LM

Approach:
1. Ideationally- Background of person, exceptions, ideologies etc
2. Institutionally- Use of law making power by executive/judiciary, prevent overreach
3. Systemically
Peter Goodrich, Reading the Law
- At different times/in diff cultures law meant different things for eg- magic, law by
ordeal, vendetta, song contests etc
- Law in the west is said to have come from diff sources at diff times, such as from god,
natural order, sovereignty, monarch etc
- The way one defines law makes a difference in the manner of its study (Eg- If its from
god, priests should interpret it)
- Law claims to be different from other forms of social control as it requires
institutions and experts-almost like in science for its proper organization and
functioning.
- The unifying source of law is it always has a source which is non legal and absolute in
nature
- The formal unity of law has traditionally been based upon its derivation from an
absolute source or origin; 'a unitary necessity or cause' is singled out as the basis and
origin of all law.
- Unity and Separation Thesis-: Unity part explained, separation from other forms of
social control in the form of the unity
Variable in content- Source of law can change from time to time
Constant in form One will always find a source of law, it has always been there. Such a
source is absolute in nature
-Core idea explains source of law (implicit or idealtional and explicit or institutional)
being the reason for a law being considered legitimate
- Associating it with the psychological consequences of why people habitually obey law
- Legal scholarship requires both

Scientific laws and Legal Laws

Scientific laws are inevitable (and therefore are assumed to be necessary in
society/nature) and legislated laws are considered a necessity (inevitability concept)
Scientific laws are universal and legislated laws attempt to be non arbitrary
(Universality/generality)
Legality principle- Total Compliance (Positivists/Natural Law, although differing from
positivism in its functioning) and Optimal Compliance (Economists)
Legislated laws are considered inevitable because it applies not to the individuals on
whom the law is enforced but the state’s authority to enforce the law by way of
correcting the wrongs committed by an individual by applying the law in question. The
necessity/inevitability arrives from the authority.
Scientific laws are changeable whenever a deviation is detected, however in case of
human laws the first instinct in case of a deviation is not to change the law but to correct
the wrong committed through enforcement.
Human law aims to bridge the gap between the non compliance in human nature and
the law itself
Positivists believe that there should be total compliance with the law and all crime
should be punished by reinstating right over wrong (Legality principle, total
enforcement)
Economists believe that there should be optimal compliance so as to provide an efficient
results, in order not to waste the state’s resources and protect the civil liberties of the
population. (Optimal compliance, optimal enforcement)
There is an expectation that a legal system would not treat equals differently, so the
generality or universality of law is important in order to preserve the trust of its people.
(Equals being the social group of people, eg- women, children etc)
Positivism and Higher Law (Anti positivism)
Positivism- All law is enacted law
Anti Positivist- All law doesn’t have to be enacted law
Recht, droit and provo are normative concepts of just and sound law (Legal right)
Gesetz, Loi, Zakon are descriptive of enacted laws (Legislative law)
law vs Law (difference)
Positivism- 1. All law is enacted law
2. Validity of law lies in an anchor or source
3. Law is not a phenomena that simply exists
Natural Law (Anti positivism)- Law just exists as is, and there is a difference of
interpretation. It exists without the authority of a lawgiver.

Acc to Positivists (key points of positivists)

