List of top Legal Studies Questions on Jurisprudence asked in CLAT PG

Jurisprudence progresses as well as regresses. The late nineteenth-century analysis of rights which Hohfeld brought to completion makes a notable advance in clarity. But rights of each of the four Hohfeldian types are spoken of by Aquinas, as well as by the civilian lawyers of his age (and indeed of earlier ages). The word ‘right’ translates the Latin ius or jus, the root of the word’s ‘justice’, ‘jurist’, ‘juridical’, and ‘jurisprudence’. Though Aquinas does not use the plural forms of the word ius as often as we use the plural ‘rights’, it is a sheer mistake to claim, as some have, that he lacked or repudiated the concept of rights in the modern sense, in which a right is ‘subjective’ in the sense of belonging to someone (the
subject of the right). When he defines justice as the steady willingness to give to others what is theirs, Aquinas immediately goes on to treat that phrase as synonymous with their right (ius suum); hence he treats a right/rights (ius/iura) as subjective. He also uses the word to speak of ‘objective’ right, that is, what interpersonal action or relationship is right-morally or legally, depending upon the context. Hobbes, who got inspired much in Benthamite and Austinian positivism, spurned the classical juristic tradition and defined ‘right’ as liberty in the sense of sheer absence of duty. So, people have most rights in the state of nature where they have no duties. This move exemplifies regression in legal and,
more generally, in political and moral philosophy. Fortunately, the mistake is quite obvious. If no one has any duties to or in respect of others, it will be more accurate to say that no one has any rights at all. For everyone, in such a state of affairs, is subject to being destroyed or abused by everyone and anyone else, and everyone’s actions can be impeded as much as any person or group cares, and is able, to arrange. The truth is that the concept of a right makes little sense save as (the Hohfeldian claim-right) a correlative of someone else’s duty, or (the Hohfeldian liberty) as protected by someone else’s duty of non-interference, or (the Hohfeldian power) as promoted by the duty of officials and others to recognize and
effectuate one’s acts-in-the-law (or their ethical counterparts), or (the Hohfeldian immunity) as protected by a similar duty of officials and others not to recognize another’s juridical acts as it purportedly bears on my position.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, Edited by Jules L. Coleman, Kenneth Einar Himma, and Scott J. Shapiro)

As new situations arise; the law has to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot afford to remain static. It should keep pace with changing socio-economic norms. We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for that matter in any other foreign country. We no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order. We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build up our own jurisprudence and we cannot countenance an argument that merely because the new law does not recognize the rule of strict and absolute liability, we cannot have it too. Court should not feel inhibited by this rule merely because the new law does not recognise the rule of strict and absolute liability. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety. The court discussed the scope of the Epistolary jurisdiction and reiterated that procedure being merely a handmaid of justice should not stand in the way to access to justice.
(Extracted with edits from M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395)

For a principle to be acceptable as a law, Lon Fuller states that it must be measured in terms of the following eight standards: (1) The principle must be expounded in a manner so that it can be generally applied. A pattern less ad hoc system of law lacks the desired “internal morality” which legal principles should possess. This proposition is comparable to the often-read statement that our government is a government of laws rather than men. (2) The mandates of the law must be communicated to the people to whom they are directed. (3) Newly announced principles of law, except on rare occasions, should be applied only in a prospective manner. Retroactive application of changes in prescribed norms, subject to the presence of compelling extenuating circumstances, should be avoided. (4) Standards of action and inaction should be clearly stated. Fuller concedes that the lawmaker cannot specify with absolute clarity exactly what is demanded of each individual in every instance when the law may affect him. He does, however, assert that the duty to clarify the law should be delegated to the enforcement bodies only to the extent that such action is required by the environment in which the law must operate. (5) Arguing that respect for the law calls for consistency, Fuller maintains that the originators of laws should take great pains to see that the body of law is as free as possible from contradictory mandates, (6) Emphasizing that law is tied to the capabilities of human beings, Fuller insists that those who prescribe the norms required of individuals must refrain from imposing impossible standards of action or inaction. A stated norm which demands an absurd course of action would violate Fuller’s idea of the “internal morality of law.” (7) While stare decisis, of recent date, has been viewed by some, if not many people, as a barrier on the pathways to needed change, Fuller is of the opinion that abiding by previously announced norms is desirable in and of itself. He finds that frequency of change, by its very nature, tends to have a deleterious impact upon the persons who are subjected to an abrupt alteration of the requirements which the law imposes upon them. (8) The student of American history is familiar with Andrew Jackson’s assertion to the effect that while the Supreme Court might render a judgment, it lacked the means by which it might be implemented.
[Extracted from Tucker, Edwin W. (1965) “The Morality of Law, by Lon L. Fuller,” Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 40: Iss. 2, Article5.]

