knowledge or wisdom. Literally, jurisprudence means knowledge of law, or wisdom about law.

The Roman jurist Ulpian, who lived about 1800 years ago, described it as the knowledge of things divine and human, and the science of the just and the unjust.

Jurisprudence asks questions such as:

• What is law?
• Why should people obey law?
• What makes a law valid?
• How is law related to morality?
• What is justice?

From particular laws to theory

Knowledge is built in two stages: first we learn particular facts, then we build a theory on them. In the first years of law, students learn particular laws such as contract, criminal law and the Constitution. Theory then shows the larger picture: how laws are made and enforced, what role they play in society and politics, and what they are trying to achieve. With this picture, a student can analyse laws and judgments and form opinions on the issues of the day.

Prescribed readings

• John Austin, The Uses of the Study of Jurisprudence: mature legal systems share many common principles, ideas and distinctions, such as right, duty, sanction, person and property. Students who understand these clearly can understand any legal system more easily, argue better, and make better laws if they become legislators.
• William Twining, Some Jobs for Jurisprudence: jurisprudence has many jobs at many levels. It asks the big questions (what is law), but also does practical work, such as developing working theories for lawyers and law reformers and pulling together knowledge in new areas of law. It also acts as a bridge, bringing ideas from philosophy, sociology and economics into the study of law.

Five practical reasons to study Jurisprudence

1. Clarity: words like right, duty, liability and sovereignty are used every day in court; jurisprudence tells exactly what they mean.
2. Understanding judgments: when the Supreme Court speaks of the basic structure, constitutional morality or natural justice, it uses ideas from jurisprudential debates.
3. Critical thinking: one asks not only what the law is, but whether it is fair and wise.
4. Better advocacy: in a hard case, the lawyer who understands theory can give the court a principled argument.
5. Law reform: every reform began with someone questioning the existing law.

What is Law

This is the central question of the whole subject.

Hart's warning

Herbert Hart, one of the greatest legal philosophers of the twentieth century, began his famous book The Concept of Law with a warning: few questions about human society have been asked so persistently, and answered by serious thinkers in such different, strange and even paradoxical ways, as the question "what is law?"

Why the question is difficult

Hart borrowed an observation of Saint Augustine about time: when nobody asks him what time is, he knows; when someone asks him to explain it, he does not know. Law is similar. We recognise law easily (an Act of Parliament is law; the B.N.S. is law), but when asked to explain what law is, and how it is related to force, to morality and to rules, we struggle.

There are borderline cases too:

• Is international law really law, when there is no world government to enforce it?
• Are the customs of a tribe law?

But Hart pointed out that almost every general word has such doubtful cases, so they cannot explain the long debate. The real puzzle lies in explaining the clear, ordinary cases.

Hart's three recurring questions

One event, many answers

The four groups of theories in the syllabus

Group	What it covers
1. Theories about law	Positivism (law is whatever human authority has laid down) and natural law (law must meet a higher standard of reason and morality); also Finnis, Dworkin and Raz, the enforcement of morality, rights and duties, and the duty to obey law.
2. Law as a social and economic instrument	Historical, anthropological and sociological schools; utilitarianism; law and economics; theories of justice.
3. Law as a judicial pronouncement	What judges actually decide: the realist school.
4. Law as an instrument of dominance	Economic dominance (Marxism); social, political and ideological dominance (critical legal studies and post-modernism); gender dominance (feminist jurisprudence).

Law, morality and social custom

Law, morality and social custom often overlap (murder is forbidden by all three), but they are not the same. Much of Jurisprudence is an argument about where exactly the lines between them should be drawn.

Type of rule	Example	Enforced by
Moral rule	Be kind to your parents	Mainly conscience
Social rule	Dress formally for a wedding	Social pressure
Legal rule	Murder is forbidden (also forbidden by morality and custom)	Organised power of the state, through courts, police and prisons

The first serious attempt to give a clear, almost scientific, answer to the question "what is law?" was made by the legal positivists.

Analytical Positivism: Its Genesis

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (3:11)

Meaning of positive law

The word "positive" comes from the Latin positum, meaning "laid down". Positive law means law laid down by human beings: by a legislature, a king or a court.

Why positivism arose

For about two thousand years, most thinkers had tied true law to God, nature or reason: the natural law tradition. By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries:

• strong nation states had emerged, with kings and parliaments making laws;
• science taught people to study things as they actually are;
• religion was losing its hold on public life;
• people wanted certainty about what the law was.

Forerunners

• Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651), treated law as the command of the sovereign.
• David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, pointed out that one cannot logically derive an ought from an is: from facts about how the world is, one cannot directly conclude how it ought to be. This gave the positivists their key idea: law as it is and law as it ought to be are two separate questions.

The school is also called the analytical school, because it analysed basic legal concepts like sovereignty, command, right, duty and sanction.

Four claims of positivism

1. Law is made by human beings, and its existence is a matter of social fact.
2. There is no necessary connection between law and morality, so an unjust law can still be a valid law.
3. What the law is must be kept separate from what the law should be.
4. Legal concepts can be analysed clearly and systematically.

Bentham and Austin, and Sovereignty in India

Jeremy Bentham and John Austin are the two founders of English positivism.

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)

Bentham was a philosopher, a restless reformer and the founder of utilitarianism. At his request, his body was preserved after his death: his skeleton, dressed in his own clothes and topped with a wax head, still sits in a glass case at University College London.

Expository and censorial jurisprudence

Expository jurisprudence	Censorial jurisprudence
Study of law as it is	Study of law as it ought to be
The expositor explains the law	The censor criticises the law

Both jobs matter, but they must not be mixed up.

Bentham's attacks

• English common law: judges made it after the event, so people could not know the law in advance. He compared it to training a dog by waiting until it does something wrong and then beating it.
• Natural rights: he called them "nonsense upon stilts".

He wanted clear written codes instead; he invented the word codification. For Bentham, a law is an expression of the sovereign's will, usually backed by a sanction. His theory was more flexible than Austin's, because he accepted that sovereign power could be divided, or limited by express agreement.

John Austin (1790–1859)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (5:42)

Austin was a follower of Bentham. When the University of London was founded in 1826, he was chosen as its first professor of jurisprudence. His lectures were published in 1832 as The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. In his lifetime he was a failure and his lectures were poorly attended, but after his death his theory dominated English legal thinking for almost a century. He is called the father of the analytical school.

"Province" means a field or area. Austin wanted to mark out the boundary of jurisprudence, separating law properly so called from things merely called law.

The command theory

Austin's test of the sovereign

1. The sovereign is a determinate human superior, a definite person or body of persons.
2. The bulk of the society is in the habit of obedience to this person or body.
3. This person or body is not in the habit of obeying anyone else.

Sovereign power is indivisible and legally unlimited. Any legal limit would need a higher sovereign to enforce it, and that higher body would then be the real sovereign. Applying this test, Austin placed sovereignty in Britain in the King, the House of Lords and the electors of the House of Commons, taken together.

Austin's classification of laws

Laws properly so called	Laws improperly so called
Laws of God Positive laws set by political superiors Some rules of positive morality, like the orders parents give their children	Laws by analogy: rules of honour and fashion, set only by general opinion (also counted as positive morality). International law belongs here, because no sovereign stands above nations. Laws by metaphor: like the law of gravity, which only describe how nature behaves.

Exceptions and explanations

Austin admitted a few exceptions:

• declaratory laws;
• repealing laws;
• imperfect laws (laws without a sanction).

He explained custom and judge-made law as follows:

• A custom becomes law only when the courts enforce it.
• Judges act as delegates of the sovereign; whatever the sovereign permits, it is taken to have commanded.

Criticisms of Austin

1. Many laws do not command anything. Laws that let a person make a will, sign a contract or marry confer powers.
2. Laws also bind the very people who make them.
3. Austin cannot explain customary law. Sir Henry Maine's Indian example: Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab was an absolute ruler whose commands were always obeyed, yet he never made a law in Austin's sense. His subjects' lives were governed by their ancient customs.
4. No single, unlimited sovereign can be found in a federal country with a written constitution, such as India.

Where does sovereignty lie in India?

Applying Austin's test:

Candidate	Is it Austin's sovereign?
Parliament	No. It cannot normally make laws on subjects the Seventh Schedule gives to the States; its laws can be struck down for violating fundamental rights under Article 13; and since Kesavananda Bharati (1973), even its amending power cannot destroy the basic structure.
The President	No. Under Article 74, the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
The Supreme Court	No. It interprets the Constitution, but cannot make laws on any subject it likes.
The people	The Preamble says that "we, the people of India" give to ourselves this Constitution. The people are the ultimate source of authority, but they are not a determinate body issuing commands in Austin's sense.

Power in India is divided among different organs, all limited by a supreme written Constitution.

Bentham and Austin in the Light of Indian Cases: Gopalan and ADM Jabalpur

If law is simply the command of the sovereign, the judge's job is to apply the command as it stands, without asking whether it is just. Two famous Indian cases show this attitude and its dangers.

A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

This approach did not last:

• R. C. Cooper (1970): the Supreme Court rejected the idea of separate compartments.
• Maneka Gandhi (1978): the procedure itself must be fair, just and reasonable.

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

Popularly called the ADM Jabalpur case or the habeas corpus case. Habeas corpus is a writ by which a court asks the authority holding a person in custody to produce the person and justify the detention.

Vindication of Justice Khanna

• The Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978 (in force from 1979) changed Article 359, so that the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 can never be suspended, even in an Emergency.
• In 2017, in the Puttaswamy case on privacy, a nine-judge bench expressly overruled the majority in ADM Jabalpur. The leading opinion was written by Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, whose father, Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, had been in the ADM Jabalpur majority.

The jurisprudential lesson

Majority in ADM Jabalpur	Justice Khanna's dissent
Reasoned like strict Austinians	Reasoned more like a natural lawyer
Rights exist only because the sovereign's law grants them; remove the remedy and nothing is left	Some rights exist before and above the state

Kelsen and the Grundnorm in the Indian Legal System

Austin built law on a fact: the habit of obedience to a powerful person. Hans Kelsen found this foundation too weak.

Hans Kelsen (1881–1973)

Kelsen was an Austrian jurist and the main architect of the Austrian Constitution of 1920, which created a special constitutional court to check whether laws conform to the constitution. When the Nazis came to power in 1933, Kelsen, who was of Jewish origin, lost his professorship in Germany. He later left Europe and spent his last decades teaching in America, at Berkeley. His most famous work is the Pure Theory of Law.

Kelsen's two complaints

1. Jurisprudence was mixed up with ethics, politics, sociology and psychology. He wanted a pure theory, one that studies only law.
2. A fact alone can never create a duty. That people usually obey someone does not mean they ought to.

The hierarchy (pyramid) of norms

• At the bottom are individual norms, like a court's judgment.
• The judgment is valid because a statute authorises it.
• The statute is valid because the Constitution authorises it.
• The chain cannot go on forever. At the very top stands the Grundnorm, a German word meaning the basic norm.

Efficacy and sanction

• Efficacy: a legal order is valid only if it is, by and large, effective. If a revolution succeeds and the new order becomes effective, lawyers begin to presuppose a new Grundnorm.
• Sanction: law is a coercive order. A legal norm in its basic form says: if a person commits theft, an official ought to punish the thief. The real addressee of the norm is the official. In his General Theory of Law and State, Kelsen called this sanction norm the primary norm, and the rule of conduct the secondary norm, the opposite of Hart's usage.

The Grundnorm in India

Building the Indian pyramid:

1. At the bottom: an order of a District Magistrate, valid because rules under an Act authorise it.
2. The Act is valid because a competent legislature made it within Articles 245 and 246 and the Seventh Schedule, without violating fundamental rights.
3. The Constitution: many writers say India's Grundnorm is the presupposition that the Constitution of India, adopted on 26 November 1949 and fully in force from 26 January 1950, ought to be obeyed.

Article 395 repealed the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and the Government of India Act, 1935. The framers wanted to cut the legal link with the British Parliament, so that the Constitution would draw its authority from the people of India, not from a British statute. In Kelsen's language, this marks a fresh starting point for the Indian legal order.