 1. To decide whether something is a legal rule or not, we require the test of pedigree
(Looking at lineage, process and not on content). Distinguish legal rules from social
rules
2. When rule, then obligation, no rule no obligation
3. When no rules, judges use discretion to supplement existing rules. The discretion of
the judges is not a strict enforcement of a legal obligation (judge has no legal
obligation to act here)
Positivists follow the test of pedigree (origin and source, not content. Source being what
is considered a supreme source of all legal rules in a society. )
Legal rules flow from an authoritative source unlike social rules.
Hart distinguishes between Primary and secondary rules.
Primary rules aim to grant rights and impose obligations, secondary rules are referred to
as- Rules about rules. It deals with how rules can be made, modified enforced, repealed
etc.
John Austin Law is a command of a sovereign backed by sanction.
Hart says even if there is a threat of sanction, a legal rule is an obligation, but a non legal
rule (an order without the pedigree), one is only obliged to something. (threat of harm
vs actual authority/legitimacy). An authority must come from another rule which is
already binding.
- Acceptance of practice seen as binding, (only when those who follow the practice
regard the rule as binding and recognize the rule as a reason for their behaviour)
- Rules are binding because its created in the manner stated by some secondary rule
- Primary rules are attributed to primitive societies, not secondary rules
- An advanced society must have both primary and secondary rules says Hart
The fundamental rule of law is rule of recognition, which can just be validated by
acceptance in society. It cant be validated by any other rule. (Parallel to Hans Kelsen’s Grund
norm theory, the rule of recognition and grund norm both gain validity outside the legal
system and cannot be validated by other rules)
In certain “hard cases”, judges apply discretion, aka some sort of a standard
A standard is a principle or a policy. (neither are enacted like rules/laws are)
Dworkin argues that by ignoring these standards, makes positivism too rule centric, he
argues that positivists fail to recognize standards such as principles and policies which are
exercised by judges in hard cases (cases in which the judge cannot make a decision by
simply sticking to the rules/laws) as discretion.
Riggs vs Palmer- Grandson murders grandfather in order to inherit the property from his
grandfather’s will. (Any person cannot benefit from his own wrong)
Dworkin makes a general attack on Positivism using HLA Hart as the target. His main
problem is how positivism’s way of looking at the law is too rule centric.
Rules have an all or nothing approach (in terms of validity) while principles are subjective
and its not a direct application. Principles have a weight dimension, unlike rules.
Relation between laws and morality is not contingent, its optional – Positivism
There is a relation between them but contingent.
L Fuller’s- The Morality that makes Law Possible
- External Morality of law= Outward looking, societal/mainstream understanding,
subjective, concerned with content
- Internal morality of law= How does one make law?, does the law hone clarity?, is it
publicized?
It is considered by Fuller that internal morality would bring about external morality,
because of a system of checks and balances (Not necessary, but creates conditions for it,
symbiotic relationship)
Ensures that law is purposive, ongoing and reciprocal enterprise.
Fuller doesn’t state a separation between law and morality, the very concept of law varies
with it certain moral qualities
Law’s authority not just based on authoritative source but in the moral attitudes of the
people as well (acceptance of the people itself validates the rule of recognition to begin
with)
Acc to Fuller, law is:
- Purposive- Purpose of coordinating human activity, maintaining order
- Reciprocal- Two way street, as long as citizens follow the law, they are assured that
the people judging them will also be bound by some relevant law. Reciprocity in
observance of rules. (Positivists see law as a one way street, public cannot question
the law)
-
Internal Morality of Law comprises 2 kinds of moralities- M.O.D and M.O.A
MOA (Morality of Aspiration)- Aspiration for excellence (above and beyond an established
duty)
MOD (Morality of Duty) Duty Forbearances (for eg- Duty NOT to publish incoherent
laws) + Positive effort toward an aim (Duty to ensure that passed laws are coherent)
Fuller said for a legal system to be “worth its name” (valid legal system) it needs to pass the
morality of duty and aim to achieve morality of aspiration.
Legal Realism
Oliver Wendell Holmes reading (Pg 50-53):
Realism is not a school of thought but an intellectual movement
Movement in legal thought- How the law in books is different from law in
action
Emerged in 1920s and 30s from Yale and Columbia law schools- the emergence
of so called ‘fermenters’
Realists began from the conviction that formalist accounts of the law were
inadequate
Legal formalism (hardline positivism)- Treats law as a gapless system of rules
that can be applied logically- treats law as a system of mathematics- no need
to take into account policy or moral considerations
American realists took a more radical view, skeptical about the degree to
which rules represent the laws
Realists seek to investigate how courts actually reach their decisions, given
that rules are imprecise and discovery of facts is imperfect process
Realists regard law finding as an exercise in predicting how judges will decide