It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, as section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence if the accused at the time of doing that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception, under section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused; and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under section 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of “shall presume” in section 4 thereof, the court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudent man would act upon them. The accused has to satisfy the standard of a “prudent man”. If the material placed before the court, such as, oral and documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test of “prudent man”, the accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the burden under section 105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a Judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. If the Judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity.
[Extract from Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563, para 5].

Within the intricate tapestry of legal philosophy, the concept of legal positivism stands as a highly debated and intricate doctrine. Legal positivism posits that the validity and authority of law are determined solely by the source from which it originates. In other words, if a rule is created by a recognized authority, it is considered legally valid, regardless of its moral or ethical implications. Legal positivism places significant emphasis on the distinction between law as it is and law as it ought to be, focusing on the former. One of the most renowned proponents of legal positivism, H.L.A. Hart, argued that a legal system is composed of primary and secondary rules. Primary rules are those that govern human behavior, such as criminal laws or contractual obligations. Secondary rules, on the other hand, are rules that dictate how primary rules should be created, changed, or terminated. These secondary rules include the rule of recognition, the rule of change, and the rule of adjudication.
The rule of recognition, according to Hart, is the fundamental rule that identifies the authoritative source of law within a legal system. It is what legal officials use to determine, which rules are legally valid. This rule acts as a kind of social norm among legal professionals, signaling that certain rules have legal status. For example, in a democracy, the rule of recognition may point to the Constitution as the highest source of legal authority.
Critics of legal positivism argue that this philosophy risks legitimizing immoral or unjust laws if they are enacted through the proper procedures. They assert that the law should be grounded in moral or ethical principles, and its validity should be assessed based on its conformity to these principles.
Natural law theory, in contrast to legal positivism, argues that law should be guided by moral or ethical principles. According to natural law theory, there is a higher, moral law that transcends man-made laws. This moral law, proponents argue, should be the basis for evaluating the validity of legal norms
The debate between legal positivism and natural law theory raises profound questions about the nature and purpose of law. Does the source of law, as posited by legal positivism, determine its validity, or should law be grounded in moral or ethical principles, as argued by natural law theorists? These questions challenge the very foundation of legal philosophy and the role of law in society.

In the realm of jurisprudence, the interplay between morality and legality is a complex and often contentious issue. While laws are designed to regulate human behavior and maintain social order, they may not always align with personal or societal moral values. This leads to a fundamental question: Should laws be based on moral principles, and if so, to what extent?
One school of thought, known as legal moralism, asserts that the law should enforce moral values and prohibit actions that are considered immoral by society. Proponents argue that certain actions, such as murder or theft, are inherently wrong and that the law should reflect and enforce these moral judgments
However, legal moralism is not without its critics. They argue that enforcing moral values through the law can be overly intrusive, infringing on individual autonomy and diversity of thought. They contend that the law’s primary role is to protect individual rights and maintain social order, not to impose moral values.
On the other hand, the principle of legal neutrality posits that the law should remain neutral on matters of morality. This perspective asserts that the law’s primary function is to protect individual rights and maintain order, and it should not be concerned with enforcing particular moral values. Legal neutrality allows for a more pluralistic and diverse society where individuals are free to live in accordance with their own moral values, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
Nevertheless, this perspective raises challenging questions. If the law remains morally neutral, it may tolerate actions that many find morally repugnant, such as hate speech or discrimination. This leads to a moral dilemma—whether it is morally justifiable for the law to allow such actions in the name of freedom and neutrality
These philosophical debates highlight the complexity of balancing morality and legality within a legal system. They challenge us to consider the appropriate role of the law in shaping and reflecting societal values.

The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past, it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).
Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is not questioned.
If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry as observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [Civil Appeal No. 990/68, decided on 15-07- 1968], the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, decided on April 29, 1969, hereafter ‘A.K. Kraipak’].