Is the basic structure India's Grundnorm?

Some writers call the basic structure doctrine India's Grundnorm, because it tests even constitutional amendments. But Kelsen's Grundnorm has no moral content, while the basic structure has real content, like democracy, secularism and judicial review.

Austin and Kelsen compared

Point	Austin	Kelsen
Source of law	A person (the sovereign) and a fact (habitual obedience)	A norm and a chain of validity
State and law	The sovereign stands above law	The state is the legal order itself
Structure (as the syllabus describes it)	A disintegrated structure: a heap of separate commands	Law with an internal validity structure
Common ground	Positivist; sanction is essential	Positivist; sanction is essential

Criticisms of Kelsen

• The Grundnorm looks like a fiction, and nobody can say exactly what it is in a given country.
• His theory is not really pure, because it depends on efficacy, which is a fact.
• Like Austin, he puts too much weight on sanctions.

These criticisms prepared the way for Herbert Hart.

H. L. A. Hart: The Concept of Law

Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart (1907–1992) was a barrister, worked for British intelligence in the Second World War and became Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford. His The Concept of Law (1961) is probably the most influential English work of legal philosophy of the twentieth century.

Hart's Attack on Austin

The gunman situation writ large

Austin's model, said Hart, is the gunman situation writ large. A gunman tells a bank clerk, "hand over the money or I will shoot". The clerk is obliged to obey, but is not under an obligation.

Where Austin fails

• Power-conferring laws: many laws confer powers rather than impose duties. A will made without the required witnesses is not punished; it is simply invalid, and invalidity is not a sanction.
• Continuity: people habitually obey King Rex the First. When his son, Rex the Second, gives his first order, no habit of obeying him exists yet, but his order is law from the first day because a rule says the heir succeeds.
• Persistence: laws made a hundred years ago remain valid though their makers are long dead.

In each case the answer is rules, not habits.

The Internal Point of View

Law as a Union of Primary and Secondary Rules

• Primary rules impose duties, for example "do not steal" and "pay your taxes".
• Secondary rules are rules about the primary rules.

The three defects of a pre-legal society

A simple society with only primary rules, kept alive by social pressure, would suffer three defects, each cured by a secondary rule.

Defect	What it means	Remedy (secondary rule)
Uncertainty	A doubt about what the rules are cannot be settled	Rule of recognition, which tells us how to identify valid law
Static quality	The rules cannot be deliberately changed	Rules of change, which allow new laws to be made and old ones repealed
Inefficiency	No official body can finally decide whether a rule has been broken	Rules of adjudication, which empower judges to decide disputes

With these three kinds of rules, said Hart, a society steps from the pre-legal world into the legal world.

The rule of recognition

The rule of recognition is the most important secondary rule and the ultimate rule of the system.

• It does not get its validity from any higher rule.
• It exists simply as a fact, in the actual practice of judges and officials who accept it and use it to identify valid law.
• In Britain, for example, its central part was that whatever the Queen in Parliament enacts is law.

When does a legal system exist?

According to Hart, a legal system exists when two conditions are met:

1. Citizens generally obey the valid rules, even if only out of habit or fear.
2. Officials accept the secondary rules, especially the rule of recognition, from the internal point of view, as common standards for their official conduct.

Open Texture of Law

Words have a core of settled meaning and a penumbra, a shadowy fringe, of doubt.

Minimum Content of Natural Law

Though a positivist, Hart accepted that simple facts about human beings require every legal system to contain certain basic rules. Human beings are vulnerable, roughly equal, of limited unselfishness, with limited resources and limited understanding and strength of will. So every legal system needs rules protecting persons, property and promises. This is only a small bridge towards natural law; it does not mean a law must be just to be valid.

Hart Compared with Austin and Kelsen

Austin	Hart
Commands	Rules
Habits of obedience	Acceptance
A single sovereign	A rule of recognition

Kelsen's Grundnorm	Hart's rule of recognition
An assumption in the lawyer's mind	A social fact, observable in the behaviour of officials
Asks what we must assume	Asks what officials actually do

Hart and the Indian Legal System

An article by Sheela Rai applies Hart's concept of law to the Indian Constitution.

Primary and Secondary Rules in India

Type of rule	Indian illustration
Primary rules	Everywhere, e.g. the ban on theft and murder in the B.N.S.
Rules of change	Articles 107–111 (how a Bill becomes an Act); Article 123 (ordinances); Article 368 (amendments)
Rules of adjudication	Article 124 (establishes the Supreme Court); Articles 32 and 226 (power to issue writs)

India's Rule of Recognition

The basic structure and a changing rule of recognition

The basic structure test is written nowhere in the Constitution. The Supreme Court added it in 1973; Parliament tried to shut it out in 1976, but the Court struck that attempt down in Minerva Mills (1980), and judges and officials have since accepted it. Hart explains this: the rule of recognition is what officials, especially judges, actually accept and practise, so it changes when their practice changes.

Open Texture in Indian Law

Article 12 defines "the State", against which fundamental rights are enforced, to include "other authorities".

Moral Words in the Constitution

The Constitution is full of moral words: reasonable, equality, liberty, justice. Late in his life, Hart said a rule of recognition can include such moral tests.

Natural Law: Ancient and Medieval Western Theories

The Sovereign's Law and the Higher Norm

Natural law thinkers say that above the law made by rulers there is a higher law, based on nature, reason or God.

• This higher law is universal: the same everywhere and at all times.
• Human laws should follow it.
• If a human law goes badly against it, that law is defective or, some would say, not law at all.

So there is a bifurcation, a split, between positive law and natural law.

Antigone

The Sophists and Plato

The Sophists disagreed. In Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus says justice is simply the interest of the stronger. Plato rejected this: justice is a harmony in which each part of society does its proper job, guided by reason.

Aristotle

Concept	Meaning	Illustration
Natural justice	Has the same force everywhere	One should not kill the innocent
Legal or conventional justice	Depends on what a particular community decides	Which side of the road to drive on
Distributive justice	Divides benefits and burdens in proportion to merit	—
Corrective justice	Restores the balance when one person wrongs another	Tort and contract

Aristotle also described equity as the correction of law where it goes wrong because it is framed in general terms.

The Stoics and Cicero

The Stoics, beginning with Zeno of Citium, taught that reason governs the universe and every human shares in it; so all humans are fundamentally equal, citizens of one world.

The Roman Lawyers

• Jus civile: the law of Roman citizens.
• Jus gentium: the law common to all peoples, used in dealings with foreigners.
• Jus naturale: natural law, the law that reason finds in nature itself.

Saint Augustine

Saint Augustine (354–430) taught that human law must conform to God's eternal law, and that a law that is not just does not seem to be a law at all. Later writers put this as lex iniusta non est lex: an unjust law is not law.

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Four kinds of law

1. Eternal law: God's plan for the whole universe.
2. Natural law: the part of eternal law that human beings can discover through reason. Its first principle is that good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided.
3. Divine law: what God has revealed in scripture.
4. Human law: the law made by rulers.

How human law relates to natural law

• Conclusions drawn from natural law: natural law says do no harm, so human law says do not murder.
• Determinations, that is, choices about details that natural law leaves open, such as the exact punishment for theft or the rules of the road. Natural law says traffic must be safe; human law decides that we drive on the left.

The unjust law

• A human law which departs from natural law is no longer a law but a perversion of law. It does not bind in conscience.
• Practically, one might still obey it to avoid scandal or disturbance.
• But a law that commands something against divine law must never be obeyed.

Natural Law: Early Modern Theories

From the sixteenth century, with the Renaissance, the Reformation and new sciences, natural law became less religious and more rational, shifting from duties to natural rights and from the Church to the social contract.

Hugo Grotius

The Dutch jurist Grotius, father of international law, argued in On the Law of War and Peace (1625) that natural law comes from human reason and our social nature, and would have some validity even if (a "wicked thought") God did not exist. Natural law thus began to stand on reason alone. A basic rule: agreements must be kept.

Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes, a forerunner of positivism, also used natural law. In Leviathan, the state of nature without government is a war of all against all, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Reason teaches the laws of nature, above all to seek peace, so people make a social contract handing their power to a sovereign, who must be almost absolute because the alternative is chaos.

John Locke

Locke, publishing about forty years later, reached very different conclusions in his Two Treatises of Government.

• The state of nature is governed by a law of nature, which is reason.
• Every person has natural rights to life, liberty and property.
• The problems of the state of nature: no settled law, no impartial judge to settle disputes, and no power to enforce judgments.
• So people create a government, by contract, only to protect these rights. Government is a trust; if it violates the trust, the people have a right to resist and replace it.

These ideas inspired the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the whole idea of limited, constitutional government.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau's The Social Contract (1762) opens: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Legitimate law expresses the general will, the will of the whole people directed to the common good; sovereignty belongs to the people. His ideas fed into the French Revolution.

Montesquieu

Around the same time, Montesquieu argued in The Spirit of the Laws for the separation of powers, and for laws suited to the customs and conditions of each nation.

Comparison and the Indian Constitution

Thinker	Core idea	Echo in the Indian Constitution
Hobbes	Strong sovereign and security	Emergency provisions, which strengthen the state in a crisis
Locke	Natural rights and limited government	Fundamental rights and judicial review
Rousseau	Popular sovereignty	"We, the people"
Montesquieu	Separation of powers	Separation of powers, now part of the basic structure

Decline in the Nineteenth Century

In the nineteenth century natural law declined: Bentham mocked natural rights as "nonsense upon stilts", the historical school said law grows from custom, and positivism dominated, until natural law returned for a terrible reason.

German Idealism and the Revival of Natural Law

German Idealism

Immanuel Kant

Kant (1724–1804) taught that morality comes from reason itself.

• Categorical imperative: act only on a rule that you could will to become a universal law.
• Another version: always treat humanity, in yourself and in others, as an end, and never merely as a means. This is the root of the modern idea of human dignity.
• For Kant, law exists to secure the conditions under which the freedom of each can coexist with the freedom of all under a universal law.

Georg Hegel

Hegel, who came after Kant, saw law and the state as the gradual realisation of freedom in history, ideas that deeply influenced Karl Marx.

Why Kant matters

The language of dignity runs through modern constitutions. The German Basic Law of 1949 begins by declaring human dignity inviolable, and the Supreme Court reads Article 21 as protecting a life with dignity.

The Revival of Natural Law in the Twentieth Century

Stammler

Rudolf Stammler, a German jurist, spoke of natural law with a variable content: the ideal of just law stays constant, but its content changes with time and place.

The Nazi regime and Nuremberg

The Nazis stripped Jews of citizenship and legalised terrible cruelty, often through the forms of law. At the Nuremberg trials, Nazi leaders pleaded that they only followed the law and orders; the tribunal rejected this defence.

Gustav Radbruch and the Radbruch formula

Gustav Radbruch, earlier a positivist and a Minister of Justice before the Nazi era, argued that the attitude "law is law" had left German lawyers defenceless against criminal statutes.

The world's response

The world responded with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and new constitutions guaranteeing fundamental rights enforced by courts. The Indian Constitution of 1950 belongs to this moment: Part III, with the remedy under Article 32, is natural law written into positive law.

Natural Law and the Hart-Fuller Debate

In 1957 Hart gave a lecture at Harvard, published in the Harvard Law Review in 1958 as "Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals". In the same issue, Lon Fuller, a Harvard law professor, published his reply, "Positivism and Fidelity to Law" (fidelity means faithfulness). This exchange is the Hart-Fuller debate.

Hart's Position: Separate Law and Morals

Hart defended Bentham and Austin on one point: law as it is must be kept separate from law as it ought to be, for clarity and moral honesty. Calling an evil law "no law" confuses two questions, and we might become:

• anarchists, treating every law we dislike as no law; or
• reactionaries, assuming that whatever is law must be good.

It is more honest, said Hart, to say: "this is law, but it is too evil to be obeyed".

The Grudge Informer Case

Hart's view of the case

This reasoning was dangerous: pretending the Nazi statute was never law hides the real moral choice. The honest solution was retrospective legislation openly punishing such conduct, choosing openly between two evils (leaving her unpunished, or punishing her under a backdated law).