legal disputes. (Realists are anti formalist)
Holmes and the birth of American realism
Law is an evolutionary process, product of exp not logic (direct criticism of
formalism, strict logic)
Courts play vital role in evolution of law by actively reforming the law to suit
changing conditions
View of law as a study of ‘systemized predictions’
Looking at law like a ‘bad man’ looks at the law
Does not discuss what ought to be (prescriptive) but rather what the law is.
Holmes’ bad man thesis
- View of law as systemized prediction led Holmes to this thesis, which
says law is nothing but preconditions of what the courts will do. So, best
way to discover the law is to see it from the POV of a really bad man
 because a good man does not try to test the law but the bad man tries
to get away with whatever he can.
- Decision of courts are presented as logical deductions from established
rules when they are legislative
- Judges perform a legislative function in attuning to the law to ‘what is
expedient to the community concerned’ (Expedient= good. So, aspect of
public oriented common good, ideology of judge about public and
common good)
- However, they do it unconsciously and without admitting to the
legislative nature of what they do- ‘the inarticulate major premise’
- Holmes’ prescriptive thesis was that judges shed their pretence of not
being law creators and should legislate overtly
- Basically, Holmes is saying that judges basically interpret the law and
apply the law based on the facts, the community (idea of a common
good of the judge), experiential knowledge, and ideology of the judge
and in this way by interpreting a law, they make a law. But they do it
unconsciously and justify themselves through a garb of all sorts of logic,
he then prescribes the judges to shed their garb of logic and be overt
about their process, uttering his own ideas in the judgement
(inarticulate major premise) and real reasoning. Judges in a way are
making a policy in this, without directly uttering his ideas.
- Judges’ ideas of policy, common and public good, ideology motivates
their decision but they aren’t openly admitting to the inarticulate major
premise, they put a garb of logic which Holmes asks them to set aside
and acknowledge the principles they use
- Holmes wanted judges to recognize that it is their inevitable duty to weight
considerations of social advantage in stating the law, he believed that judges
anyway do it but unconsciously but they clothe it in the reason of logic and the
real foundation is left unexpressed.
Holmes’ prescription is easier said than done because a litigant who takes a
dispute before the court expects judgement on law not policy.
The Realist enterprise is one of law reform, but ‘what law ought to be’ can only
be achieved once it is known ‘what law is’.
Common points of departure for realists:
1. Law is dynamic
 2. The conception of law as a means to social ends and not as an end in
itself; so that any part needs constantly to be examined for its purpose,
and for its effect, and to be judged in the light of both and of their
relation to each other.
3. The conception of society in flux, and in flux typically faster than the law,
so that the probability is always given that any portion of law needs
reexamination to determine how far it fits the society it purports to
serve.
4. Realist consensus with Positivists till a certain point- that there is a
separation between ‘what law is’ and ‘what law ought to be’. (Separation of
rules of law and morality of said rules)
Llewellyn states that the realist study entails a temporary divorce between ‘is’
and ‘ought’-this divorce is not permanent.
A lawyer should know how it is (law in practice) before changing it to how it
out to be
Once Realists do this they soon discover that ‘the law as it is’ is shaped by
moral (policy) considerations that courts routinely apply in the guise of logic.
At this point Realists remarry law and morality (‘is’ and ‘ought’).
They want the courts to take their marital duties seriously, i.e. to actively align
the law with justice and be frank and open about what they do.
5. Realists harbor distrust traditional rules and concepts. Judges routinely apply
discretion even when rules are clear. Difference in precept (RULE/GUIDELINE)
and practice. They don’t have a blind belief in rules and past precedents even
tho they recognize its important (they have value but they aren’t everything),
but they understand that’s its not to be trusted blindly like positivists because
discretion is a thing.
Courts routinely make generalized predictions- Realists argue that what we can
make from study of precedents is only predict, one cannot be certain what was
held in previous case would be followed in the next.
6. Realists believe judges use rationalization to configure the decree of the
case, judges need to work a logic to come to the prefixed conclusion. (Judge
decides the conclusion beforehand and later rationalize it with logic)
(7) The belief in the worthwhileness of grouping cases and legal situations into
narrower categories than has been the practice in the past. This is connected
with the distrust of verbally simple rules - which so often cover dissimilar and
non-simple fact situations (dissimilarity being tested partly by the way cases
come out, and partly by the observer's judgment as to how they ought to come
out; but a realist tries to indicate explicitly which criterion be is applying).
(8) An insistence on evaluation of any part of law in terms of its effects, and an
insistence on the worthwhileness of trying to find these effects.