There are two different ways we can think about law and law-making. To put it crudely: we can think of law as partisan, as nothing more than the expression in legislative terms of the particular ideology or policies of a political party; or we can think of law as neutral, as something that stands above party politics, at least in the sense that once passed it ought to command the obedience and respect of everyone...
[Political] Parties compete for control of Parliament because they want their values, their ideology, and their programme to be reflected in the law of the land… …no-one doubts that the Commons stage is the most important, and the reason surely is that the House of Commons is the institution most subject to popular control. If laws passed by one Parliament turn out to be unpopular, the electorate can install a majority that is sworn to repeal them. That is what elections and representative politics are all about. On this model, it is simply fatuous to pretend that law is somehow ‘above’ politics. Maybe there are some laws on which everyone agrees, no matter what their ideology. Everyone agrees there should be a law against murder, for example, and that there should be basic rules of the road. But as soon as we turn to the fine print, it is surprisingly difficult to find a consensus on the detail of any legislative provision. And in many cases, even the fundamental principles are the subject of fierce political dispute… What this model stresses, then, is that legislative attitudes are necessarily partisan attitudes. So long as there is tight party discipline in Parliament, legislative decisions will be taken on the basis of the ideology of the leadership of the party in power. The partisan model stresses the legitimacy of these attitudes and this form of decision-making…
By contrast, what I call ‘the neutral model’ enjoins a certain respect for law and lawmaking which goes beyond purely partisan views. According to this model there is something special about law, and it carries with it special non-partisan responsibilities. Proponents of the neutral model do not deny that laws are made by party politicians, and that legislation is often motivated by disputed values and ideologies… …their view is that when a law is being made, something solemn is being decided in Parliament in the name of the whole society. Though it is reasonable for bills to be proposed and debated along partisan lines, the decision procedures of Parliament are designed to indicate not merely which is the stronger party, but what is to be the view of society as a whole on some matter for the time being… …the result, the outcome, is a decision of the House as a whole: it is, literally, an act of Parliament, not merely an act of the Conservative party or an act of the Labour party, whichever commands the majority. By virtue of the parliamentary process, it transcends partisan politics, and presents itself as a norm enacted for and on behalf of the entire community…
…on the neutral model, the social function idea tends to receive more emphasis than the political provenance. For this reason, the neutral model often focuses on aspects of the legal system that do not involve explicitly partisan initiatives. It focuses on those areas of law where there is something approaching unanimity (such as the fundamental principles of the criminal law and some of the basic tenets of private law). And it focuses particularly on ‘the common law’... ...when common law doctrine strikes out in new directions, the change is usually presented as the product of reasoning which is independent of politics, as though there were an evolving ‘logic’ of the law which could proceed untainted by partisan values or ideology.
[Excerpted, with edits, from The Law, by Jeremy Waldron, Routledge, Oxon, 1990.]

A thought-provoking book titled The Morality of Law by Lon L. Fuller on moral philosophy insists on a distinction between “morality of aspiration” and “morality of duty”. From the view of the morality of aspiration, human conduct does not bear on mandatory rules but on conceptions of the “Good Life”, of “what beseems a human being functioning at his best to human capacities”. Because no law can compel a man to live up to the excellence of which he is capable. But for workable standards of judgment, the morality of duty lays down the basic rules without which an ordered society directed towards certain specific goals must fail of its mark.

Because the duty ties it very closely to what is “rationally discoverable” and “objective”, as contrasted with the morality of aspiration based on subjectivism. However, moralists may differ as to what range of conduct should fall within the respective spheres of duty and the morality of aspirations. “When we are passing a judgment of moral duty, it seems absurd to say that such a duty can in some way flow directly from knowledge of a situation of fact.” Due to the fact that before we conclude “that a duty ought to exist”, however well we may understand the facts, by the close connection between understanding a person's ideals, approval and disapproval, it is clear that duties are not purely matters of preference.

Does this mean that duties are rationally discoverable, and a matter of choice, even if not of “ineffable preference”? Presumably not, since when we pass a moral judgment of duty, it “ought” to exist. It is necessary to distinguish between the accepted morality of a social group and the personal morality of individuals. “Duty” may appear in all of these, but the satisfaction is very often a matter of degree varying from situation to situation.

The rule of a morality of duty is necessary for social living. The morality of aspiration provides a general idea of the perfection we ought to acquire. If we consider the whole range of moral issues, we may imagine a yardstick which begins at the bottom with the most obvious demands of social living and extends upward to the highest reaches of human aspirations. Somewhere along this scale an invisible pointer marks the dividing line where the pressure of duty leaves off and the challenge of excellence begins.