Fuller's view of the case

Hart ignored the inner morality of law. Law is not any order imposed by power but the enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules. With secret laws, backdated laws and open disregard for its own statutes, the Nazi regime had ceased to be a legal system in the full sense. Fidelity to law is owed only to a system that respects its inner morality, so Fuller defended the post-war court. Yet he agreed that a retroactive statute would have been the better practical solution, as a clean break with the past.

The Debate on Interpretation

Hart used his example of "no vehicles in the park". Fuller replied with two examples:

Fuller's point: we understand rules through their purpose, not just their words. So there is no neat core of meaning free from purpose and value.

Fuller's The Morality of Law (1964)

Fuller told the story of an imaginary King Rex, who failed to make law in eight different ways, from keeping his rules secret to changing them so often that nobody could keep up. Each failure is the opposite of one of Fuller's principles.

The eight principles of legality (inner morality of law)

1. Laws should be general.
2. They should be published.
3. They should be prospective, not retrospective.
4. They should be clear.
5. They should not contradict each other.
6. They should not demand the impossible.
7. They should be reasonably stable.
8. Official action should match the declared rules (congruence).

Morality of duty and morality of aspiration

The morality of duty is the basic rules without which ordered society is impossible; the morality of aspiration is the ideal of the best life we can reach. Law mainly enforces the first.

Hart's reply and Fuller's answer

• Hart: these principles are about efficiency, not morality. Poisoning also has its internal principles, such as "avoid poisons that make the victim vomit", but we would not call that the morality of poisoning. A wicked regime can make clear, public, prospective laws and still be wicked.
• Fuller: evil regimes usually avoid these principles, because clear and public rules expose their evil; and the principles express respect for people as responsible agents who can plan their lives.

Fuller's Principles in Indian Law

Non-retroactivity is guaranteed by Article 20(1), which forbids convicting a person under a criminal law made after the act.

The Hart-Fuller Debate and the Indian Legal System: Articles 21 and 14 after ADM Jabalpur

After the Emergency, the Supreme Court faced the Hart-Fuller question (what to do with a law valid on paper but unfair in substance) by reading fairness into the Constitution.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Article 14 and Arbitrariness

Article 14 had begun to change even before the Emergency.

The Wave of Article 21 Cases

Constitutional Change and Puttaswamy

The Constitution itself changed: the Forty-fourth Amendment made Articles 20 and 21 non-suspendable.

Reading the Indian Story through the Hart-Fuller Debate

Gopalan and ADM Jabalpur	Maneka Gandhi and later cases
Treated enacted law as final, whatever its content	Demand that law meet standards of fairness, reason and dignity
Validity on paper was enough	Fuller's inner morality, and more: a move towards substantive natural law

Yet Hart never said judges should accept evil laws as good, and he accepted that where a constitution contains moral standards like fairness and equality, judges must apply them. So the Indian story is not simply natural law defeating positivism, but a written Constitution taking moral standards into itself.

Post-Hart Analytical Philosophy: An Overview

The syllabus calls this module an attempt at synthesis (Fuller, also listed here, is covered with the Hart-Fuller debate). After Hart and Fuller, three thinkers carried the debate forward:

• John Finnis rebuilt natural law.
• Ronald Dworkin attacked Hart's model of rules.
• Joseph Raz defended positivism in its strictest form.

Along the way, the debate produced the division between inclusive and exclusive positivism.

John Finnis and Rights under the Indian Legal System

The Thinker

John Finnis was born in Australia in 1940 and taught at Oxford for most of his career. He studied under Hart. His great book, Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980), appeared in a series that Hart himself edited.

The Problem Finnis Solved

In the eyes of its critics, natural law had two big weaknesses:

1. It seemed to depend on religion.
2. It seemed to derive an ought from an is, the very mistake Hume had warned against.

Finnis answered both. His natural law does not depend on God, and it does not derive values from facts about nature. Instead, it starts from basic goods that any reasonable person can see are worth pursuing for their own sake.

The Seven Basic Goods

Finnis named seven basic goods:

1. Life, which includes health and safety.
2. Knowledge, pursued for its own sake.
3. Play, meaning activities enjoyed for themselves.
4. Aesthetic experience, the appreciation of beauty.
5. Sociability, or friendship.
6. Practical reasonableness, the ability to use one's own intelligence to shape one's life.
7. Religion, in a broad sense, meaning concern with the ultimate order of things.

These goods are self-evident. One does not prove that knowledge is better than ignorance; one simply sees it. None of them is objectively ranked above the others. In later writings, Finnis also added marriage as a separate basic good.

The Nine Requirements of Practical Reasonableness

Choices among the basic goods are made through nine requirements of practical reasonableness:

1. Have a coherent plan of life.
2. Do not make arbitrary preferences among the basic values.
3. Do not make arbitrary preferences among persons.
4. Stay detached enough from any single project that one does not become fanatical.
5. Stay committed enough that one does not give up easily.
6. Pursue efficiency, but only within reason.
7. Respect every basic value in every act, which means never directly destroying a basic good, even to achieve a good result.
8. Foster the common good of one's community.
9. Follow one's conscience.

Law, Authority and Unjust Laws

Many basic goods can be achieved only through cooperation, and cooperation needs coordination. Law provides authoritative coordination for the common good. That is why law has authority.

Rights in Finnis's Framework

Rights are a way of expressing what justice requires for each person, given the common good. A few rights are absolute, such as:

• the right not to have one's life taken directly as a means to some other end; and
• the right not to be condemned on charges known to be false.

Finnis and Rights under the Indian Legal System

The following mapping is an illustration only; neither Finnis nor the Indian courts have drawn it.

Basic good (Finnis)	Corresponding right in Indian law
Life	Article 21, including the right to emergency medical care, recognised in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (1996)
Knowledge	Right to education, now Article 21A
Play and aesthetic experience	Right to a clean environment
Sociability	Freedom of association; the right to choose one's partner, upheld in the Hadiya case, Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018)
Practical reasonableness	Privacy and autonomy, recognised in Puttaswamy
Religion	Articles 25 to 28

Criticism of Finnis

• Many doubt that his basic goods are really self-evident, or that his list is complete.
• His own conclusions on sexual morality are conservative and strongly contested. He argued, for example, against same-sex relationships, a view that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) plainly rejects.

Still, his central lesson matters: law exists for the common good, and a law that betrays the common good is law only in a weakened sense.

Ronald Dworkin and the Use of Principles in Indian Judicial Decisions

The Thinker

Ronald Dworkin, an American, lived from 1931 to 2013. In 1969 he succeeded Hart as Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford, and he became Hart's most powerful critic. His major books are Taking Rights Seriously (1977) and Law's Empire (1986).

Dworkin's Problem with Hart

Hart said law is a system of rules; when the rules run out in a hard case, the judge has discretion and makes new law. Dworkin disagreed:

• Law contains not only rules but also principles.
• Even in hard cases, judges are bound by these principles.
• So there is usually one right answer, even when it is difficult to find.

Rules and Principles

Rule	Principle
Applies in an all-or-nothing way.	Has weight; points in a direction.
If it applies, it settles the matter.	Can be outweighed by another principle.
Example: a will needs the required witnesses; if they are missing, the will is invalid. Full stop.	Example: no one should profit from his own wrong.

Principles and Policies

Principles	Policies
Protect individual rights.	Pursue collective goals, like economic growth.
Judges should decide cases on principle.	Policy should be left to the legislature.

Rights as Trumps, Hercules and Law as Integrity

• Rights as trumps: when an individual has a right, it overrides ordinary arguments of collective benefit.
• Hercules: an ideal judge with superhuman patience and learning. Hercules decides a hard case by building the theory that best fits and best justifies the whole body of law: the Constitution, statutes and precedents together.
• Law as integrity: the law should speak with one voice, consistent in principle.

Interpretation: Fit and Justification

Interpretation has two dimensions:

1. Fit: an answer must fit the existing legal material reasonably well.
2. Justification: among the answers that fit, the judge should choose the one that shows the law in its best moral light.

Hart's Reply and Criticism

Hart replied in a Postscript to The Concept of Law. He died in 1992 before finishing it, and it was published in 1994. He argued:

• A rule of recognition can identify principles too, for example by their use in past decisions.
• Judges still have discretion in truly hard cases.

Critics say Hercules is a myth. Real judges disagree, and Dworkin's theory may give judges too much power to read their own moral views into the law.

Principles at Work in India

1. Riggs v. Palmer turned into a statutory rule

Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 says that a person who commits murder is disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered. Indian law turned the principle into a statutory rule.

2. The basic structure doctrine

3. Natural justice

4. Filling gaps

5. Constitutional morality

In Puttaswamy and in Navtej Singh Johar, the Court reasoned from principles of dignity, liberty and equality to protect privacy and sexual orientation. Critics call this judicial overreach; Dworkin would call it simply law as integrity.

Joseph Raz, Inclusive and Exclusive Positivism

The Thinker

Joseph Raz was born in Haifa in 1939 and died in 2022. He studied under Hart at Oxford and became one of the most important legal philosophers of his time. His key works include Practical Reason and Norms (1975) and The Authority of Law (1979).

The Sources Thesis

Dworkin's challenge was that if law includes moral principles, positivism is finished. Raz replied with the strictest form of positivism, the sources thesis.

Authority and the Pre-emption Thesis

Raz insisted on the sources thesis because of authority. Law always claims legitimate authority, and authority has a special job.

• Pre-emption thesis: an authoritative directive is not just one more reason. It excludes and replaces the reasons it was meant to settle.
• Such a directive is a pre-emptive reason. It gives a reason to act, and also an exclusionary reason, which is a reason not to act on the reasons it replaces.

When Is Authority Legitimate?

• Normal justification thesis: an authority is legitimate when people are more likely to act rightly by following its directives than by trying to work everything out for themselves.
• Dependence thesis: good directives should be based on reasons that already apply to the people concerned.
• Together these form the service conception of authority: authority serves us.

Why this supports the sources thesis: if moral reasoning were needed to find out what the law says, the law could not do its job of settling moral disagreements. It would send people back to the very arguments it was supposed to end.

Inclusive and Exclusive Positivism

Point	Inclusive (soft) positivism	Exclusive (hard) positivism
Supporters	Hart himself in his Postscript; Jules Coleman; Wil Waluchow	Led by Raz
Morality and legal validity	A rule of recognition may include moral tests, if a legal system chooses to include them.	Morality can never be a test of legal validity.
Moral words in a constitution	They are moral tests that form part of the rule of recognition.	They direct judges to use moral reasoning; the law is made when judges decide.

Application to India

Article 19 allows only reasonable restrictions, and after Maneka Gandhi, Article 21 requires a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable.

• Inclusive positivist: India's rule of recognition includes moral tests like reasonableness.
• Exclusive positivist: these words give the Supreme Court power to decide, and the law is fixed by its judgments, which bind all courts under Article 141.
• Dworkin: these moral principles were part of Indian law all along.

Raz on the Rule of Law

The rule of law is a virtue of law, but a limited one. Raz compared it to the sharpness of a knife: sharpness makes a good knife, whether it is used to cut vegetables or to kill. Likewise, clear, prospective and stable laws, an independent judiciary and accessible courts make law effective and reduce arbitrary power, but they do not guarantee that the law is just.

This is close to Hart's reply to Fuller, and different from Fuller's belief in an inner morality of law. Raz also argued that there is no general moral obligation to obey the law, even in a good society.

Mapping the Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence

• Positivism: runs from Austin to Kelsen to Hart, and then divides into the inclusive positivism of Hart's Postscript and the exclusive positivism of Raz.
• Natural law: runs from Aquinas through Fuller's procedural version to Finnis.
• Dworkin stands apart, saying law is the best interpretation of a community's legal practice.

Rita and Dharma: The Indian Perspective on Natural Law

The syllabus treats this topic as the Indian perspective on natural law; Dharma leads directly into questions of morality, duty and obedience.

Rita

Spelled R-T-A in English books and pronounced Rita. In the Rigveda, Rita means the cosmic order, the order of the universe: the sun rises and sets, the seasons follow each other, the rivers flow to the sea. But Rita is also a moral order.