CLS is called natural successors to the Realists. Realists talked about the
policies behind a judge’s decisions, whereas CLS goes a step beyond in order to
find the politics/ideology behind the policies.
CLS like realism critiques formalism but also critiques liberalism.
Liberalism-
- Liberty of an individual (limits on one’s liberty to respect another’s)
- State as a night watchman
- State has to also take the role of a welfare state “sometimes”
- Substantive right vs Formal enunciation of rights.
CLS started as a criticism of liberalism’s formal enunciation of rights and
focused on giving everyone substantive rights that are enforceable with the
required resources. CLS scholars believe that rights are a façade and laws are
the tools of the privileged. The objective and neutrality of law are seen as
being problematic towards the disadvantaged communities.
CLS was intellectual successor to realists however critiqued law as an
oppressive field which wasn’t capable of delivering equal rights and justice in
society.
________________________________________________________________
Takeaway from Balagopal piece

- Adjudication is an ideological act

- Judges are political creatures
 - Notes instance of judicial indiscipline when felt urgent ideological
compulsion
One of the ways to test the putative backwardness of a community is to look at
the literacy of the women of that community.
Balagopal points out their discipline as they were answering questions that
were not asked.
Not directly addressed in reading, critical analysis: -
- Ram Nandan Prasad Committee’s report on OBC categorization
- Backwardness is not only economic, rather it is respectability as well.
Jury of her peers- Battered woman concept, self defense comes from grave
and sudden danger, time perceived very differently from battered woman POV
Margaret Davies- Asking the law question
- Law generally gets underpinned by a masculine POV
- Is the identity of the knower relevant? What difference does it make?
Why look at it only from a man as a knower?
- Law claims to be liberating, but it can be exclusionary in nature
People write in 3rd person, such as- The author says…. so as to hide their own
biases and their views and appear objective.
Stuff that is associated with men and law in society: Courage, independent,
objective, confidence, dominance, practical, unemotional, physical power etc
Empathy is also a way of knowing. (in relation to the story- Jury of her peers)
What did the different ideologies influence in how we see the law?
Realism- Courts, practice, perception
Crits- law is inherently oppressive, and cannot be reformed, can only be fixed
with real change
Fem Crit- Plurality of meaning
Carol Smart
Law has a method of finding the truth called the Legal Method
She critiques it.
Law believes itself to be at par with scientific method of finding the truth.
Traditional legal method and reasoning serves as a way for judges and lawyers
to discount and count experiences of some people and ignore others. Eg- Cases
of stealthing rape
Law is said to co-opt with various disciplines and other forms of social control,
it does not exist only in void.
CLS refers to forms of social control, even if well accepted in society as to their
impact.
Intersectionality- No one understanding of any identity perse
Critical Race Theory-
- CRT is also criticizing the mainstream traditional legal thought and its
foundations in race
- Double consciousness- Personal identity and identity as a black person in
the US, gave rise to the critique.
- Different from CLS critique, as CRT places a weight on formal rights as
the first step for recognition
- Feminist legal thought and CRT have a similarity- They claim that one
must take into consideration the opinion for policies of various groups
- Feminist legal thought and CRT also have a point of departure- Feminist
legal thought was critiqued for being monolithic and without
intersectionality and that movement solely represented the middle class
white women without considering the double discrimination faced by a
disabled woman or a black woman perse.
CLS, CFT (Feminist theory) and CRT all agree that law is fundamentally political
CRT not only focuses on these facts but also attempts to change it, change the
system of law and system
Develop adversarial scholarship Challenge mainstream thought Change
the understanding or notion in law or system
To develop such scholarship, CRT demands:
Antithetical Knowledge: The development of counter-accounts of social reality
by subversive and subaltern elements of the reigning order.

Queer theory
People are allotted their gender at birth without any consultation and this
keeps coming up again and again in life.
Based on secondary sexual characteristics, people are allotted gender at birth.
Judith Butler-
Biological sex- Secondary sexual characteristics, categorized as male/female
Gender- Social conditioning to become man/woman
Desire- Desire for the other gender conditioned
Judith argues that sex, desire and gender are social constructs, it is not natural.
Judith says young people at that time felt all these identities were oppressive,
therefore there was an appeal for fluidity in identity.
Judith- Performativity (everyone, every time) vs Performance
Active Agentic Disruption- Shifting away in some part from gender norms,
seeks validation from society.
Law is uncomfortable with fluidity. Asks questions about documents and
permanent procedures done to claim oneself as a particular gender.
David Reimer case
Julia Serano- Whipping Girl
CLS critiques the naturalness of public-private divide. CLS states that this is
socially constructed.
Queer theory takes a step further and says (Stychin says)- How public and
private operate in the context of queer categories. It restricts their right to the
closet of the private sphere.