The whole field of moral argument is an undeclared war over the location of this pointer. Those we regard as being moralistic are always trying to inch the pointer upward so as to expand the area of duty, bludgeoning us into a belief that we are duty bound to embrace this pattern of human conduct, instead of making us realize a pattern of life they consider worthy of human nature.

Both lawmen and laymen often ask, ``What is the law applicable to a given set of facts?'' The answers to this question differ depending upon the specific jurisdiction to which the given set of facts is linked. Contrary to this, scholars and students of jurisprudence are likely to ask the general question, viz ``What is Law?''. This question on the philosophy and nature of law supposes that law is a distinctive social-political phenomenon with universal characteristics that can be perceived through philosophical analysis. In such a study, the assumption is that law possesses some universal characteristics.

An analysis of the philosophy of law can be done for different reasons. Apart from a purely intellectual interest in understanding this complex phenomenon known as law, scholars also study the same as a normative social practice that purports to guide human behaviour, giving rise to reasons for action. The primary challenge of the branch of scholarship known as jurisprudence is based on this ``normative, reason-giving aspect of law''. At the same time, we must understand that law is not the only normative realm in any given society. It is one of the many normative standards such as morality, religion, customs and usages, etiquette, self-regulatory standards within a family or corporation, etc. So, it is also essential that we study law on the differences and similarities of the same with these normative standards.

While discerning these connections and contradictions, legal theories often study the content of the norm apart from giving importance to the source. Generally, theoretical studies on the content such as natural lawyers emphasize values such as fairness, justice, liberty, etc., as qualifications for the norms to be called laws. They have argued that laws must be in tune with certain principles of inner morality, such as that laws be general, public, prospective, coherent, clear, stable, and practicable, which are indispensable to law-making. Whereas theories that give prominence to the sources of the norm, such as enactment/command by political institution/authority, do not always emphasize the content.

Such philosophical analysis of law comprises both explanatory and justificatory aspects. While the explanatory aspect consists of explaining how laws can give rise to reasons and what kinds of reasons are involved, one example of this would be Dworkin’s classification of law as concepts, principles and rules. The aspect of justification concerns whether people ought to comply with the law's demands. In other words, it is the attempt to explain the moral legitimacy of law and the subjects’ reasons for complying with it.

A thought-provoking book titled ‘The Morality of Law’ by Lon L. Fuller on moral philosophy insists on a distinction between ‘morality of aspiration’ and ‘morality of duty’. From the view of the morality of aspiration, the human conduct does not bear on mandatory rules but on conceptions of the ‘Good Life’, of ‘what beseems a human being functioning at his best to human capacities’. Because no law can compel a man to live up to the excellence of which he is capable. But for workable standards of judgment, the morality of duty lays down the basic rules without which an ordered society directed towards certain specific goals must fail of its mark. Because the duty ties it very closely to what is ‘rationally discoverable’ and ‘objective’, as contrasted with the morality of aspiration based on subjectivism. However, moralists may differ as to what range of conduct should fall within the respective spheres of duty and the morality of aspirations. “When we are passing a judgment of moral duty, it seems absurd to say that such a duty can in some way flow directly from knowledge of a situation of fact.” As due to the fact that before we conclude ‘that a duty ought to exist’, however well we may understand the facts, by the close connection between understanding a person’s ideals, approval and disapproval. Does this mean that duties are rationally discoverable, and a matter of choice, even if not of ‘ineffable preference’? Presumably not, since when we pass a moral judgment of duty ‘ought’ to exist. It is necessary to distinguish between the accepted morality of a social group and the personal morality of individuals. ‘Duty’ may appear in all of these, but the satisfaction is very often a matter of degree varying from situation to situation. The rule of a morality of duty is necessary for social living. The morality of aspiration provides a general idea of the perfection we ought to acquire it. If we consider the whole range of moral issues, we may imagine a yardstick which begins at the bottom with the most obvious demands of social living and extends upward to the highest reaches of human aspirations. Somewhere along this scale an invisible pointer marks the dividing line where the pressure of duty leaves off and the challenge of excellence begins. The whole field of moral argument is an undeclared war over the location of this pointer. Whom we regard as being moralistic are always trying to inch the pointer upward so as to expand the area of duty and they bludgeon us into a belief that we are duty bound to embrace this pattern of human conduct, instead of making us realize a pattern of life they consider worthy of human nature