• It is closely linked with satya, truth.
• Its opposite, anrita, means disorder and falsehood.
• The god Varuna, often together with Mitra, was seen as the guardian of Rita, who watched over human conduct and punished wrongdoing.

Vrata

In the Vedic hymns, vrata refers to the ordinances or decrees, especially of Varuna, through which order is maintained. Later the word came to mean a personal vow or religious observance. If Rita is the order itself, vratas are the rules that express and protect it.

Dharma

Gradually Rita gave way to the richer idea of Dharma. The word comes from the Sanskrit root dhri, meaning to hold or to sustain. Dharma is that which holds society together.

• It includes religious duties, moral duties and legal rules, all at once.
• It is contextual: a person's duties depended on their stage of life and social position.
• The king had his own rajadharma, the duty to protect his subjects and to administer justice.

Sources of Dharma

The Dharmashastra texts, like the Manusmriti, name four sources:

1. Shruti: the Vedas.
2. Smriti: the remembered texts, like the law books of Manu, Yajnavalkya and Narada.
3. Sadachara: the conduct of virtuous people, which gave custom a place in the system.
4. Atmatushti: what satisfies one's own conscience.

The texts also developed vyavahara, the law of disputes. The Manusmriti lists eighteen titles of litigation, such as debts, boundary disputes, assault and theft.

Kautilya's Arthashastra described law as standing on four feet:

1. Dharma
2. Vyavahara
3. Charitra (custom)
4. Rajashasana (the king's edicts)

The King Was Not Above Dharma

An Upanishad describes Dharma as the power even above the ruling class, so that through Dharma a weak man can prevail over a strong one, as if with the help of a king. The king held danda, the power to punish, but he had to use it according to Dharma. Like Western natural law, Dharma is a higher law that binds the ruler. This is how Dharma fits the syllabus theme of the sovereign's law and the higher norm.

Dharma and Western Natural Law Compared

Point	Dharma	Western natural law
Law as part of a moral order	Yes	Yes
Binds the ruler	Yes	Yes
Language	Speaks mainly of duties	Speaks the language of rights, especially after Locke
Universality	Often differed by caste, gender and stage of life	Claims to be the same for everyone

The dark side: the varna system built inequality into Dharma. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar publicly burned a copy of the Manusmriti in 1927 in protest against caste oppression. The Constitution rejects this hierarchy through Articles 14 and 15, and through Article 17, which abolishes untouchability.

Dharma Today

• The motto of the Supreme Court of India is Yato Dharmastato Jayah: where there is Dharma, there is victory.
• In 1976, the Forty-second Amendment added fundamental duties to the Constitution in Article 51A.

The Indian tradition thus insists that law and duty cannot be completely separated from morality, which raises the question whether law should enforce morality.

Enforcement of Morality

The question: should the law punish conduct just because most people think it is immoral, even if it harms nobody else?

John Stuart Mill: The Harm Principle

In his essay On Liberty (1859), Mill proposed the harm principle.

James Fitzjames Stephen

Mill was challenged by James Fitzjames Stephen in Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (1873). Stephen argued that the law may and should suppress vice. Indian link: Stephen served as the Law Member in India and drafted the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.

The Wolfenden Committee

The debate revived in England in the 1950s. A government committee chaired by Sir John Wolfenden reported in 1957 on homosexual offences and prostitution. It recommended that homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should no longer be crimes. Its reasoning: there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is, in brief and crude terms, not the law's business.

Lord Devlin: The Enforcement of Morals

Lord Patrick Devlin, a senior English judge, attacked this view in a famous lecture in 1959, later published as The Enforcement of Morals. His argument:

1. A society is held together by a shared morality; it is the cement of society.
2. An attack on that morality threatens the society itself, much as treason does.
3. Therefore society has the right to use the law to protect its morality.

How is that morality known? Ask the reasonable man, the ordinary person, the man in the jury box. If the ordinary person feels real intolerance, indignation and disgust at some conduct, that conduct may be punished.

Devlin's limits: individual freedom should be allowed as far as possible, privacy should be respected, and the law should be slow to act.

Hart's Reply: Law, Liberty and Morality

Hart replied in Law, Liberty and Morality (1963):

1. There is no evidence that a society disintegrates when its morality changes. Societies change their morals all the time and survive.
2. One must distinguish positive morality, the morality a society actually holds, from critical morality, the principles used to judge it. A majority's disgust may be pure prejudice.
3. Hart accepted some paternalism (laws protecting people from harming themselves, like rules against dangerous drugs), but rejected legal moralism (punishing conduct only because it is immoral).
4. Distress at merely knowing that others act in ways one dislikes cannot count as harm, or no freedom would be left.

Dworkin's Contribution

Dworkin added that Devlin confused a genuine moral position with prejudice, personal aversion or mere repetition of what others say. A real moral position must be supported by reasons.

In England, Parliament finally decriminalised private homosexual acts between consenting adult men in 1967.

Enforcement of Morality in India

Morality in the Constitution

• Article 19(2): free speech may be restricted in the interests of decency or morality.
• Articles 25 and 26: religious freedom is subject to public order, morality and health.
• Article 47: the State is to work towards prohibiting intoxicating drinks and harmful drugs.

So the Constitution allows some enforcement of morality. The real question is: which morality?

Constitutional Morality

The Supreme Court has increasingly answered: constitutional morality, as opposed to popular or social morality.

In India, the phrase goes back to Dr. Ambedkar. In the Constituent Assembly, in November 1948, he quoted the historian George Grote and said that constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment; it has to be cultivated. Grote meant a paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution, together with free speech and open criticism of those in power. Today the courts use the phrase more broadly: constitutional values must prevail even over popular morality.

The Story of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code punished carnal intercourse against the order of nature and was used against consensual same-sex relations.

The pattern: Koushal is closer to Devlin, deferring to majority sentiment and to the legislature. Navtej is closer to Mill and Hart: the majority's disgust is not a legal reason to punish private conduct between consenting adults.

Adultery and Private Morality

Obscenity: Morality Changing over Time

Criticism of Constitutional Morality: Sabarimala

• In 2019, a review bench, by three votes to two, referred wider questions from this case to a larger bench.
• A nine-judge bench heard them in 2026 and reserved its judgment in May. One question is whether "morality" in Articles 25 and 26 includes constitutional morality, so that verdict should be watched.
• Other critics call constitutional morality vague.

The Hart-Devlin debate thus lives on in India, now fought over the meaning of the Constitution.

Rights and Duties

Rights and duties are the building blocks of every legal relationship. Reading: the chapter on legal rights in Salmond on Jurisprudence.

Definition of a Right

A legal right differs from a moral right: a moral right is recognised by morality, while a legal right is recognised and protected by law.

Theories of Rights

Point	Will theory	Interest theory
Associated with	Kant, Savigny, Hart	Jhering, Bentham, and later Raz
What a right is	Gives its holder control over another person's duty; the right-holder can demand performance or waive it	Protects an interest of the right-holder
Newborn baby test	Struggles, since a baby cannot make choices	Explains easily why a baby has rights

Five Elements of a Legal Right (Salmond)

1. Person of inherence: the owner of the right, here Prince.
2. Person of incidence: the one who bears the duty, here everyone else, including Farhan, who must not trespass.
3. Content: the act or forbearance required, here non-interference.
4. Object (subject matter): the land itself.
5. Title: the fact that gave Prince the right, the registered sale deed.

Classification of Rights (Salmond)

Kind	Meaning / example	Contrasted with
Perfect rights	Can be enforced by the court	Imperfect rights: cannot be enforced, like a debt barred by limitation
Positive rights	Require someone to act	Negative rights: require others to refrain
Rights in rem	Avail against the whole world, like ownership	Rights in personam: avail against a particular person, like a contract right
Proprietary rights	Form part of a person's wealth	Personal rights: do not, like reputation
Rights in re aliena	Rights over someone else's property, like an easement or a mortgage	Not paired with an opposite category
Sanctioning (remedial) rights	Arise when a primary right is violated, like the right to damages	Primary rights

Classification of Duties

• Positive duties require action; negative duties require restraint.
• Austin distinguished relative duties, which have a corresponding right in some person, from absolute duties, which do not, like duties owed to the public at large or to the State.

Are Rights and Duties Always Correlative?

Salmond: yes, every right has a duty and every duty has a right. Austin: no, there are duties without rights.

Rights and Duties in the Indian Constitution

• Part III sets out fundamental rights.
• Article 51A sets out fundamental duties. Ten duties were added in 1976, and an eleventh, about educating children, in 2002.
• Fundamental duties cannot be directly enforced, but courts use them to interpret laws.

Mahatma Gandhi went further. In a letter of 1947, he wrote that he had learnt from his illiterate but wise mother that all rights to be deserved and preserved came from duty well done. That is the voice of Dharma again.

Hohfeld's Analysis of Legal Rights

The word "right" is used loosely. Sometimes it means a claim, sometimes a freedom, sometimes a power and sometimes a protection. This looseness leads to confused reasoning.

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, an American law professor at Stanford and Yale who died young in 1918, cleared up this confusion in two famous articles published in 1913 and 1917.

The Eight Fundamental Legal Conceptions

Hohfeld identified eight fundamental legal conceptions. They come in four pairs of correlatives, where one person's position implies the other person's position.

1. Right (Claim) and Duty

Hohfeld preferred to call a right in the strict sense a claim.

2. Privilege (Liberty) and No-right

A privilege, today usually called a liberty, is freedom from a duty. The correlative is a no-right.

3. Power and Liability

A power is the ability to change legal relations. The correlative is a liability, meaning that one's legal position can be changed by another's act.

4. Immunity and Disability

An immunity is protection from someone else's power. The correlative is a disability. The Indian Constitution gives clear examples:

• Article 13(2): the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights. The holders of these rights have an immunity, and the legislature has a disability.
• Article 20(3): an accused person has immunity from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
• Article 361: the President and the Governors are not personally answerable to any court for their official acts, and no criminal case can be started or continued against them while they are in office.

Jural Correlatives and Jural Opposites

Hohfeld also listed jural opposites, where one position means the absence of the other.

Position	Jural correlative (held by the other person)	Jural opposite (absence of the position)
Right (claim)	Duty	No-right
Privilege (liberty)	No-right	Duty
Power	Liability	Disability
Immunity	Disability	Liability

Why Hohfeld's Scheme Is Useful

It breaks a big word into its parts:

• Under Article 19(1)(a), the citizen has a liberty to speak, a claim that the State shall not interfere, and an immunity against laws that go beyond Article 19(2).
• The right to education under Article 21-A is a claim right of the child, with a matching duty on the State.

Hohfeld's scheme is abstract and deals only with two persons at a time, but no tool is more useful for exact legal thinking.

The Obligation to Obey Law and Civil Disobedience

The central question: is there a moral duty to obey the law simply because it is the law?

Socrates in Plato's Crito

The oldest discussion is in Plato's dialogue Crito. Socrates has been sentenced to death in Athens. His friend Crito arranges an escape, but Socrates refuses, for three reasons:

1. Gratitude: he has lived under the laws of Athens all his life and benefited from them, so he owes them gratitude.
2. Implied agreement: by staying in Athens, he has implicitly agreed to obey its laws.
3. Consequences: if everyone disobeyed judgments they disliked, the city would collapse.

Theories of Political Obligation

• Consent theory (Locke): we must obey because we have consented, at least tacitly. Critics reply that most people never consented to anything.
• Fair play theory (Hart and Rawls): if you benefit from a cooperative system in which others obey, fairness requires you to obey too.
• Natural duty (Rawls): Rawls also spoke of a natural duty to support just institutions.
• No general duty (Raz and others): some philosophers deny any general duty to obey the law as such. There are often good reasons to obey, but they come from the content of each law, not from its being law.

Civil Disobedience: Rawls's Definition

• Public: done openly.
• Non-violent.
• Conscientious: it comes from sincere moral conviction.
• Political: it appeals to the community's sense of justice.