POST MIDS

Institutional understanding of law

Authorities entitled to make law: Legislature, Executive, Judiciary (interplay
between the 3)
Where is their authorization: Constitution, Legislation, Subordinate legislation
(rules, notifications, orders etc) (how one influences or diverges from another
with or without legitimization)
Legislature is not a monolith; therefore 2 kinds of legislations have been
provided for:
- Art 79 Constitution of Parliament
- Art 168 Constitution of Legislatures in states (within that also legislative
assembly and legislative councils in Bihar, MP, Maharashtra, K’taka,
Telangana, AP and UP; bicameral legislation)
Important to realize what kind of discussions take place in these houses
Wrt Union Territories, there exists a legislature on paper in some territories
but power rests with centre for that matter.
Allocation of Legislative Power
Notwithstanding is a Non obstante clause in legislation. In case a conflict arises
between different clauses wrt to the same law, a non obstante clause chooses
to give preference to one clause over another for this resolution.
Art 245 talking about the extent of laws made by parliament (for whole or part
of territory of India, not invalid even if it results in extra territorial operation)
and state legislature (for whole or part of territory of the state)
India practices a unique kind of federalism, different to the western kind of
federalism, which should not be called a quasi-federalism perse.
2 kinds of Bills-
- Government Bill
- Private Members’ Bill
AADHAR Card discussion (Money Bill by Speaker of Lok Sabha- AADHAR as a
pass for subsidies/rations- Money spent on rations and distribution- Argued it’s
a money Bill)
Subordinate legislation cannot do anything outside the scope of parent act.
In both the HC and SC, President is given the authority to give the stamp of
approval for judicial appointments.
There has been a debate regarding the judicial appoints, legislature and
executive perspective and then debate about judicial independence from that
side. Supreme court has multiple benches, who can contradict each other,
doesn’t speak with one voice.
Apart from president, executive represents the legislature mainly (PM+
Cabinet of Ministers).
Power of judicial review- 32, 226 wrt Writs. (Habeus Corpus, Mandamus,
Certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto)
Yet, HC power as against writ is way more expansive (…and for any other
purpose= not just for breach of fundamental rights but also other purposes=
scope expanded, whereas SC can only take up for fundamental rights). Further,
they have optional thing to take up writs also legal rights.
Interpretation of Statutes
1. Theories of interpretation and Canons of Construction Difference
between the two? Larger idea behind?
Theories of Interpretation are broad overarching frameworks that act as a lens
for how we approach interpretation. Is it about- Originalism (How the law was
originally intended to be applied, for eg- Right to bear arms in the US, arms=
ammunition), Purposive interpretation (What was the purpose that guided the
lawmaking?), Textualism (Formalistic understanding/Positivist lens, for eg-
Right to bear arms in the US, arms= hands, new form of trying to interpret) etc.
2. Canons of construction – The literal tools that help clear the ambiguity
regarding certain words in the statute.
For eg- Ejusdem generis (When there are specific words followed by general
words, it has to be construed in a manner where how the specific words were
intended by legislature. For eg- Cat, Dog and any other animal, Cat and Dogs
are domesticated animals, therefore it means any other domesticated animals.
Construction is a means to interpretation and interpretation is the end which is
to be achieved. Canons of construction serve as tools as a means to interpret
statutes.
Interpretation of Constitutional provisions-
2 options Original intent (Mechanical) and Dynamic interpretation (Organic)
For eg- Section 313 of IPC allows an accused’s statement in a case to be used
to prosecute him in a different case by serving it as evidence. This is against the
right against self-incrimination.
Internal and external aid of identifying the intent of the legislature which helps
determine the statutes. Internal aid is the written letter of the law, including
the decision to include commas and stuff like that. External aid would be say
the policy idea, the recommendations of a committee and so on etc. Also there
is a debate among consti law experts on whether parliamentary debates are
internal or external aid.
Laws always affected by 1. Politics and biases of the judges. 2) People with
vested interests (Parties, Organizations) 3. Prevailing political atmosphere of
the time.
Judges making interpretation of choice. Two canons of interpretations can
clash. For eg- Perfect reading of statute rule or Purposive reading of statute
Do not read interpretation of statutes and judicial process in silos.
Ratios are binding, Obiters are not.
Bombay Bar Dancing Ban timeline
Timeline of the Act:
1. Bombay Police Amendment Act 2oo5 – S.33A, S.33B [Legislature]
2. Bombay HC Judgement 2006- But ban still continued [Judiciary]
3. Appealed before SC- state of Maharashtra vs AHAR 2013 [Bombay HC
decision upheld]
4. Fresh Amendment to Bombay Police Act 2014- S33B deleted
5. New petition filed [W.P. 793-2014]- Challenging the amendment (2019
judgement)
6. Meanwhile State of Maharashtra passes the new act and rules. (2018 law)
Executive using delegated legislation to pass the obscene dances act thingy
Delegated legislation
Going beyond the scope of what is supposed to be delegated by the legislature
(obscene dances vs songs, 4 women and 4 men- 8 people on stage)
Unjustified
Started dealing with substantive policy aspect
Deliberation and discussion element is missed out
Consultation w people
Obscenity- arouses prurient interest of someone? Vague definition
Hotel Priya case