Both lawmen and laymen often ask, ‘What is the law applicable to a given set of facts?’ The answers to this question differ depending upon the specific jurisdiction to which the given set of facts is linked. Contrary to this, scholars and students of jurisprudence are likely to ask the general question, viz ‘What is Law?’. This question on the philosophy and nature of law supposes that law is a distinctive social-political phenomenon with universal characteristics that can be perceived through philosophical analysis. In such a study, the assumption is that law possesses some universal characteristics.
An analysis of the philosophy of law can be done for different reasons. Apart from a purely intellectual interest in understanding this complex phenomenon known as law, scholars also study the same as a normative social practice that purports to guide human behaviour, giving rise to reasons for action. The primary challenge of the branch of scholarship known as jurisprudence is based on this ‘normative, reason-giving aspect of law’. At the same time, we must understand that law is not the only normative realm in any given society. It is one of the many normative standards such as morality, religion, customs and usages, etiquette, self-regulatory standards within a family or corporation etc. So, it is also essential that we study law on the differences and similarities of the same with these normative standards.
While discerning these connections and contradictions, legal theories often study the content of the norm apart from giving importance to the source. Generally, theoretical studies on the content such as natural lawyers emphasize values such as fairness, justice, liberty etc., as qualifications for the norms to be called laws. They have argued that laws must be in tune with certain principles of inner morality, such as that laws be general, public, prospective, coherent, clear, stable, and practicable are indispensable to law-making. Whereas theories that give prominence to the sources of the norm, such as enactment/command by political institution/authority, do not always emphasize on the content.
Such philosophical analysis of law comprises both explanatory and justificatory aspects. While the explanatory aspect consists of explaining how laws can give rise to reasons and what kinds of reasons are involved. One example of this would be Dworkin’s classification of law as concepts, principles and rules. The aspect of justification concerns whether people ought to comply with the law’s demands. In other words, it is the attempt to explain the moral legitimacy of law and the subjects’ reasons for complying with it.

In jurisprudence, distinction between theoretical and practical aspects of law is the basis of an independent science of law, the purpose of which is not to subserve practical ends but to serve pure knowledge, which is concerned with facts but not with words. At the present time, the juristic science is an exclusively a practical science of law and adequate methods have been evolved for the application of law by the judges. The result of this situation is that its teaching on the subject of law and legal relations, subject matter and method, can be given only by the practical science of law. It aims to supply the judge with legal propositions, formulated in the most general terms possible, in order that the greatest possible number of decisions might be derived from them. It teaches the judge how to apply the general propositions to the specific cases. However, the human thinking is necessarily dominated by the underlying purpose and the thinking of the jurist is conditioned by the practical purposes pursued by juristic science. The jurist does not mean by law that which lives and is operative in human society as law, but law exclusively important in the administration of justice as a rule according to which the judges must decide the legal disputes. However, juristic science as a whole proceeds by abstractions and deductions but sometimes loses contact with reality. The rule of human conduct and the rule according to which the judges decide legal disputes may be distinct; a layman does not always act according to the rules which the judges apply for the judicial decisions as the rules to guide human conduct. However, the scientific view has given way to the practical view, adapted to the requirements of the judicial officials according to which they must proceed, but they arrive at this view by a jump in their personal thinking. They mean that the rules according to which courts decide are the rules according to which men ought to regulate their conduct. In this respect it is altogether different from true science. It is true that that judicial decisions influence the conduct of men, but we must first of all inquire to what extent this is true and upon what circumstances it depends

The Archimedean point of Habermas‘ philosophy of law is not the concept of natural law. His approach to positive law differs from both Han‘s and Hobbes‘. For him, positive laws are democratically established human artifacts. In the democratic procedure for legislatures to make laws, even if there may be arguments appealing to the concept of natural law, democratically established positive laws are not duplications of natural laws. Instead, they differ from natural laws both in content and form. The legitimacy and validity of positive laws come exclusively from the democratic process in which laws are established and published. By the same token, the rationality of positive laws comes exclusively from a democratic legislature based upon rational communication under the guidance of the communicative rationality. In social management, morality is complementary to positive law. But positive law is not subordinate to [1]. Instead, the two are parallel institutions. Habermas shares with Han and Hobbes the view that positive laws have two salient features. First, they are written and publically published. Second, they are backed by those who have a monopoly on force. The second feature of positive laws is dubbed by Habermas as the ―facticity‖ of law. The facticity or social reality of positive laws is that they are compulsory and backed by sanctions. As Habermas puts it, ―Such laws appear as the will of a lawgiver with the power to punish those who do not comply; to the extent that they are actually enforced and followed, they have an existence somewhat akin to social facts.‖. Also, for Habermas, as it is for Han and Hobbes, positive law differs from natural law in the sense that positive law is a social institution, a human artifact, not a natural institution. Positive law comes into existence by a historical and public action—that is, the democratically legislation of it and its being publically published.