Thoreau, Gandhi and Martin Luther King

• Henry David Thoreau, an American writer, refused to pay a tax in protest against slavery and war, and spent a night in jail in 1846. His essay on civil disobedience inspired many, including Mahatma Gandhi.
• Mahatma Gandhi developed satyagraha, meaning insistence on truth, or truth-force. It combines resistance to unjust law with strict non-violence and a willingness to accept the punishment. Gandhi practised it in South Africa, in Champaran in 1917, and in the Salt March of 1930, when he broke the salt law at Dandi. At his sedition trial in 1922 he pleaded guilty and invited the highest penalty, saying that non-violence means willingly accepting the penalty for refusing to cooperate with evil.
• Martin Luther King, in his Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963), drew on Augustine and Aquinas. An unjust law, he said, is one out of harmony with the moral law, and one who breaks it must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

Ambedkar's Warning: "The Grammar of Anarchy"

In his last speech in the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, Dr. Ambedkar said that now that constitutional methods were available, there was no justification for civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. These methods, he said, are nothing but the grammar of anarchy.

Gandhi	Ambedkar
Resisting a colonial government that denied Indians any real voice.	Speaking of a free democracy with courts, elections and a bill of rights.

Peaceful Protest under the Indian Constitution

The Constitution protects peaceful protest under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b).

The Anthropological School

The schools studied so far look at law from the inside, asking what makes a rule valid. The historical, anthropological and sociological approaches step outside the courtroom and study law as a social and economic instrument: where law comes from, how it grows and what it does in society.

Austin claimed that law is the command of a sovereign. Anthropologists tested this claim by living among small tribal societies that had no state, no legislature and no formal courts. They found that these societies certainly had order, rules and ways of settling disputes.

Bronislaw Malinowski: Reciprocity

Malinowski, a Polish-born anthropologist, lived among the Trobriand Islanders near New Guinea during the First World War. In Crime and Custom in Savage Society (1926), he showed that people obeyed their rules not out of fear of a sovereign but because of reciprocity, a web of mutual obligations.

For Malinowski, law is defined by what it does, not by who commands it.

Adamson Hoebel: A Precise Test

With the jurist Karl Llewellyn, Hoebel studied the Cheyenne tribe of North America through their trouble cases, the actual disputes and how they were settled.

Lessons of the Anthropological School

• Law can exist without a state.
• The line between law and custom is blurred.
• Many legal orders can exist side by side: legal pluralism.

Legal Pluralism in India

• Sixth Schedule: autonomous district councils in parts of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram can make laws on matters such as land, inheritance, marriage and social customs, and can run village courts.
• Article 371-A: no Act of Parliament on Naga religious or social practices, customary law and procedure, or land applies to Nagaland unless its Legislative Assembly so resolves.
• Article 13 counts custom and usage having the force of law as "law".

Criticism

Anthropologists sometimes romanticised tribal life, and their knowledge was sometimes used for colonial control, as with the Criminal Tribes Act.

The Historical School

Origin: The Thibaut–Savigny Controversy (1814)

The historical school was born in Germany in a famous quarrel of 1814. After the Napoleonic wars, the jurist Thibaut proposed a single civil code for all of Germany, like Napoleon's code in France. Friedrich Carl von Savigny replied with a pamphlet, On the Vocation of Our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence. His answer was that Germany was not ready.

Savigny and the Volksgeist

• Law is like language: nobody sits down and invents a language; it grows naturally from the life of a people.
• Law grows with the growth of a nation, strengthens with its strength, and dies away when the nation loses its individuality.
• Order of development: first comes custom; then jurists give it technical form; legislation comes last, only to record and systematise what has already grown.

His follower Georg Puchta developed these ideas further.

Two ironies:

1. Savigny was himself a great scholar of Roman law, a foreign law that Germany had borrowed, which hardly fits the idea of a national spirit.
2. Germany enacted a civil code anyway, which came into force in 1900.

Sir Henry Maine

In England, Sir Henry Maine used history differently. In Ancient Law (1861), he compared legal history across societies. The stages of legal development:

1. Judgments of kings believed to be inspired by the gods.
2. Customary law, guarded by an aristocracy.
3. The age of codes, like the Twelve Tables of Rome.

Most societies stop at the age of codes; Maine called them stationary societies. Progressive societies keep developing law through legal fictions, equity and legislation.

Soon after writing this book, Maine served as the Law Member in India from 1862 to 1869, and later wrote about Indian village communities.

From Status to Contract

Status	Contract
Rights and duties fixed by birth: family, caste, sex.	Rights and duties created by one's own free agreement.
Indian example: caste-based occupations.	Indian example: anyone can choose any profession, protected by Article 19(1)(g); untouchability abolished by Article 17.

Reverse movement: the modern world has also moved partly back from contract to status. Labour laws, consumer laws and rent laws now give protection because of a person's status as a worker, consumer or tenant, whatever the contract says.

Criticism of the Historical School

• The Volksgeist is vague, almost mystical. Whose spirit, when a people is divided by class, caste and religion?
• It ignores the power of legislation to reform society.
• It can protect bad customs.

Indian history proves the point: sati was abolished by a regulation of 1829, widow remarriage was legalised in 1856, and the Hindu Code of the 1950s changed Hindu marriage and inheritance over fierce opposition. None of these reforms waited for the Volksgeist.

Continuing Relevance of Savigny

• The Hindu Marriage Act still recognises custom if it has been observed continuously and uniformly for a long time, and is certain, reasonable and not opposed to public policy.
• Every debate on a uniform civil code under Article 44 repeats Savigny's warning that law imposed against a people's living traditions may fail, alongside the reformer's reply that law must sometimes lead society.

The Sociological School: Durkheim, Jhering, Weber and Ehrlich

The nineteenth century brought factories, cities and new social problems, and a new science, sociology, to study them. Sociological jurisprudence asks: what does law actually do in society, and how does it really work?

Emile Durkheim

Durkheim, a French sociologist, published The Division of Labour in Society in 1893. He said law is a visible index of social solidarity, the bond that holds a society together.

Mechanical solidarity	Organic solidarity
Simple societies; people are alike, sharing the same beliefs and work.	Complex modern societies; people are different and specialised, and depend on each other.
Law is mainly repressive (penal law), punishing anyone who offends the shared collective conscience.	Law is mainly restitutive (contract, commercial and administrative law), aiming to restore things to their proper state rather than to punish.

Durkheim also said punishment expresses and reinforces shared moral feelings.

Rudolf von Jhering

Jhering, a German jurist, began as a scholar of legal concepts but turned against what he mocked as a "heaven of concepts" cut off from life.

• In Law as a Means to an End, he declared that purpose is the creator of all law.
• Law exists to protect interests and must balance individual interests with social interests.
• Society moves people through four levers: reward and coercion (appealing to self-interest); duty and love (appealing to our better nature).
• In The Struggle for Law, he argued that people who fight for their rights also fight for the law itself.

Jhering's interest theory deeply influenced Roscoe Pound.

Max Weber

Weber, a German sociologist, asked why people accept authority as legitimate. He found three types of authority:

Type of authority	Basis	Example
Traditional	Custom	A village elder or a caste council
Charismatic	Extraordinary personality of a leader	Gandhi in the freedom struggle
Legal-rational	Impersonal rules and offices	The Constitution and the civil service

Weber also classified legal systems by how they decide:

Type of legal system	How it decides
Formally irrational	Methods beyond reason, like ordeals by fire or water (described in some ancient Indian texts).
Substantively irrational	Each case decided by the judge's sense of fairness, without general rules.
Substantively rational	Follows principles taken from religion, ethics or politics.
Formally rational	Applies general, abstract rules through logical reasoning.

Weber saw the formally rational type as typical of the modern West, because it gives the predictability that markets need. But he also feared the "iron cage" of bureaucracy.

Eugen Ehrlich

Ehrlich taught in Czernowitz, in the Bukovina region of the old Austrian empire. Many ethnic groups lived there, and he noticed that they lived by their own customs, not by the official Austrian Civil Code.

Living law	Norms for decision
Rules that actually govern daily life in families, villages and businesses.	Rules courts use to decide disputes.

Living law is found by observing life directly and studying documents like contracts and business practices.

Criticism: Ehrlich blurs law and custom and underestimates how legislation can change society. The abolition of untouchability shows that state law can challenge the living law, not merely follow it.

Roscoe Pound and the Balancing of Conflicting Interests

Roscoe Pound, an American, lived from 1870 to 1964. He spent only one year at law school and never took a law degree; he also earned a doctorate in botany. He later served as Dean of the Harvard Law School for twenty years.

Against Mechanical Jurisprudence

Pound's problem was mechanical jurisprudence: American judges of his time applied legal rules like a machine, often striking down labour laws in the name of freedom of contract, without looking at social realities. Pound pointed to the gap between law in books and law in action, and argued that law must be studied by its social effects.

Law as Social Engineering

Classification of Interests

1. Individual interests: personality (including bodily safety and reputation), domestic relations, and property and contract.
2. Public interests: the interests of the State as a legal person.
3. Social interests: general security; security of social institutions like family and religion; general morals; conservation of social resources; general progress; and individual human life.

Interests must be compared on the same plane: both sides must be restated at the same level before they are weighed.

Jural Postulates

Pound proposed jural postulates, basic assumptions of a civilised society. People must be able to assume that others:

• will not attack them;
• will act in good faith and with due care;
• will keep dangerous things under control;

and that they can control what they have lawfully acquired.

Pound-Style Balancing in Indian Constitutional Law

Article 19 gives freedoms, and its clauses (2) to (6) allow reasonable restrictions in the interests of society.

Criticism of Pound

• Interests cannot be measured like engineering loads.
• The engineering metaphor treats society like a machine.
• It does not tell us who decides the weight of each interest.
• By focusing on balance, it can overlook conflicts of power between classes and groups, a point pressed by the Marxists.

Modern Sociologists: Selznick and Tamanaha

Philip Selznick: Three Types of Law

Philip Selznick, an American sociologist at Berkeley, founded one of the first centres for the study of law and society. With Philippe Nonet, in 1978, he described three types of law:

Type	Features	Indian illustration
Repressive law	Serves those in power; officials enjoy wide discretion.	Colonial laws like the sedition law and the Rowlatt Act.
Autonomous law	Separates law from politics; stresses rules and fair procedure; keeps courts independent. The classic rule of law.	The Constitution, with an independent judiciary.
Responsive law	Purpose-oriented, open to social needs, invites participation, aims at substantive justice.	Public interest litigation.

Selznick also treated legality as an ideal: the progressive reduction of arbitrariness in law. He thus brought moral ideals back into the sociology of law, building a bridge towards natural law.

Public Interest Litigation as Responsive Law

Criticism: responsive law can weaken predictability and blur the separation of powers.

Brian Tamanaha: Against the Mirror Thesis

Brian Tamanaha, an American legal theorist, worked for some years as a lawyer in Micronesia, in the Pacific, where he saw a Western-style legal system existing alongside strong local customs.

In A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society (2001), he attacked the mirror thesis: the old assumption that law mirrors a society's customs and morals and keeps social order. Often it does not. Colonial and transplanted laws, like the Indian Penal Code of 1860 (now replaced by the B.N.S.), did not simply mirror Indian society.

Socio-legal Positivism

Many normative orders exist, but the Constitution decides their limits.

Modern Sociologists: Tamanaha and Habermas

Tamanaha on the Rule of Law

Thin version	Thick version
Only requires government to act through clear, general, prospective laws.	Also includes rights, dignity and democracy.

In Law as a Means to an End, Tamanaha warned that when everyone treats law merely as a tool to get what they want, the rule of law weakens and law becomes a weapon.

Jurgen Habermas: Legitimacy through Discourse

Jurgen Habermas, a German philosopher who lived from 1929 to 2026, asked: in a modern society where people no longer share one religion or one set of traditions, how can law be legitimate?

Theory	Source of legitimacy
Positivism	Legality is enough.
Natural law	Law must match morality.
Habermas (Between Facts and Norms)	Law is legitimate when it comes from a fair democratic process of discussion.

Key Ideas

• Communicative action aims at genuine understanding, while strategic action only tries to win.
• The lifeworld is the everyday world of family, culture and shared meanings; the system is the world of markets and bureaucracy, driven by money and power. Law stands between the two.
• Law has facticity, because it is enforced, and validity, because it claims to be legitimate.
• Discourse principle: only those norms are valid to which all persons possibly affected could agree in rational discussion.
• Co-originality: human rights and democracy are born together, and each needs the other.

Indian Illustrations

• The Constituent Assembly, which worked for nearly three years and debated the draft Constitution clause by clause, is a fine example of law made through discussion.
• The Right to Information Act, 2005 strengthens public debate.
• The farm laws of 2020, repealed in 2021 after long protests, show what happens when many of those affected feel unheard.

Criticism: Habermas ignores the reality of power, since the poor, women and minorities rarely have an equal voice, a point pressed by the critical and feminist schools.

Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham: The Principle of Utility

Bentham, already known as a positivist, was also a moral reformer. His question: what should the law aim at? His answer: the principle of utility.

His most famous book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), opens by saying that nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. The test of every law is whether it increases happiness and reduces pain. The goal is the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

The Felicific Calculus

Bentham proposed a way to measure pleasure and pain, the felicific calculus, with seven dimensions:

1. Intensity: how strong it is.
2. Duration: how long it lasts.
3. Certainty: how sure it is.
4. Propinquity: how near in time.
5. Fecundity: whether it leads to more pleasure.
6. Purity: whether it is free from pain afterwards.
7. Extent: how many people it affects.

Bentham on Punishment and Reform

For Bentham, all punishment is itself an evil, because it causes pain. It is justified only if it prevents a greater evil, mainly by deterring crime. Punishment should not be inflicted where it is groundless, inefficacious, unprofitable or needless.

His reforming zeal reached far: he wanted prisons redesigned, laws codified, voting rights widened and even animals protected. The question about animals, he wrote, is not whether they can reason or talk, but whether they can suffer.

Utilitarianism and India

James Mill wrote a History of British India; his son John Stuart Mill worked for the East India Company for decades. Historians have shown how utilitarian ideas of clear, rational codes shaped colonial law. Thomas Babington Macaulay's Indian Penal Code of 1860 reflected that ideal of a complete and simple code.

John Stuart Mill

J. S. Mill (1806–1873) reformed utilitarianism. Bentham had counted all pleasures as equal in kind; Mill said some pleasures are higher than others. The pleasures of the mind, of knowledge and art, are superior to mere bodily pleasures. In his words, it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

Mill also formulated the harm principle in On Liberty, and in The Subjection of Women (1869) argued for full legal equality between the sexes.

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism	Rule utilitarianism
Judges each individual act by its consequences.	Judges rules by the consequences of following them generally.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

1. Happiness cannot really be measured and added up.
2. It can justify terrible injustice to individuals.
3. It ignores how happiness is distributed. John Rawls said that utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons.

Law and Economics

Law and economics applies the tools of economics to legal rules. It grew mainly in America from the 1960s through Ronald Coase, Guido Calabresi and, above all, Richard Posner, whose Economic Analysis of Law appeared in 1973. Posner was also a federal appeals judge for many years. Prescribed reading: the chapter The Economic Approach to Law from his later book The Problems of Jurisprudence.

Basic assumptions

• People are rational, try to maximise their own satisfaction and respond to incentives.
• A legal sanction works like a price.

Efficiency as the central value

• Pareto improvement: a change that makes at least one person better off and nobody worse off.
• Kaldor-Hicks efficiency: since Pareto improvements are rare, a change is also called efficient if the winners gain enough that they could, in theory, compensate the losers, even if they do not actually do so.
• Wealth maximisation: Posner argued that law should aim at wealth maximisation, and claimed that the common law, over time, tends to be efficient.

The Coase theorem

The most famous idea of the school, from Coase's 1960 article The Problem of Social Cost.

Negligence and contract

Efficient breach: if breaking a contract and paying full damages leaves one side better off and the other no worse off, the breach should be allowed. India moved the other way in 2018, when an amendment to the Specific Relief Act made specific performance the general rule rather than a discretionary remedy.

Economic reasoning in Indian law

Criticisms

• Ronald Dworkin asked whether wealth is a value at all; a richer society is not automatically a better one.
• Willingness to pay depends on ability to pay, so the approach tends to favour the rich.
• Real people are not always rational, as behavioural economists have shown.
• Some things should not be for sale: Indian law prohibits commercial dealing in human organs, even between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

Theories of Justice: An Overview

Aristotle's corrective justice restores the balance after a wrong; distributive justice decides how benefits and burdens are shared. Modern theories of social justice are mainly about distribution: who should get what, and why? The Preamble promises justice, social, economic and political.

• The libertarian and the Marxist stand at opposite ends.
• The liberal Rawls stands between them.
• Then come the communitarians and the capability approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum.

Libertarian Theory: Robert Nozick

Robert Nozick (1938–2002), Harvard philosopher. His Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) was partly a reply to his Harvard colleague John Rawls.

Side constraints and the minimal state

Nozick asked how much power the state can rightfully have. His answer begins with individual rights:

• Each person owns their own body and abilities.
• Rights act as side constraints that nobody, not even the state, may cross, even to achieve good goals.
• People are ends, not merely means, and may not be used without their consent.

Hence only a minimal (night-watchman) state is justified: one that protects against force, theft and fraud, and enforces contracts. Anything more, like taxing the rich to help the poor, violates rights. Taxing earnings from labour is on a par with forced labour.

The entitlement theory

1. Justice in acquisition: how a person first comes to own something that nobody owned.
2. Justice in transfer: how property passes voluntarily from one person to another, by sale, gift or inheritance.
3. Rectification: correcting past injustices in acquisition or transfer.

A person who acquired property justly, or received it through a just transfer, is entitled to it. A distribution is just if everyone is entitled to what they have.

Criticisms

• Almost no real property has a clean history (conquest, colonial rule, centuries of caste exclusion). Taken seriously, rectification could justify massive redistribution.
• He ignores the role of luck in talents and birth, and of society in creating wealth.

India's constitutional debate with Nozick

• The original Constitution made property a fundamental right.
• Land reforms (abolishing zamindari, land to the tiller) clashed with it, so the First Amendment, 1951 shielded land reform laws from challenge.
• Kesavananda Bharati itself arose out of Kerala's land reform laws.
• The Forty-fourth Amendment, 1978 removed property from the fundamental rights. It is now a constitutional right under Article 300A: no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law.

Marxist, Liberal and Communitarian Theories of Justice

Marx

Karl Marx stands at the other end from Nozick. Capitalism is built on exploitation: workers produce more value than they are paid, and the capitalist keeps the difference. The formal equality of the market hides this. In a future communist society the principle would be: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Article 39 echoes this concern, directing the State to distribute material resources for the common good and to prevent concentration of wealth.

John Rawls: justice as fairness

John Rawls (1921–2002); A Theory of Justice (1971) revived political philosophy. Famous opening claim: justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. His target was utilitarianism, since maximising total happiness could sacrifice some people for others. He wanted a theory respecting each person: justice as fairness.

Original position and veil of ignorance

A thought experiment: people choose the basic principles of society in an original position, behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether they will be rich or poor, man or woman, of which caste or religion, talented or not. So nobody can choose rules that favour themselves.

The two principles

1. Equal liberty: each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with the same liberties for all (speech, conscience, the vote, the rule of law).
2. Social and economic inequalities are allowed only if (a) attached to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity, and (b) they benefit the least advantaged (the difference principle).

Criticisms of Rawls

• Nozick: Rawls said the difference principle treats the distribution of natural talents as a common asset; but a person's talents belong to that person, so Rawls does not take seriously the distinction between persons.
• Feminists: Rawls ignored justice within the family.
• Communitarians attacked his starting point.

Communitarian justice

• Michael Sandel: Rawls imagines an unencumbered self, without community, religion or history, choosing from nowhere; real people are shaped by their communities.
• Alasdair MacIntyre: justice only makes sense within a tradition.
• Michael Walzer (Spheres of Justice): different goods should be distributed by different principles, e.g. medical care by need, public office by merit.

Communitarians say the good of the community comes before abstract rights.

These ideas in Indian law

Reservations under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) resemble Rawls's concern for the least advantaged and fair equality of opportunity.

The Constitution is also communitarian: it protects the cultural and educational rights of minorities (Articles 29 and 30) and the autonomy of tribal communities. The danger of communitarianism appears when a community oppresses its own weaker members.

Amartya Sen and the Idea of Justice

Born 1933 in Santiniketan, West Bengal. As a child he witnessed the Bengal famine of 1943, which shaped his work:

• Famines are often caused not by lack of food but by the collapse of entitlements, people's ability to command food through work, wages or trade.
• No major famine has occurred in a functioning democracy with a relatively free press.
• Nobel Prize in economics, 1998. Prescribed reading discusses his book The Idea of Justice (2009).

Against transcendental institutionalism

Rawls and the social contract tradition try to design a perfectly just society; Sen called this transcendental institutionalism. We need not agree on the perfect society to remove clear injustices, just as one need not identify the tallest mountain in the world to judge which of two other mountains is taller. What is needed is a comparative approach focused on how people's lives actually go.

Niti and nyaya

• Niti: organisational propriety and correct behaviour; rules and institutions.
• Nyaya: realised justice; the world that actually emerges.

A world of good rules can still be unjust in practice. Matsyanyaya is justice in the world of fish, where a big fish freely devours a small fish; preventing matsyanyaya is central to nyaya.

The capability approach

Sen's greatest contribution. Well-being should not be measured only by income or resources but by what a person is actually able to do and to be.

• Functionings: what people do and are, e.g. being nourished, reading, working, taking part in community life.
• Capability: the real freedom to achieve them.

Sen preferred open impartiality, which listens to voices from outside a society (like Adam Smith's impartial spectator), to the closed impartiality of Rawls's original position. He stressed democracy as government by discussion.

Sen's ideas in India

The right to education under Article 21A expands capabilities. Sen, with Jean Dreze, has argued that India's weaknesses in basic health and education hold back its people's freedom.

Martha Nussbaum and the Capability Approach

Nussbaum is sometimes listed under libertarian theories, but she is not a libertarian at all: she is a liberal philosopher who developed the capability approach alongside Sen. An American philosopher born in 1947, she worked with Sen in the late 1980s. Women and Human Development (2000) drew on her work with poor women in India.

Sen and Nussbaum compared

Point	Amartya Sen	Martha Nussbaum
List of capabilities	Refused to give a fixed list; each society should decide through public reasoning	Gave a definite list of ten central human capabilities
What a just society must do	Decide through public reasoning	Secure each capability for every person at least up to a threshold, a minimum below which life is not worthy of human dignity
Focus	Freedom and agency	Human dignity

Ten central human capabilities

1. Life: a life of normal length.
2. Bodily health: including nourishment and shelter.
3. Bodily integrity: freedom of movement, security against violence, choice in matters of reproduction.
4. Senses, imagination and thought: supported by education.
5. Emotions: freedom to love and grieve.
6. Practical reason: forming a view of the good life and planning one's own.
7. Affiliation: living with and towards others, with self-respect and without discrimination.
8. Other species: concern for animals and nature.
9. Play: laughing and enjoying recreation.
10. Control over one's environment: political (participation, free speech) and material (property, work).

In Frontiers of Justice, she argued that Rawls's social contract cannot handle three problems: people with disabilities, justice between nations and justice to animals. Her capability approach tries to include all three.

Nussbaum's list in Indian law

• Life, health and shelter have been read into Article 21; education is protected by Article 21A.
• Concern for other species: Article 51A and the jallikattu cases.
• Disability justice: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Justice in the Indian Legal and Political System

The Constitution follows no single theory:

• It protects liberty, as libertarians want, but refused to make property an absolute fundamental right.
• It aims at fair opportunity and help for the least advantaged, as Rawls wants; Article 39A promises equal justice and free legal aid.
• It respects communities, as communitarians want.
• Through public interest litigation, courts have tried to remove manifest injustices, in Sen's spirit.

Courts now speak of transformative constitutionalism: the Constitution is meant not only to preserve society but to transform it towards justice.

The Realist School

The syllabus calls this law as a judicial pronouncement. The realists said: stop looking only at the rules in the books; look at what courts and officials actually do. That is the real law.

American Realism

Background: formalism

In the late nineteenth century American law was dominated by formalism: law was treated like geometry, and judges were supposed to deduce answers mechanically from rules. In practice this often hid the judges' own views.

Oliver Wendell Holmes

Holmes (1841–1935), the father figure of realism, fought in the American Civil War and served nearly thirty years on the United States Supreme Court.

• The Common Law (1881): the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience.
• The Path of the Law (1897): look at law as a bad man does. He does not care about morality; he only wants to know what will actually happen to him if he acts. Hence law means the prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious.

John Chipman Gray

The law is only what the courts lay down. Statutes, precedents and customs are merely sources of law until a court applies them. He quoted Bishop Benjamin Hoadly: whoever has absolute authority to interpret the law is truly the lawgiver.

Karl Llewellyn

The most colourful realist.

• The Bramble Bush (1930), for law students: what officials do about disputes is the law itself (later softened).
• Some Realism about Realism (1931): realism is a movement, not a school, sharing starting points: law is always changing; law is a means to social ends; traditional rules do not fully explain what courts decide.
• Law jobs every society needs done, like settling and preventing disputes.
• Grand style of judging (openly weighs policy) versus formal style (pretends to be mechanical).

Jerome Frank and Joseph Hutcheson

Rule sceptics	Fact sceptics
Realists like Llewellyn	Jerome Frank (also a rule sceptic)
Doubted that rules decide cases	Greatest uncertainty lies in the trial courts, in finding facts: witnesses err and sometimes lie; judges and juries have prejudices

Jerome Frank, a judge and writer, went further than the rule sceptics. In Law and the Modern Mind (1930), he argued that the belief that law is, or can be made, certain is the basic legal myth, born of a childish longing for a father figure who always knows the answer. Judge Joseph Hutcheson admitted judges often decide by a hunch and then find reasons for it.

The joke that a judgment depends on what the judge had for breakfast is a caricature, but captures the point: judges are human, and law cannot be understood without studying their behaviour.

Hart's reply

• A judge deciding a case is not predicting her own decision; she applies rules she accepts, from the internal point of view.
• Rule scepticism is like a game of scorer's discretion: if the scorer's decisions were the only rule, the game would no longer be cricket.
• Rules guide judges in most cases, even if they leave room for choice at the edges.

Realism applied to India

• Under Article 141, the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts; in a real sense, the law is what the Supreme Court says it is.
• The Court has made major law no text contains: the basic structure doctrine, and the collegium system (created in 1993, defended in 2015 when the Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission).
• Meanings change while texts stay the same: Article 21 did not change between Gopalan (1950) and Maneka Gandhi (1978), yet the law did; Section 377 did not change between Koushal (2013) and Navtej (2018), yet the result reversed.
• In January 2018, four senior judges held an unprecedented press conference about how cases were allocated to benches. A realist would say this shows why the choice of judges matters.

Scandinavian Realism

American realism	Scandinavian realism (Sweden, Denmark)
Practical	Philosophical
Focused on courts	Focused on the psychology of law: what do words like right, duty and binding force really refer to?

Axel Hagerstrom

Founder; philosopher at Uppsala, Sweden.

• Rights and duties do not refer to any real facts; a right cannot be seen or touched.
• Such ideas trace back to ancient magic and religion; the formal rituals of early Roman law were a kind of magic.
• Value judgments ("this is just") are expressions of feeling, not true or false statements.

Karl Olivecrona

Hagerstrom's student; Law as Fact (1939).

• Legal rules are independent imperatives: they look like commands, but no Austinian sovereign actually gives each order.
• People feel bound because of psychological conditioning from childhood to respect the law and the constitution. Force stands in the background but is rarely needed.
• Performative words create legal effects just by being said in the right form, almost like magic spells.

Alf Ross

Danish jurist; On Law and Justice (1958). He combined the American focus on courts with the Scandinavian focus on psychology. Valid law is the set of norms judges actually feel bound by and use in deciding cases; a statement about valid law is really a prediction of how courts will decide, based on the ideas judges actually hold.

Tu-Tu

In this witty essay Ross described an imaginary tribe on imaginary islands whose names, spelled backwards, read illusion and fiction. A man who meets his mother-in-law, or eats food meant for the chief, becomes tu-tu and must undergo purification. Tu-tu means nothing in itself; it links certain facts to certain consequences. Legal words like ownership work the same way.

Ross on justice: invoking justice is like banging on the table, an emotional expression that turns a demand into an absolute claim. Meaningfully, justice only means applying the rules correctly and consistently.

Vilhelm Lundstedt

Went further, rejecting rights and duties as meaningless; law should be guided only by what actually promotes social welfare.

The two realisms compared

Both reject metaphysics and study law as fact.

Point	American realism	Scandinavian realism
Studies	Behaviour of judges and courts	Psychology of legal ideas
Character	Practical, reform-minded	Philosophical
Prediction	Holmes predicts what courts will do	Ross predicts it too, but explains it through the ideology judges feel bound by

Criticisms of realism

• Hart: reducing rules to feelings or predictions misses the internal point of view; a judge who says a rule is binding is not describing her feelings.
• The value scepticism of Hagerstrom and Ross is dangerous: if justice is only banging on the table, how can an evil law be condemned?

Still, realism stripped away the mystery around law and directed attention to what actually happens in courts and in people's minds.

Marxist Jurisprudence

Here law is studied as an instrument of dominance. The first kind of dominance examined is economic, and the thinker behind it is Karl Marx.

The Marxist school (I): Karl Marx

Karl Marx (1818–1883) studied law as a young man in Germany before turning to philosophy and economics. With his friend Friedrich Engels he wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848). His great work, Capital, appeared from 1867.

Historical materialism

Marx's central idea is historical materialism. Every society has an economic base, made up of:

• Forces of production: land, tools, factories.
• Relations of production: who owns them and who works for whom.

On this base stands a superstructure of law, politics, religion and ideas. The base shapes the superstructure. In Marx's words, it is not people's consciousness that determines their social being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.

Law is not neutral

Law grows out of economic relations and serves the class that owns the means of production. The Manifesto declares that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles: freeman and slave, lord and serf, and in modern times, capitalist and worker. It calls the government of the modern state a committee for managing the common affairs of the capitalist class.

Law as ideology

Law also works as ideology. It makes class interests look like universal principles.

Engels's warning against a crude reading

In a letter of 1890, Engels explained that the economic factor is the determining element only in the last instance. It is not the only factor, and law and politics can react back upon the economy.

The withering away of the state

Marx predicted that the workers would overthrow capitalism and set up a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat. Then, in a classless communist society, the state would no longer be needed as an instrument of class rule. In Engels's phrase, the state is not abolished, it withers away, and with it, law as we know it.

Indian illustrations

• The colonial Permanent Settlement of 1793 created a powerful class of landlords, the zamindars, through law.
• Bonded labour, where a debt binds a worker to a master for years, was dressed up as a private agreement. Parliament abolished it by the Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976.

The Marxist school (II): later Marxist theories

Soviet legal theory: Pashukanis and Vyshinsky

After the Russian Revolution, Marxist legal theory faced a real test.

• Evgeny Pashukanis, a Soviet jurist, developed the commodity form theory of law. Law arises from the exchange of commodities. The legal subject, the abstract person with rights who makes contracts, mirrors the owner of goods in the market. So law is essentially a capitalist form and would wither away under communism.
• Stalin's state needed strong law, not withering law. Pashukanis was denounced and, in 1937, executed.
• His rival, Andrei Vyshinsky, redefined socialist law as the will of the working class, enforced by the state. Law did not wither away; it grew stronger.

Western Marxists

• Karl Renner (later President of Austria): a legal institution like property can keep its form while its social function changes, from protecting a craftsman's workshop to giving a capitalist control over thousands of workers' lives.
• Antonio Gramsci (imprisoned by the Italian fascists): introduced hegemony. The ruling class rules not only by force but by consent, shaping common sense through culture, education, religion and law.
• Louis Althusser: distinguished the repressive state apparatus (police, courts, prisons) from ideological state apparatuses (schools, families, media). Law belongs to both.

E. P. Thompson: a vital correction

The historian E. P. Thompson, in Whigs and Hunters (1975), studied the Black Act, a harsh eighteenth-century English law that made many minor offences punishable by death. He agreed that the law served the ruling class. But he found that, to work, law must appear just, and so it must sometimes actually be just, which also restrains the rulers. He concluded that the rule of law is an unqualified human good. This is a vital correction to crude Marxism.

Criticisms of Marxism

• It reduces law too much to economics.
• The prediction that law would wither away failed completely, and states that claimed to follow Marx often became tyrannies.
• It neglects forms of dominance that are not about class, such as gender, race and caste.

Ambedkar on caste and class

The last criticism matters greatly in India. Dr. Ambedkar argued that caste is not merely a division of labour, but a division of labourers, graded one above another. So class analysis alone cannot explain Indian inequality. In his essay Buddha or Karl Marx, he shared Marx's goal of ending exploitation but rejected violence and dictatorship as the means.

Marxist ideas and the Indian Constitution

• The Forty-second Amendment (1976) added the word "socialist" to the Preamble.
• The directive principles in Articles 39 and 43 ask the State to prevent the concentration of wealth and to secure a living wage for workers.
• Land reforms, the nationalisation of banks (1969) and the abolition of the privy purses of former princes (1971) reflect this spirit.
• Some scholars read India's long struggle over property, between Parliament and the courts, as a class struggle carried on through law. One need not agree, but should be able to explain that reading.

Critical Legal Studies and Post-Modernism

The Marxists saw law as a tool of economic dominance. The thinkers in this part widen the lens: they see law as a tool of social, political and ideological dominance.

The Critical Legal Studies movement

Critical Legal Studies (CLS) began in America in 1977, at a conference at the University of Wisconsin. Its founders, law teachers such as Duncan Kennedy, Roberto Unger and Mark Tushnet, had grown up with the civil rights movement and the protests against the Vietnam War, and drew on both realism and Marxism.

First key idea: indeterminacy

For almost every legal rule there is a counter-rule; for every principle, an opposite principle. Contract law values freedom of contract, but also protects the weaker party. Duncan Kennedy showed that private law is torn between individualism (each person looking after their own interests) and altruism (concern for others). Since the materials point both ways, the law does not determine the outcome. The judge chooses, and the choice is political.

Second key idea: legitimation

Law makes existing hierarchies of wealth, race and gender look natural, necessary and fair. People accept inequality because it comes dressed in the neutral language of law. Kennedy even argued that legal education itself trains students to accept hierarchy.

The critique of rights, and the reply

Some in the movement criticised rights. Tushnet argued that rights talk is unstable and can distract people from real political struggle. Scholars of race, such as Patricia Williams, replied strongly: for people who were long denied rights, rights are not an illusion but a hard-won source of dignity and power.

How CLS differs from its parents

Compared with	Their position	CLS position
Realists	Wanted to improve law with social science	The whole liberal legal order is ideological
Classical Marxists	Reduce everything to economics	Do not reduce everything to economics

Criticism: the movement exaggerates indeterminacy, since most cases are easy, and offers little in place of what it criticises.

Roberto Unger

Roberto Mangabeira Unger, born in Brazil in 1947, is a professor at Harvard Law School and has also served as a government minister in Brazil. His article The Critical Legal Studies Movement (1983) is the movement's best-known statement.

The two beliefs Unger attacked

• Formalism: the belief that legal reasoning is a distinct method of justification, clearly separate from open political and ideological argument.
• Objectivism: the belief that the legal materials, or existing institutions, reflect a necessary and rational order; for instance, that a market economy or a democracy can only take the form it has today.

Both beliefs, said Unger, are false.

False Necessity

In False Necessity (1987), Unger argued that social arrangements are not natural or necessary. People made them, and people can remake them. He proposed:

• Deviationist doctrine: using legal argument to push the law towards its own ideals.
• Empowered democracy: institutions open to constant revision.
• Destabilisation rights: rights to break open institutions and hierarchies that have become entrenched.

Indian parallels

The idea that caste hierarchy is man-made and can be dismantled lies behind Article 17 and Dr. Ambedkar's whole constitutional project. Some public interest cases work almost like destabilisation rights.

Critics find Unger utopian, but his message is simple: what exists is not the only thing that is possible.

Post-modernism (I): Lyotard and Foucault

Modernity first

Since the Enlightenment, modern thought believed in reason, science, progress and universal truths, and built grand theories to explain everything. In law this produced the ideals of neutral rules, objective reasoning and universal rights. Post-modernism is sceptical of all this.

Jean-Francois Lyotard

The French philosopher Lyotard, in The Postmodern Condition (1979), described post-modernism as incredulity towards metanarratives: disbelief in grand stories like the steady march of reason or the liberation of humanity. Instead, there are many smaller stories, each with its own rules.

Michel Foucault

Foucault was the most influential post-modern thinker for law. His book Discipline and Punish (1975) opens with a gruesome public execution in Paris in 1757, and then shows a strict timetable for young prisoners drawn up about eighty years later. Punishment moved from torturing the body to disciplining the mind.

Foucault's model of modern power was Bentham's Panopticon, a prison designed so that inmates can be watched at any moment from a central tower without knowing when, so they learn to watch themselves. The irony: the great positivist reformer gave Foucault his image of modern control.

Indian illustrations

• Under the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, the colonial government declared entire communities to be born criminals, using so-called expert knowledge. After independence the Act was repealed in 1952 and these communities were denotified, but the stigma lasted much longer.
• A modern example is surveillance.

Post-modernism (II): Derrida and the critics

Jacques Derrida: deconstruction

Derrida, a French philosopher born in Algeria, gave us deconstruction. Texts do not have one fixed meaning. They depend on pairs of opposites, such as man and woman, reason and emotion, public and private, in which one side is quietly treated as superior. Deconstruction brings these hidden hierarchies to light.

In his lecture Force of Law, Derrida argued that every legal order was founded by an act of force that was, at that moment, neither legal nor illegal, because there was no law yet to judge it. So law can always be deconstructed. But justice cannot be: justice is an endless demand to respond to each unique person and case, which no rule can fully capture.

Criticisms of post-modernism

• If there is no objective truth, how can we say that any law is unjust?
• Its language is often obscure.
• It can lead to political paralysis.
• Habermas said it uses reason to attack reason.

Post-modern insights in Indian law

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was criticised for requiring a certificate from a District Magistrate. In 2026 an amendment went further: it removed the right to a self-perceived gender identity and required a medical board's recommendation before a certificate is issued. It has been challenged in the Supreme Court as a retreat from the NALSA judgment, and the Court has refused to stay it.

CLS and post-modernism in the light of Indian law, society and politics

Indeterminacy in India

• Article 21 changed from Gopalan to Maneka Gandhi.
• Section 377 moved from Koushal to Navtej.
• Sedition is another example (below).

The B.N.S. (2023) dropped the word "sedition", but its Section 152 punishes acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, which critics say could be used in similar ways.

Legitimation in India

• Anatole France mocked the majestic equality of the law, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges.
• In India, a large majority of prisoners are undertrials, many unable to afford bail or a good lawyer.
• Proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Courts are mainly in English under Article 348, a language most Indians do not speak.
• Marc Galanter explained why the haves come out ahead: repeat players such as big companies and the government can plan and wait, while one-time litigants cannot.

The Indian answer to the critics

Rights have been powerful tools for the marginalised. Dr. Ambedkar chose constitutional rights, not their rejection, as the path to dignity, and public interest litigation opened the courts to the poor.

Feminist Jurisprudence

Feminist jurisprudence turns to the voice that law ignored for the longest time: the voice of women. The syllabus calls this gender dominance. Feminist jurisprudence examines how law has been made largely by men, from the viewpoint of men, and how it affects women and people of other genders.

Law's maleness was once open and official. In 1916 the Calcutta High Court refused to enrol Regina Guha, a law graduate, as a pleader because she was a woman. Only in 1923 did a law allow women to practise law in India.

Strands of feminist legal thought

Liberal feminism

Mary Wollstonecraft (1792) and John Stuart Mill in The Subjection of Women argued that women are as rational as men and deserve the same rights: to vote, own property, study and work. Its goal is formal equality. Critics asked: equal to whom? If the standard is a male worker, what about pregnancy? Sameness can make men the measure of everything.

Cultural feminism

Women may differ from men, and the difference deserves respect. Carol Gilligan, in In a Different Voice (1982), argued that women often reason through an ethic of care, focused on relationships, while the law values an ethic of justice, focused on abstract rights. Robin West added that legal theory imagines people as separate individuals, while many women's lives are shaped by connection. Critics warned that this risks reviving old stereotypes.

Radical feminism

Led by Catharine MacKinnon: the real issue is not difference but dominance. Gender is a hierarchy of power; men have defined what counts as normal, and law has built that power into itself. MacKinnon helped establish that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. Radical feminists also attacked the line between public and private: by calling the home private, law long ignored domestic violence and marital rape. The women's movement's slogan: the personal is political.

Other strands

• Post-modern feminism (Judith Butler): gender is not a fixed essence but is performed through repeated acts, which opened the way for queer theory.
• Intersectionality (Kimberle Crenshaw): in one American case, black women who claimed discrimination at a car company failed, because the court would look at race and sex only separately, and black women fell between the two.
• Postcolonial feminism (Chandra Talpade Mohanty): criticised Western feminists for portraying women of the global South only as passive victims.

In India intersectionality is essential: a Dalit woman, a tribal woman, a Muslim woman or a disabled woman may face several forms of dominance at once.

Strand	Main thinkers	Core idea
Liberal	Wollstonecraft, Mill	Same rights; formal equality (criticised: equal to whom?)
Cultural	Gilligan, Robin West	Difference deserves respect; ethic of care (criticised: risks reviving stereotypes)
Radical	MacKinnon	Dominance, not difference; the personal is political
Post-modern	Judith Butler	Gender is performed through repeated acts
Intersectional	Kimberle Crenshaw	Several forms of discrimination overlap
Postcolonial	Chandra Talpade Mohanty	Women of the global South are not merely passive victims

Feminist jurisprudence and gender justice in India

Constitutional commitment

• Article 14: equality.
• Article 15(1): no discrimination on grounds of sex; Article 15(3): special provisions for women and children.
• Article 39: equal pay for equal work for men and women.
• Article 42: maternity relief.
• Article 51A: citizens to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.
• Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth Amendments (1992): one-third of seats in panchayats and municipalities reserved for women.
• Hundred and Sixth Amendment (2023): one-third reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, to take effect after the next delimitation.

Struggle in the courts: custodial rape and harassment

Personal laws

Rejecting paternalism

Courts have rejected paternalism: laws that restrict women in the name of protecting them.

Sexual autonomy: a mixed picture

After the Delhi gang rape of 2012, the Justice Verma Committee recommended removing the marital rape exception altogether, but this was not accepted. Even the B.N.S. keeps the exception for wives who are not under eighteen, and challenges to it have been pending before the Supreme Court.

For gender minorities, the Court recognised transgender identity in the National Legal Services Authority case and decriminalised same-sex relations in Navtej.

Law in books and law in action

Recall Pound's gap between law in books and law in action. Dowry is banned and domestic violence is a legal wrong, yet both persist. Feminist jurisprudence asks us to look not only at what the law says, but at how it actually works in women's lives.

Indian Legal and Constitutional Connections

The Indian Constitution is a meeting place of almost every school of jurisprudence:

• Positivist: a written, enacted document; Articles 13, 245 and 141 tell us which rules count as law.
• Kelsen and Hart: a Kelsenian hierarchy of norms, and a Hartian rule of recognition that judges have developed in practice, as the basic structure shows.
• Natural law: in Part III.
• Fuller's inner morality: in the rule against retrospective criminal laws.
• Dworkin: its judges reason from principles.
• Dharma: in Article 51A.
• Historical school: respects custom and personal law while reforming them.
• Pound: balances interests under Article 19.
• Theories of justice: promises justice, social, economic and political, and reserves opportunities for the least advantaged.
• Feminist and critical insights: absorbed through cases like Vishaka and the transgender rights judgment.

The journey of Article 21

1. Gopalan (1950): read Article 21 as a positivist would. Law means enacted law, and courts cannot ask whether it is fair.
2. A.D.M. Jabalpur (1976): that reasoning reached its extreme. With the remedy suspended, the right to life seemed to disappear. Only Justice Khanna, in dissent, spoke the language of natural law.
3. Maneka Gandhi (1978): procedure must be fair, just and reasonable, and Articles 14, 19 and 21 must be read together. That was Fuller's inner morality, and more.
4. Later years: the Court read into Article 21 the rights to dignity, livelihood, speedy trial, health, education and a clean environment, a sociological and capability-based expansion that Pound, Sen and Nussbaum would recognise.
5. Puttaswamy (2017): declared privacy a fundamental right, called life and liberty inherent rights, and buried A.D.M. Jabalpur.
6. Navtej and Joseph Shine (2018): used dignity and constitutional morality to protect sexual autonomy, answering questions that Hart, Devlin and the feminists had debated.

Where does sovereignty lie in India?

• Berubari: even giving away territory needs a constitutional amendment.
• Kesavananda: even the amending power cannot destroy the basic structure.
• The Preamble: the Constitution was given by the people to themselves.

Final Revision and Comparative Understanding

One rule, many lenses

Thinker	Why the rule is law, or the question asked of it
Austin	The sovereign commanded it, with a sanction
Kelsen	A higher norm authorises it, ending in the Grundnorm
Hart	It is valid under the rule of recognition that officials accept
Aquinas and Finnis	Does it serve the common good?
Fuller	Was it published, clear and prospective?
Dworkin	What does the best interpretation of our legal practice require?
Savigny	Does it fit the people's customs?
Ehrlich	Do people actually follow it?
Pound	How does it balance competing interests?
Bentham	Does it increase happiness?
Posner	Is it efficient?
Holmes	What will the court actually do?
Ross	Do judges feel bound to apply it?
Marx	Which class does it serve?
Critical scholars	What does it hide?
Feminists	How does it affect women?

Comparisons most often asked in exams

Pair	First view	Second view
Austin v. Hart	Commands and habits	Rules and acceptance
Austin v. Kelsen	A sovereign person	A chain of norms
Kelsen v. Hart	A presupposed Grundnorm	A rule of recognition that exists as a social fact
Hart v. Fuller	Law and morality separate	Law with an inner morality
Hart v. Dworkin	Rules and discretion	Principles and one right answer
Dworkin v. Raz	Law as interpretation	Law identified by its sources
Hart v. Devlin	The harm principle	Enforcement of shared morality
Bentham v. Savigny	Codification	Organic growth of law
Ehrlich v. Pound	The living law of society	Law as a tool of social engineering
American v. Scandinavian realism	The behaviour of courts	The psychology of legal ideas
Nozick v. Rawls	Entitlement and the minimal state	Fairness and the least advantaged
Rawls v. Sen	Perfectly just institutions	Removal of real injustice
Sen v. Nussbaum	An open idea of capability	A definite list of ten central capabilities with a threshold
Marxism v. CLS	Economic dominance	Ideological dominance
Liberal v. radical feminism	Equality of treatment	The end of dominance

Structure for written answers

1. Begin with a clear definition in one or two sentences.
2. Introduce the thinker and the problem the theory was answering.
3. Explain the main ideas step by step.
4. Give an everyday example and an Indian case.
5. Compare with at least one rival theory.
6. State the main criticisms.
7. End with your own balanced conclusion.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Do not say that positivists support unjust laws.
• Do not confuse the Grundnorm with the Constitution itself.
• Do not mix up Hart's primary and secondary rules with Kelsen's primary and secondary norms, which are about duties and sanctions.
• Do not call Nussbaum a libertarian.
• Do not treat any single theory as the complete truth.

Quick revision

• Each school sees a part of law clearly and misses something else.
• The positivists see its structure.
• The natural lawyers see its moral purpose.
• The sociologists see its social life.
• The realists see the judges.
• The critical schools see its hidden power.
• Same rule, many lenses: each thinker asks a different question of the same law.
• A good lawyer, and a good citizen, learns to look through all these lenses.