Common Law
Reverence- Given to Judge for authority
Source- Precedents
Inductive reasoning Because of generalization
Civil Law
Reverence- Given to jurists (legal experts, giving advice to all parties and
judges.) Who can be jurists can differ from country to country
Civil law system has judges- Pre trial judge (1 year) and Judex (appointed by
litigant, only for that case)
Do not have formal legal training, so dependence on jurists
Deductive reasoning Ad hoc
Civil legal system legislature has to be super careful and think abt every
permutation and combination before making law because the judge is not the
driving force, whereas in Common law, judge can fill in the blanks.
--
International law
No enforcement mechanism, routinely disobey but- Psychological force of
international law
Sanctions against rogue countries affect the common people of those
countries.
Question of country participation in creation of international law
national courts often use international law to interpret domestic law to enlarge
its content, even if that international law has not been implemented through
domestic legislation. Thus, assessing the usefulness of international law
requires shifting the benchmarks away from a general theory of compliance.
states are accustomed to complying with international law through a complex
transnational legal process. In other words, when a country engages with
international law, it triggers a complex process of institutional interactions
whereby global norms are debated, interpreted, and internalised by that
nation’s domestic legal system. In Koh’s world view, this transnational legal
process that leads countries to obey international law is important because
there are certain material benefits or policy goals, such as combating climate
change or fighting terrorism, that only international law can help achieve.
Islamic Legal System
Common undenied source- Quran
It is not homogenous, but wide enough to accommodate various sects of
people
It finds references to other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity
Anything in the Quran is the law- Rudimentary understanding. The text of the
Quran guides you on how to lead your life and what is your relationship with
god, individualistic understanding, how I implement Quran is very different and
that is where law comes in.
Three sources of Islamic law- Quran, sayings of Mohd, records of his conduct in
preserving tradition
Difference schools emerge out of Islam, after death of Mohammed, 5 sects
evolved with diff interpretations.
Sunni school of thought- Should have stayed in the blood after death of
Prophet, Sunni countries are more okay with monarchies and bloodline
dynasties
Shia- Should not be chosen just because they are in his bloodline, rather
someone who has spent time with Prophet and understood his teachings, Shia
countries are less okay with monarchies, want learned people in the council.
Study the middle law part
Why did it accommodate so many countries and peoples?
1. Common language of Arabic
2. Social order able to provide “justice”
3. All are equal in Islam and its common brotherhood, central to nationality
Only men allowed to participate in Legal System as shapers of law
Advocacy usually happened through writing. Lot of studying to become a judge
apparently
More like a common law country given the diff courts or some shit idk?
For instance, institutions in Islamic law countries are stronger than
international law
4th Module
Despite the fact people chose their representatives, there are times that
warrant people protesting. That does not make our democracy weaker, rather
strengthens it. (Cover Page of 8th class Civics book)
Deliberative democrat vs Activism (Your position depends on the context)
The mainstream literature sees activism as an irrational movement which is
unwilling to compromise and DD as a rational body that tries to reach
consensus by compromising some ground.
It is about more than just a seat at the table, it is about the community’s
voices. (For eg- That LLB wala student body example, who gets nominated?)
It is not an either-or approach, rather both approaches are important.
The idea is that activists are passionate and irrational and also activist has little
power, so the author uses the pronoun “he” consciously, so as to burst the
gender stereotype of women.
Similarly, the DD, a level headed and rational person with power, the pronoun
used is “she”
People become theatrical wrt Activism so as to grab attention.
DD’s criticism of Activist-
- Looking for partisan interest
- Extremists, driven by emotion rather than by reason
- They do not discuss issues and come to a compromise
- They do not wish to cede even one inch to the other side, and aim to win
the most for their group
-
Criticisms of DD-
- Exclusive processes
- Formal inclusion isn’t enough
DD agrees on these points and says she will work to fix them.
Activist responds that it isn’t a simple group interest that they are perpetrating
He works for a universal cause of justice
Also, by merely working within the processes or institutions and engaging with
them, you are basically giving them some amount of legitimacy.
It is not a narrow understanding of interest, more universalist, because the
suspicion is on the processes themselves not outcomes.
So, against the institutions themselves. The core job is not to win over some
group or self interest but to make the citizen THINK.
There is a certain inequality in the society which makes the processes also
inequal.
Activist responds to the unreasonable claim by saying that your definition of
reasonable is super narrow and is used by people in power to disregard our
claims and arguments.
The common rhetorical move is to paint all protest action with “extremism”.
Criticism against DD
- Deliberative Procedures are Exclusive
DD says everyone is included and can come and participate in the process,
whereas activist says, meetings between officials happens in controlled
settings where people with certain knowledge choose to take certain decisions.

18+12+15+20= 65
15, 16, 17, 18, 19= 10+10+15+15+15= 65
20= Rev of LM/PS, LL- 15
21- T x 2
22- LM x 1
23- LL x 2
24 & 25- PS x 2
26 & 27- LM x 2
28- PS x 2
 Tutorials

Fallacies-
- Strawman
- Ad hominem
- False dichotomy- Two things don’t have a correlation when they do
- Hasty generalization
- Slippery slope
- Appeal to consequences
- Begging the question- Pre conceived assumption towards a conclusion
- Cherry picking
- Bandwagon
- Red Herring- Saying something different and misrepresenting a point

Cases/Examples discussed in the course

- Henningsen Case
- EWS case for gen
- Muslims right to livelihood being denied

Week 3-
The ban
1. Moral aspect
2. Procedure not followed
3. If you are banning, y license (eclipse)
4. Naturalist- restriction of rights
The HC
 Good decision but only based on right to trade and not other arguments
The SC
- Imposing culture of some people of Ecoville on others
- Right to live? - nutritional value for kids
- No need of ban, even if that’s the culture, it will flow naturally
- If there are multiple religions, one religion cant force certain aspects of their religion
on another while inherently accepting other parts of their religion.
Week 4-
Intelligible differentia, reasonable classification- In relation to Article 14

Week idk-
Rules, regulations- Legally binding rules by gov, bye laws, order
Subordinate legislation scope is limited to scope of parent act
UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion, Ordinance 2022

Week idk 2

How to critically analyze any case (Critical case summary)

Manko’s 6 steps-
1. Conflict between the parties- What, Who, How and Why question (Politics of the
law/judgement)
2. Legal materials- Relevant materials of law including constitutional rights, statutes,
existing laws which apply to the given case etc. One must ask why certain statutes
were applied and certain not applied.
3. Possible interpretations- (How do you interpret the existing legal material or statute,
for eg- More than 5 years interpretation when it comes to bail. May or may not
reject application after writing down the reason, whether or not it is discretionary to
write down the reason?)
4. Chosen interpretation by the court? What other interpretation could they have
done?
5. Ideologies of the court that went into a chosen interpretation
6. Alternative judicial arguments that could have been presented for or against the
interpretation presented.