Read the following passage carefully and then answer the accompanying questions employing the concepts provided in the passage:
According to Hohfeld, legal relationships can exist only between two legal persons and one thing. One of the two persons always has a legal advantage (that's the right) over the other. The other person has the corresponding legal disadvantage. ... For example employer employee. The basic building block of legal rights is liberty. It allows one person to do exactly as she pleases with no duty to do otherwise. ... But ... the important thing about a liberty: No one is required to respect it. It is merely a “permission without a protection”. For example, I can enjoy the view of my neighbour's garden but he is not under a duty to protect my view and can screen it off.
A “claim” entitles one person to limit the liberty of another, who then has a duty either to act or not to act in certain ways toward the claimant. For example, a child's claim to maintenance from parents places a duty on parents to provide maintenance. In personam claims can be made against a definite number of persons whilst in rem claims are available against every person in the world. ...An immunity disables one person from interfering with the liberty of another...Claims tell us what we should not do. Immunities tell us what we cannot do. ... For example, a public official cannot be prosecuted without special permission. A “power” is an ability that the law gives a person to (realise) her own legal rights or the rights of someone else (for example the power to sue). Its correlate, the liability carries the sense of exposure to having one's legal status changed. For example, only a person with locus in a case can file a litigation to press his claims.
[Adapted from Steven Wise, Rattling the Cage Towards Legal Rights of Animals) (2000)]

It will be relevant to refer to the statement made by the contemnor which was made and read out before this Court by the contemnor on 20.08.2020, which reads as under:
“I have gone through the judgment of this Hon‟ble Court. I am pained that I have been held guilty of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I have tried to uphold - not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard - for over three decades, at some personal and professional cost. I am pained, not because I may be punished, but because I have been grossly misunderstood. I am shocked that the court holds me guilty of “malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack” on the institution of administration of justice. I am dismayed that the Court has arrived at this conclusion without providing any evidence of my motives to launch such an attack. I must confess that I am disappointed that the court did not find it necessary to serve me with a copy of the complaint on the basis of which the suo-motu notice was issued, nor found it necessary to respond to the specific averments made by me in my reply affidavit or the many submissions of my counsel. I find it hard to believe that the Court finds my tweet “has the effect of destabilizing the very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy”. I can only reiterate that these two tweets represented my bona-fide beliefs, the expression of which must be permissible in any democracy. Indeed, public scrutiny is desirable for healthy functioning of judiciary itself. I believe that open criticism of any institution is necessary in a democracy, to safeguard the constitutional order. We are living through that moment in our history when higher principles must trump routine obligations, when saving the constitutional order must come before personal and professional niceties, when considerations of the present must not come in the way of discharging our responsibility towards the future. Failing to speak up would have been a dereliction of duty, especially for an officer of the court like myself. My tweets were nothing but a small attempt to discharge what I considered to be my highest duty at this juncture in the history of our republic. I did not tweet in a fit of absence mindedness. It would be insincere and contemptuous on my part to offer an apology for the tweets that expressed what was and continues to be my bona-fide belief. Therefore, I can only humbly paraphrase what the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had said in his trial: I do not ask for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am here, therefore, to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.”
Source: Excerpt taken from the Judgment delivered by Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai & Krishna Murari, J.J.

The following thinker is normally associated with the secularization of natural law:

'What are States without justice, but robber bands enlarged?' asked:

John Rawls's concept of justice is a:

According to John Austin, the relationship between the sovereign and political independent society is:

Austinian notion of 'positive morality' is:

According to Immanuel Kant rational formal knowledge is:

For H.L.A. Hart, the 'open texture of law' means that the regulation of areas of conduct must be left to be developed by: