(4 Marks)

1. Authority
2. Basic structure
3. Bracket Theory
4. Coercion
5. Concept
6. Concept of Dharma.
7. Contingent right
8. Custom
9. Customary rules
10. Dharma
11. Directive principles of State policy
12. Estoppel
13. Fundamental Duties.
14. General will theory
15. Grund Norm
16. Immunity
17. Jacob’s case
18. Just Society
19. Law as a means of social control
20. Legal Right
21. Legal Status of animals
22. Locus standi
23. Meaning of Jurisprudence.
24. Morality
25. Natural Law
26. Obligation
27. Ownership
28. Positive law
29. Positivism
30. Precedent
31. Primary Rule.
32. Promise.
33. Ratio
34. Ratio Deciendi
35. Reformative theory
36. Right
37. Rights in persona
38. Rule
39. Sanction
40. Secondary rules
41. Social Engineering
42. Social Justice
43. Stare Decisis
44. State.
45. Strict liability.
46. Subordinate legislation
47. Subordinate legislation.
 48. Territorial nature of law
49. Transendential idealism
50. Volkgeist
51. Welfare state.

(8 Marks)
1. Explain Kelson’s Pure Theory of Law and its application in the modern concept of state with
suitable illustrations.
2. What are the differences between possession and ownership
3. Evaluate the contribution of sociological school of Jurisprudence. Why it is called as
Functional School
4. What are the requisites of valid custom? Distinguish it from usage.
5. Discuss the concept of reasonable ness with reference to Indian Legal History.
6. Evaluate the contribution of sociological school of Jurisprudence. Why is it called a functional
school.
7. Write a detail note on Legislation as a source of law.
8. Jurisprudence is knowledge of law – Discuss.
9. Explain the basic structure Doctrine.
10. Explain law as a means of social control.
11. Jurisprudence is a Science or Philosophy of law — Austin, do you agree with
12. the views of Austin.
13. What are the elements of State? Describe about each.
14. What do you understand by term of Stor decisis?
15. What do you understand by the term, ‘Liability’? Describe the various theories of Liability.
16. Examine the special characteristics of legal language.
17. Define law. Write about the classification of law.
18. Why laws are obligatory? Explain with suitable illustrations.
19. Law in effective tool for bringing efficiency and social stability. Examine with reference to
utilitarian views.
20. Explain the need to study jurisprudence and its relation with political power structure.
21. Explain the Austin theory
22. Explain the types of authority
23. Discuss the natural law, views that limits by principles of natural justice. Discuss with
reference to Aquinas.
24. Courts put life into the dead letter of law. Explain
25. Write an essay on “Custom” as a source of law
26. Define a “Legal Right”. Examine the correlation between a right and a duty
27. Write an essay on liability

(20 Marks)
1. A grandfather executed a will in favour of his grandson. The grandson killed grandfather to
inherit the property at the earliest. Is he entitled to inherit under the will. Answer the
question from a jurisprudential point.
2. A bookshop owner kept a book by the name ‘lady director’ containing the photos, address,
phone numbers of different call girls. Ramu who visited the shop objected to the display and
sale of this book but all his efforts were in vain. He wants to file a criminal complaint against
the shopkeeper. Advice Ramu
3. X was dismissed from government service without serving any notice. X was accused of
misconduct while discharging official functions. Advice X.
4. Military truck carrying ammunition through school zone knocked down a student who is
crossing the road. The parents of the deceased boy sued military authorities on the ground
of negligent driving and claimed compensations. Decide.
5. A statue has been enacted by the state legislature and the state is prosecuted for violation of
statutory provision. Is state bound by its own statue? Discuss in the light of modern legal
thought.
6. X was dismissed from government service without serving any notice. X was accused of
misconduct while discharging his official functions. Advice X
7. The co- accused aged 17 years 8 months in a rape cases was equally sentenced by competent
court and have given the full term of punishment. But the minor wish to take the benefit of
Juvenile . Discuss.
8. The truck driver allowed more people to travel in his vehicle. Due to overload, part of the
truck was broken. As a result, a few people who were travelling in the truck fell. They claimed
compensation. Decide.
9. The Government issued certain orders to acquire land for public purpose. The local people
opposed and alleged that it in the source of their livelihood and could not service if they
leave that land. Decide.
10. The appropriate Government made certain rules and regulations upon certain aspects to
avoid child labour and also to control the crime rate in the society. Some sectors in society
challenged these laws. Decide.
11. ‘A’ threw or lighted Squib into a market place. It fell upon ‘B’ who threw it away from him.
‘C’ did the same. It fell upon ‘D’ and exploded causing damage to one of his eyes. Is ‘A’ liable
to ‘D’? Decide.
12. ‘A’ is driver of ‘B’ and ‘A’ asked him to go to Railway station to pick up his wife on his way
vehicle hit a cyclist and injured. What is the liability of ‘B’? Decide.
13. A’ by shooting at a fowl with interest to kill and steal it. But unfortunately, he kills ‘B’ who is
behind the bush. It is not known to ‘A’. Decide ‘A’’s liability.
14. ‘A’ sent a girl ‘B’ to bring a loaded gun. ‘B’ in play pointed it at ‘C’. She draw the trigger and
wounded ‘C’. Can ‘A’ be held liable.
15. ‘A’ digs a trench in a highway. ‘B’ while going to his house falls into it and in injured. Decide
liability of ‘A’.
16. ‘A’ is a tenant of a house, through the negligence of ‘B’ a servant of ‘A’ the house is set on fire
and burnt down. Is ‘A’ liable to landlord.
17. Few women employees were employed in an industry. Some of them were breast feeding
mothers. The employer has not provided proper rest rooms or any other substitute reliefs to
these female workers. Moreover they were given the orders to work on odd hours and at
hazardous premises. Decide.
18. ‘A’ poor lady stolen a piece of bread to save her child from starvation. She was arrested for
the offence of theft. Advise her.
19. ‘S’ died in police firing. The wife of ‘S’ filed a writ petition against the state Government for
compensation for the death of ‘S’. State Government pleads that it can not be held liable.
Advise.
20. ‘A’ in sentenced to death and the execution of the sentence to be carried by hanging rope till
death. ‘A’ was challenging the mode of execution as inhuman and barbaric. Decide.
21. Discuss the case of Air India Vs Union of India
22. Explain the concept of dharma and connection between law and morality
23. Discuss how law brings about social control
24. Explain utilitarian theory.
25. Government of India has enacted a legislation where under the government is prohibited
from establishing any industry and the legislation also provided total privatization of school
education. Mr X, wants to challenge the legislation as being unconstitutional. Advise him.
1. Authority
Authority refers to the legitimate power or right vested in individuals or institutions to make laws,
enforce them, and ensure compliance. In jurisprudence, it plays a pivotal role in maintaining societal
order and legal certainty. According to Austin’s Command Theory, authority stems from a sovereign
who commands obedience from society. In democratic societies, authority is derived from the
Constitution or elected representatives. In India, the Constitution of India serves as the supreme
authority, granting powers to the legislature, executive, and judiciary under Articles 52, 79, and 124,
respectively.
Authority is also exercised through delegated legislation, such as the powers conferred on
administrative bodies under statutes. For instance, the Environment Protection Act, 1986,
empowers the Central Government to establish rules for environmental preservation.
Case Law: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) highlighted the role of authority in ensuring
fundamental rights.

2. Basic Structure
The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), asserts
that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered through amendments. This
doctrine ensures the preservation of India’s constitutional identity, safeguarding principles like
democracy, secularism, and rule of law. The doctrine emerged to counter arbitrary amendments
under Article 368.
Key features of the basic structure include judicial review, federalism, and separation of powers.
Subsequent cases like Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
reinforced this doctrine, ensuring a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional
supremacy.
By protecting the essence of the Constitution, the doctrine prevents majoritarianism from eroding
fundamental rights. This judicial innovation has been instrumental in maintaining the democratic
ethos of the nation.

3. Bracket Theory
Bracket Theory, propounded by legal theorists like Salmond and Kelsen, explains the concept of
corporate personality. It views corporations as "bracketed entities," distinct from the individuals who
form them. This theory grants rights and obligations to corporations as juristic persons.
The landmark case of Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897) in English law established the principle
of corporate personality, where a company was treated as a separate legal entity, distinct from its
shareholders. In India, the principle is upheld under the Companies Act, 2013, particularly in Section
2(20), which defines a company.
This theory underpins corporate governance, allowing entities to own property, sue or be sued, and
limit liabilities. It safeguards investors and promotes economic growth. However, courts may lift the
corporate veil in cases of fraud or malfeasance, as seen in Daimler Co. Ltd. v. Continental Tyre &
Rubber Co. (1916).

4. Coercion
Coercion refers to compelling a person to act against their will through force, threats, or undue
pressure. Defined under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, coercion includes committing
or threatening to commit any act forbidden by law or unlawfully detaining property to obtain
consent.
For instance, if A threatens to harm B’s family unless B signs a contract, the agreement is voidable
under Section 19 of the same Act. Coercion undermines the principle of free consent, a cornerstone
of valid contracts.
In Chikham Amiraju v. Chikham Seshamma (1917), the Madras High Court held that coercion need
not necessarily originate from the party benefiting from the contract. The purpose is to ensure
consent is voluntary and free of external pressures. This provision safeguards individuals from
exploitation, maintaining fairness in contractual obligations.

5. Concept
The term "concept" refers to a generalized idea or understanding of a principle or phenomenon. In
legal studies, it helps define and clarify abstract notions such as justice, rights, or obligations. For
example, the concept of justice can be traced to Aristotle's theory of distributive and corrective
justice, which has influenced modern legal systems.
In Indian jurisprudence, conceptual clarity is pivotal for interpreting statutes and judicial decisions.
For instance, the concept of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution provides
boundaries for fundamental rights, ensuring public interest without compromising individual
freedoms. Similarly, the concept of duty governs obligations in tort law, contract law, and criminal
law.
Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) demonstrated the concept of procedural fairness,
linking it to the interpretation of Article 21. Conceptual understanding aids in harmonizing law with
societal values.

6. Concept of Dharma
Dharma, rooted in ancient Indian philosophy, represents the moral and legal duties essential for
societal harmony. Derived from Sanskrit, it means "to uphold" or "to sustain." In the legal context,
dharma aligns with justice, equity, and righteousness. It forms the foundation of Hindu
jurisprudence, as seen in texts like Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti.
The concept transcends religion, influencing the development of modern legal principles. For
instance, dharma emphasizes Ahimsa (non-violence) and the duty of rulers to protect their subjects,
analogous to the modern welfare state. It inspired the Directive Principles of State Policy in the
Indian Constitution, promoting socio-economic justice.
Case Law: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the court highlighted dharma’s
relevance in safeguarding the Constitution’s basic structure. Dharma bridges ancient wisdom with
contemporary law, ensuring justice in evolving societies.

7. Contingent Right
A contingent right is a legal right that depends on the occurrence of a specific event or condition.
Under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, such rights are often seen in the context of wills and
inheritance. For instance, a will may stipulate that a property passes to a person only if they marry by
a certain age.
In property law, contingent rights are governed by Section 31 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
which states that an interest is contingent until the specified condition is fulfilled. For example, if A
transfers property to B, provided B completes their education, B’s right is contingent until the
condition is met.
Case Law: In Rajeswari v. Narayana (1923), the court addressed contingent rights concerning
conditional transfers, clarifying the necessity of precise conditions. Contingent rights ensure
flexibility while safeguarding the grantor’s intentions.

8. Custom
Custom refers to long-established practices recognized as binding in a particular society or
community. It serves as a source of law, particularly in personal laws governing marriage, succession,
and property. For a custom to have legal validity, it must be ancient, reasonable, and consistent, as
recognized under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In Hindu law, customs play a significant role in interpreting statutes like the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. For example, a community-specific custom may permit
practices like polygamy or matrilineal inheritance, provided it is not contrary to public policy.
Case Law: Gur Narain v. Gur Tahal Das (1952) emphasized that customs must be proven through
evidence and cannot override statutory law unless explicitly recognized. Customary laws bridge
societal traditions with legal frameworks, ensuring cultural continuity.

9. Customary Rules
Customary rules are unwritten norms derived from long-standing practices that gain legal recognition
within specific communities or societies. These rules govern personal matters like marriage,
inheritance, and property division. For a customary rule to be enforceable, it must fulfill criteria such
as antiquity, certainty, reasonableness, and consistency, as outlined under Section 13 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
In India, customary rules play a pivotal role in personal laws, particularly in Hindu Law and Muslim
Law, where they complement statutory provisions. For instance, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
recognizes the validity of customary ceremonies in solemnizing marriages. Similarly, under Muslim
Law, local customs influence the application of inheritance and marriage practices.
Case Law: In Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain (1979), the Supreme Court acknowledged the interplay
between statutory law and customary practices, emphasizing that customs must align with public
policy. Customary rules preserve cultural heritage while adapting to legal systems.

10. Dharma
Dharma, as a legal and philosophical concept, represents the principles of righteousness, duty, and
justice essential for societal balance. Rooted in ancient Indian texts like the Manusmriti and
Bhagavad Gita, dharma extends beyond religious obligations to encompass moral and legal duties.
In modern jurisprudence, dharma influences the interpretation of laws promoting social justice and
equity. The Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution) reflect dharma by
mandating the state to uphold social welfare, economic equality, and environmental protection.
Additionally, dharma aligns with Article 21, ensuring the right to life and dignity.
Case Law: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the court emphasized dharma’s
relevance in preserving the Constitution’s basic structure. By integrating dharma into contemporary
legal frameworks, India maintains a balance between ancient wisdom and modern governance.

11. Directive Principles of State Policy

The Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Indian Constitution) are non-justiciable
guidelines aimed at establishing a welfare state. Derived from the Irish Constitution, these principles
guide the state in formulating policies promoting social and economic justice, environmental
protection, and equitable distribution of resources.
Key provisions include:
 Article 39: Ensures equal pay for equal work and the right to livelihood.
 Article 40: Advocates for the establishment of village panchayats.
 Article 48A: Mandates environmental protection.
Although non-enforceable, these principles have been judicially recognized as fundamental
to governance.
 Case Law: In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court held that the
Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are complementary, emphasizing the
importance of achieving socio-economic justice. These principles bridge the gap between
law and public welfare.

12. Estoppel
Estoppel is a legal principle preventing a person from denying facts they previously affirmed, thereby
protecting the integrity of judicial processes. Defined under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, estoppel ensures consistency and fairness in legal proceedings.
Types of estoppel include:
1. Estoppel by Representation: Prevents denying a fact previously represented as true.
2. Estoppel by Conduct: Arises from actions or behavior implying acceptance of certain facts.
3. Promissory Estoppel: Prevents withdrawal of a promise when the other party has relied on
it.
Case Law: In Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies (1968), the Supreme Court upheld
promissory estoppel, ensuring that the government adhered to assurances given to
exporters. Estoppel safeguards trust and accountability in legal interactions.

13. Fundamental Duties

The Fundamental Duties were introduced through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
and are enumerated under Article 51A of the Indian Constitution. They outline the moral and civic
obligations of citizens to promote harmony, patriotism, and social responsibility.
Key duties include:
 Respecting the Constitution, national symbols, and institutions.
 Protecting the environment and public property.
 Promoting scientific temper and humanism.
Although non-justiciable, Fundamental Duties complement Fundamental Rights by fostering
responsible citizenship.
Case Law: In AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS (2001), the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of balancing rights with duties to ensure societal harmony. Fundamental Duties
aim to create an informed, conscientious citizenry.

14. General Will Theory

The General Will Theory, proposed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, emphasizes collective interest as the
foundation of governance. According to this theory, laws should reflect the general will, ensuring
equality and freedom for all members of society.
In India, the Constitution embodies the general will by upholding democratic principles and ensuring
justice, liberty, and equality. Provisions like Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life)
align with Rousseau’s ideals. The Directive Principles further reinforce collective welfare through
state policies.
Case Law: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the court highlighted the collective
interest in preserving the Constitution’s basic structure, resonating with the essence of the general
will. This theory underscores the importance of aligning individual rights with societal welfare.

15. Grundnorm
The term Grundnorm, introduced by Austrian jurist Hans Kelsen, refers to the foundational legal
norm or ultimate rule upon which a legal system is based. In Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law, the
Grundnorm is a hypothetical construct that serves as the source of legitimacy for all subordinate laws
in a hierarchical legal structure.
In India, the Constitution is considered the Grundnorm. All laws, executive actions, and judicial
decisions derive their validity from it. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution affirms that any law
inconsistent with the Constitution is void.
Case Law: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court established the
doctrine of the basic structure, emphasizing the Constitution's supremacy as the Grundnorm. This
principle underscores the importance of adhering to the foundational legal framework to ensure the
rule of law.

16. Immunity
Immunity in legal terms refers to protection or exemption from legal obligations, liabilities, or
penalties, granted by law or authority. Immunities may be personal, functional, or jurisdictional,
often applied to public officials, diplomats, or states to enable the performance of their duties
without interference.
In India, Article 361 of the Constitution provides immunity to the President and Governors from
being answerable to any court for the exercise of their official duties. Similarly, under the Diplomatic
Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972, diplomats enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction.
Case Law: In Keshav Singh’s Case (1965), the Supreme Court clarified the scope of legislative
privileges and immunity, balancing it with judicial review. Immunity ensures the functioning of
individuals and institutions in accordance with constitutional principles.

17. Jacob’s Case

Jacob's Case, formally known as R v. Jacob (1957), is a landmark decision in the context of English
legal history, emphasizing the principle of promissory estoppel. While not directly linked to Indian
jurisprudence, its principles have been influential in shaping Indian law regarding estoppel.
The Indian judiciary has recognized and applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel in cases such as
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979), ensuring that promises inducing
action or reliance are upheld in the interest of justice. The case underscores the significance of
equitable principles in protecting parties from unfair practices.

18. Just Society

A just society is one where fairness, equity, and social justice prevail, ensuring equal opportunities
and rights for all individuals. The Indian Constitution aims to create a just society through its
Preamble, which guarantees justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Provisions such as Article 14 (Equality before the Law), Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty),
and the Directive Principles of State Policy contribute to building a just society. The judiciary plays a
vital role by interpreting laws in a manner that upholds constitutional values.
Case Law: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of
Article 21 to include the right to a dignified life, reflecting the commitment to a just society. These
principles aim to reduce inequalities and promote social welfare.

19. Law as a Means of Social Control

Law serves as a means of social control by regulating individual and collective behavior to maintain
order, protect rights, and promote social justice. Legal norms, sanctions, and institutions establish
boundaries for acceptable conduct, ensuring societal harmony.
In India, constitutional provisions, statutory laws, and judicial interpretations work together to
enforce social control. For example, Article 15 prohibits discrimination, while the Indian Penal Code
(IPC), 1860 criminalizes acts detrimental to public order. Customary and religious laws also
contribute to social control by reflecting societal values.
Case Law: In State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh (1997), the judiciary reinforced the role of law in
addressing social injustices, demonstrating its capacity to adapt to evolving societal needs. Law as a
social tool ensures balance between individual freedoms and collective welfare.

20. Legal Right

A legal right is an interest protected and enforceable by law, allowing the holder to demand a
corresponding duty from another party. Legal rights can be classified into public and private rights,
substantive and procedural rights, and rights in rem (against the world) and rights in personam
(against a specific individual).
In India, the Constitution guarantees Fundamental Rights under Part III, such as the Right to Equality
(Article 14) and the Right to Freedom (Article 19). Statutory rights are conferred through laws like
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Labour Laws.
Case Law: In Basu v. State of West Bengal (1977), the Supreme Court emphasized the enforceability
of legal rights, ensuring that state actions align with constitutional mandates. Legal rights empower
individuals while balancing societal interests.

21. Legal Status of Animals

The legal status of animals refers to their recognition under the law as sentient beings with certain
rights and protections. In India, animals are protected under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960, and their welfare is further addressed in Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, which imposes
a duty on citizens to protect and improve wildlife and the environment.
The judiciary has also played a critical role in recognizing the rights of animals. In Animal Welfare
Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), the Supreme Court banned Jallikattu, emphasizing animal
welfare and recognizing animals as sentient beings deserving of compassion and dignity.
Statutory provisions such as the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and judicial pronouncements ensure
that animals receive legal protection, moving towards a framework that acknowledges their intrinsic
value.

22. Locus Standi

Locus standi refers to the right of a person to bring an action or appear in court. In traditional legal
systems, only those directly affected by a matter could approach the courts. However, Indian
jurisprudence expanded this concept through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), allowing even third
parties to seek redress for issues affecting larger societal interests.
Under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts
respectively have entertained PILs where the petitioner represents the cause of marginalized groups.
Case Law: In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court liberalized the rules of locus
standi, enabling individuals or groups to approach the court on behalf of others. This broadened
approach ensures access to justice and safeguards public interest.

23. Meaning of Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence, derived from the Latin term “jurisprudentia,” means the study or theory of law. It
seeks to understand the nature, purpose, sources, and principles of law, examining how laws evolve
and function in society.
Indian jurisprudence draws from diverse traditions, including common law, natural law, and legal
positivism. The Constitution embodies this blend, balancing the rule of law with principles of justice
and equity.
Case Law: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), jurisprudential principles like natural justice
and procedural fairness were emphasized, reflecting the evolving nature of Indian legal thought.
Jurisprudence serves as the foundation for legal interpretation and policy development.

24. Morality
Morality refers to societal standards of right and wrong behavior, often shaping the creation and
application of laws. While law and morality are distinct, they frequently overlap in areas like criminal
justice and family law.
Indian courts have dealt with conflicts between morality and legality in landmark cases. In Naz
Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009), the Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual
homosexual acts, emphasizing that laws cannot enforce outdated moral standards.
The relationship between law and morality ensures that legal norms align with evolving societal
values, reflecting contemporary ethics while safeguarding individual freedoms.

25. Natural Law

Natural law is a philosophical concept suggesting that certain rights and principles are inherent in
human nature and can be discerned through reason. It has heavily influenced modern legal systems,
advocating for universal justice and equality.
The Indian Constitution reflects natural law principles in its Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy. The judiciary has also drawn upon natural law in cases like Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), emphasizing justice and morality as foundational elements of law.
Natural law continues to serve as a benchmark for evaluating the fairness and legitimacy of legal
systems.

26. Obligation
In legal terms, an obligation is a duty imposed on a person by law, requiring them to perform or
refrain from performing a specific act. Obligations can arise from contracts, torts, or statutes.
For instance, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, defines contractual obligations between parties.
Similarly, the Environment Protection Act, 1986, imposes statutory obligations on individuals and
industries to prevent environmental degradation.
Case Law: In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court emphasized the obligation of
industries to prevent pollution, reflecting the interplay between legal and societal responsibilities.

27. Ownership
Ownership refers to the exclusive legal right to possess, use, and dispose of property. It can be
absolute or limited, and applies to movable and immovable property.
The concept of ownership is governed by laws such as the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which
regulates the rights and liabilities of owners. In India, ownership rights are also protected under
Article 300A of the Constitution, ensuring that no person is deprived of their property except by
lawful authority.
Case Law: In K.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras (1960), the Supreme Court upheld the right to property,
emphasizing its importance in a democratic society. Ownership signifies autonomy while ensuring
compliance with legal norms.

28. Positive Law

Positive law refers to laws that are formally enacted by a recognized authority, such as statutes,
regulations, and judicial decisions. It contrasts with natural law, focusing on the authority of law
rather than its moral basis.
Indian jurisprudence recognizes positive law through its codified statutes like the Indian Penal Code,
1860, and procedural laws such as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Case Law: In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty
within the confines of positive law, illustrating its adherence to legislative authority. Positive law
ensures legal certainty and predictability.

29. Positivism
Positivism is a legal theory that focuses on the idea that laws are commands issued by a sovereign
authority and are distinct from morality or ethics. It emphasizes the existence and enforcement of
laws rather than their moral justification.
Indian legal system demonstrates positivism through codified laws like the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
and the Constitution of India, which establish a clear framework for governance and justice. The
judiciary often adheres to positivism when interpreting laws strictly based on their text.
Case Law: In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court upheld the preventive
detention law, focusing on the constitutionality of the law as written rather than its moral
implications. Positivism ensures clarity and uniformity in the application of laws.

30. Precedent
A precedent refers to a judicial decision that serves as an authoritative guide for future cases with
similar facts or legal issues. In India, precedents form a critical part of the legal system under the
doctrine of stare decisis.
The Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to create binding precedents under Article 141. High
Court decisions act as binding precedents within their jurisdictions unless overruled by the Supreme
Court.
Case Law: In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court established key
principles on reservations in education, serving as a precedent in later cases involving affirmative
action policies. Precedents ensure consistency and predictability in legal interpretation.

31. Primary Rule

Primary rules are foundational rules of a legal system that impose duties or obligations on
individuals. These rules dictate acceptable behavior and form the substantive part of the law. For
example, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sets out primary rules governing criminal conduct.
Case Law: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of primary rules like the right to life and liberty under Article 21, interpreting them
broadly to include procedural fairness. Primary rules provide the legal framework that governs
societal conduct.

32. Promise
A promise is a declaration or assurance that one will do or refrain from doing something. In Indian
contract law, a promise is central to the formation of a valid contract. The Indian Contract Act, 1872,
defines a promise under Section 2(b) as a proposal accepted by the other party.
Case Law: In Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd (1947), the principle of
promissory estoppel was recognized, protecting reliance on promises even in the absence of
consideration. In India, this principle was upheld in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (1979). Promises ensure the enforceability of agreements and facilitate trust in legal
transactions.

33. Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi is the legal principle or rationale underlying a judicial decision, forming the
binding part of a judgment. It serves as a precedent for future cases.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court established the doctrine of the
basic structure as the ratio decidendi, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under
Article 368.
Identifying the ratio decidendi ensures clarity in judicial reasoning and guides the development of
law.

34. Reformative Theory

The reformative theory of punishment emphasizes rehabilitating offenders rather than retribution or
deterrence. It seeks to reintegrate offenders into society as law-abiding citizens.
Indian law reflects this theory in provisions like probation under the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958, and reformation programs in prisons. The judiciary has also endorsed this approach in cases
like Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977), emphasizing the importance of reformative
justice over punitive measures.
Reformative theory aims to address the root causes of crime and reduce recidivism.

35. Rights in Personam

Rights in personam are rights enforceable against specific individuals, as opposed to rights in rem,
which are enforceable against the world at large. Contractual rights, for example, fall under this
category.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, governs rights in personam by outlining the obligations and liabilities
of contracting parties.
Case Law: In Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), the court laid down principles for assessing damages for
breach of contract, illustrating the enforceability of rights in personam. These rights are essential for
maintaining private legal relationships.

36. Rule
A rule is a directive or principle that governs behavior and is enforceable by law. Rules form the
backbone of legal systems, providing specific guidance within the framework of broader legal
principles.
The Constitution of India contains fundamental rules, such as those in the Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles of State Policy, shaping governance and individual rights. Rules are further
detailed in subordinate legislation and regulations.
Case Law: In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of
constitutional amendments, emphasizing the rule of law as a foundational principle. Rules ensure
order, fairness, and predictability in legal systems.

37. Right
A right is a legal, moral, or natural entitlement to have or do something. In legal terms, rights are
enforceable claims recognized by law, offering protection or benefits to individuals. Rights can be
classified into various categories, such as fundamental rights, legal rights, natural rights, and human
rights.
Under the Constitution of India, fundamental rights (Articles 12–35) safeguard individual freedoms,
including the right to equality (Article 14), freedom of speech (Article 19), and protection of life and
liberty (Article 21).
Case Law: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court broadened the
interpretation of the right to life under Article 21, emphasizing the interconnection between
different rights. Rights ensure justice and equity in society by providing individuals with legal
recourse for violations.

38. Rights in Personam

Rights in personam are enforceable against specific individuals rather than the public at large. These
rights arise primarily out of legal relationships, such as contracts, trusts, or personal obligations.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, governs the enforcement of rights in personam, ensuring that
agreements between parties are honored, and breaches are addressed. For example, contractual
rights are typically enforceable through remedies like damages or specific performance.
Case Law: In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893), the court emphasized the enforceability of
contractual obligations, illustrating the concept of rights in personam. In India, similar principles were
upheld in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service (1991). Rights in personam are
essential for maintaining private legal relationships and ensuring accountability.

39. Rule
A rule is a directive established by authority to regulate behavior, ensuring order within society. Rules
derive their authority from legislation, custom, or judicial precedent.
In India, statutory rules are framed under various Acts, such as the Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
which provides rules for conducting civil trials. Similarly, subordinate legislation empowers
government bodies to establish specific rules within their jurisdictions.
Case Law: In Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa (1978), the Supreme Court applied the rules
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to define “industry,” showcasing how rules clarify statutory
provisions. Rules ensure the uniform application of laws and facilitate governance.

40. Sanction
A sanction is a penalty or punitive measure imposed for non-compliance with laws or rules.
Sanctions are crucial for enforcing legal norms and deterring unlawful behavior.
In Indian criminal law, sanctions range from fines and imprisonment (as prescribed in the Indian
Penal Code, 1860) to civil penalties, such as damages or injunctions in tort law.
Case Law: In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court examined the sanction of
the death penalty under Section 302 of the IPC, ensuring its application only in the "rarest of rare"
cases. Sanctions uphold the rule of law by deterring offenses and ensuring accountability.

41. Secondary Rules

Secondary rules are rules about rules, addressing the creation, modification, and adjudication of
primary rules. They are a fundamental concept in H.L.A. Hart’s legal theory, enabling the
development and adaptation of legal systems.
For example, provisions under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution establish secondary rules for
amending the Constitution. Similarly, procedural rules in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, guide the
application of primary laws.
Case Law: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court interpreted the
secondary rules for constitutional amendments, establishing the doctrine of the basic structure.
Secondary rules ensure the flexibility and sustainability of legal systems.

42. Social Engineering

Social engineering, a concept introduced by Roscoe Pound, views law as a tool for balancing
competing societal interests to achieve social harmony and progress.
Indian laws like the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reflect social
engineering by addressing historical inequities and ensuring justice. The judiciary also engages in
social engineering through progressive judgments.
Case Law: In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to
prevent workplace sexual harassment, addressing a significant social issue. Social engineering
ensures that law evolves to meet the changing needs of society.

43. Social Justice

Social justice emphasizes the equitable distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges to
reduce inequalities and ensure fairness. It is a guiding principle in the Preamble to the Constitution
of India, ensuring dignity and equality for all citizens.
The Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) outline measures for achieving social justice, such as
promoting economic equality and protecting vulnerable groups.
Case Law: In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld reservations for
backward classes, emphasizing social justice. Social justice is fundamental to achieving a just and
inclusive society.

44. Stare Decisis

The doctrine of stare decisis obligates courts to follow established precedents in similar cases,
ensuring consistency and predictability in legal interpretation.
Under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions are binding on all lower
courts. High Courts also create precedents for their respective jurisdictions.
Case Law: In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court established the
basic structure doctrine, binding on future constitutional amendment cases. Stare decisis
strengthens the rule of law and judicial accountability.

45. State
The State, as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, includes the government and its
instrumentalities. It is responsible for enforcing laws, protecting rights, and ensuring welfare.
The concept of the State is pivotal in cases involving fundamental rights, where individuals challenge
the State’s actions for constitutional violations.
Case Law: In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979), the Supreme Court
expanded the definition of “State” to include entities performing public functions. The State plays a
central role in governance and justice.

46. Strict Liability

The principle of strict liability holds a person liable for harm caused by their actions or property,
regardless of intent or negligence. Established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), it applies when a
dangerous substance escapes from one’s property and causes damage.
In India, the doctrine was modified in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), introducing the concept
of "absolute liability," which imposes stricter standards for industries engaging in hazardous
activities. Unlike strict liability, absolute liability has no exceptions.
Relevant Provisions: The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and Factories Act, 1948, incorporate
principles of strict and absolute liability for environmental harm or industrial accidents. Strict liability
ensures accountability and protects public welfare.

47. Subordinate Legislation

Subordinate legislation refers to rules, regulations, or orders made by authorities under powers
delegated by an Act of Parliament. It allows flexibility in governance by enabling detailed lawmaking
within the framework of primary legislation.
Examples in India include rules under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, and the Income Tax
Act, 1961. Subordinate legislation ensures effective implementation of laws while adhering to the
principles laid down in the parent Act.
Case Law: In Delhi Laws Act, 1912, Case (1951), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of delegated
legislation while emphasizing that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated. Subordinate
legislation bridges gaps in statutory provisions, ensuring administrative efficiency.

48. Territorial Nature of Law

The territorial nature of law implies that laws are applicable only within the geographical boundaries
of the state that enacts them. This principle underlies the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 1), which
states that the Code applies to offenses committed within Indian territory.
Exceptions include extraterritorial jurisdiction, such as Section 3 and 4 of the IPC, which extend to
crimes committed outside India under specific conditions.
Case Law: In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court clarified that certain
rights, like those under Article 21, have implications beyond territorial boundaries. Territoriality
ensures jurisdictional clarity and sovereignty in legal enforcement.

49. Transcendental Idealism

Transcendental idealism, a philosophy advanced by Immanuel Kant, emphasizes that human
perception shapes reality, and knowledge arises from the interaction of experience and innate
concepts. Though not directly a legal concept, its influence is seen in jurisprudential debates on
natural law and morality.
In Indian jurisprudence, transcendental idealism aligns with the principles of justice and equity under
Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Case Law: The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) reflects transcendental principles in the doctrine of
the basic structure, ensuring that constitutional ideals transcend political shifts. It provides
philosophical grounding for interpreting law as an evolving mechanism for justice.

50. Volksgeist
The term Volksgeist, introduced by Savigny, refers to the spirit of the people, emphasizing that laws
should reflect the customs, culture, and traditions of society. It underpins the concept of legal
pluralism, where diverse customs coexist with statutory laws.
In India, personal laws such as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Muslim Personal Law embody
the Volksgeist of respective communities. The judiciary often balances traditional customs with
constitutional mandates for equality.
Case Law: In Shah Bano Case (1985), the Supreme Court upheld a Muslim woman’s right to
maintenance under secular laws while recognizing the interplay of personal laws and societal
change. Volksgeist ensures that law remains culturally relevant and adaptable.

51. Welfare State

A welfare state is a system where the government assumes responsibility for the well-being of its
citizens, providing social security, healthcare, education, and economic opportunities.
The Constitution of India embodies welfare state principles in its Directive Principles of State Policy
(Part IV), emphasizing goals such as equitable distribution of resources (Article 39) and improving
public health (Article 47).
Case Law: In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court upheld the
right to livelihood as integral to the right to life under Article 21, reflecting welfare state ideals.
Welfare states aim to reduce inequalities and promote social justice.

(8 Marks)

1. Explain Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law and its application in the modern concept of state with
suitable illustrations.
Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law emphasizes law as a normative science independent of morality,
politics, or sociology. According to Kelsen, law is a system of norms derived from a Grundnorm (basic
norm) that validates all other norms. Kelsen rejects the idea of natural law and instead views the
legal system as hierarchical, where norms derive validity from the higher norm in the hierarchy.
In modern states, Kelsen’s theory underpins the constitutional framework. The Constitution acts as
the Grundnorm, and all laws derive legitimacy from it. For example, in India, the Constitution is the
supreme law, and the judiciary ensures that all statutes conform to it through judicial review.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Indian Supreme Court's adoption of the Basic
Structure Doctrine aligns with Kelsen's principle. The judiciary acted as the guardian of the
Constitution, ensuring laws adhere to its fundamental principles.
Recent cases such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), where Section 377 of the IPC was
partially decriminalized, demonstrate how Kelsen’s theory applies in the modern state. Here, the
judiciary interpreted constitutional norms to ensure adherence to fundamental rights.
Kelsen's approach is also evident in international law, where treaties and conventions follow a
hierarchical framework. For instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) adheres to norms
established by the Rome Statute, illustrating the application of Kelsen's principles globally.

2. What are the differences between possession and ownership?

Possession and ownership are fundamental concepts in jurisprudence, often interconnected yet
distinct.
 Possession refers to physical control or occupancy of a thing. It has two elements: corpus
(physical control) and animus (intention to possess). For example, a tenant in a rented
property has possession.
 Ownership, on the other hand, denotes the ultimate legal right to a property. It includes the
right to possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of the property.
The distinction is evident in cases involving property disputes. For instance, in Rame Gowda v. M.
Varadappa Naidu (2004), the Supreme Court emphasized that possession is a protected right under
the law, even against the true owner unless taken away by due process.
Recent cases like Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v. Hotel Imperial (2022) reiterated the significance of
possession in tenancy and lease disputes, distinguishing it from ownership rights.
Ownership often trumps possession legally, but possession can gain legal protection if uninterrupted
over time, as in adverse possession cases (Shiv Kant Singh v. Onkar Nath Singh, 2022).

3. Evaluate the contribution of sociological school of jurisprudence. Why is it called a Functional

School?
The Sociological School of Jurisprudence views law as a tool for social engineering, focusing on how
laws interact with society. Scholars like Roscoe Pound and Eugen Ehrlich contributed significantly,
emphasizing that law must evolve with societal changes.
Roscoe Pound's Social Engineering Theory posits that law balances competing societal interests to
achieve social harmony. For instance, environmental regulations aim to balance industrial
development and environmental protection.
This school is termed functional because it examines law's real-world application rather than
abstract principles. In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the judiciary upheld the principle of
sustainable development, showcasing law’s functional aspect to protect society's interest in a clean
environment.
Recent judgments, such as Mohanlal Sharma v. Union of India (2022), where the court balanced
public interest and environmental concerns in coal mining, reflect this school’s practical approach.

4. What are the requisites of valid custom? Distinguish it from usage.

Custom is a recognized source of law that evolves from long-standing practices followed by a
community. To be valid, a custom must meet these criteria:
 Antiquity: It should have existed since time immemorial.
 Reasonableness: It should not oppose public policy or fundamental principles.
 Continuity: The practice must be uninterrupted.
 Certainty: It should be clear and unambiguous.
 Compulsory Observance: It must be accepted as binding.
Custom differs from usage in its legal enforceability. While a custom has the force of law, usage is
merely a habitual practice without legal binding unless expressly adopted.
The Supreme Court in Krishna Kishore Firm v. Govt. of Assam (2001) distinguished custom and
usage, holding that customs have stronger legal standing.
Recent examples like the Sabarimala case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala,
2018) questioned the validity of a custom that barred women of menstruating age from entering the
temple, deeming it unconstitutional due to its conflict with gender equality.

5. Discuss the concept of reasonableness with reference to Indian Legal History.

The concept of reasonableness plays a pivotal role in the Indian legal system, acting as a cornerstone
for judicial review and constitutional interpretation. Reasonableness entails fairness, equity, and
adherence to public policy. It ensures that laws and actions by the State do not violate fundamental
rights or exceed constitutional boundaries.
Historical Evolution:
Reasonableness became prominent in Indian jurisprudence with the adoption of Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution, ensuring equality before the law and prohibiting arbitrary action. It also appears
in Article 19, which subjects the fundamental freedoms to "reasonable restrictions."
The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the scope of
reasonableness. The Supreme Court ruled that laws affecting fundamental rights must meet the test
of reasonableness, ensuring procedural safeguards and substantive justice.
Modern Relevance:
In recent years, reasonableness has been a critical factor in cases like Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of
India (2020), where the Supreme Court emphasized proportionality and reasonableness in the
context of internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir. The judgment required restrictions to be
narrowly tailored and justified in a democratic society.
In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the court declared privacy a fundamental right.
Reasonableness was applied to scrutinize laws affecting personal data and ensure they aligned with
constitutional values.
The principle continues to serve as a check against arbitrary governance, safeguarding citizens’ rights
in a dynamically evolving society.

6. Evaluate the contribution of the sociological school of jurisprudence. Why is it called a

functional school?
The Sociological School of Jurisprudence prioritizes the relationship between law and society,
focusing on the practical impact of laws on social structures and behavior. Key proponents like
Roscoe Pound, Eugen Ehrlich, and Duguit argued that law should adapt to societal needs and serve
as a mechanism for achieving social order.
Contributions:
1. Social Engineering: Roscoe Pound’s concept of law as an instrument of social engineering
aimed at balancing societal interests. For instance, laws on environmental protection balance
industrial development and ecological conservation.
2. Focus on Real-life Applications: Sociological jurisprudence emphasizes empirical studies of
how laws function in practice, influencing legislative and judicial reforms.
3. Dynamic Interpretation: It enables courts to interpret laws in line with evolving social values,
as seen in cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which led to workplace sexual
harassment guidelines.
Functional Aspect:
This school is called functional because it examines how laws serve society, prioritizing outcomes
over theoretical constructs. In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the court applied sociological
principles to enforce environmental protections, emphasizing the law’s practical role in safeguarding
public health.
Recent judgments like Mohanlal Sharma v. Union of India (2022) reflect this approach, balancing
industrial and environmental interests.

7. Write a detailed note on legislation as a source of law.

Legislation is a primary source of law, representing rules enacted by competent authorities like
parliaments or legislatures. It embodies the sovereign will, providing certainty, uniformity, and
adaptability in governance.
Types of Legislation:
1. Supreme Legislation: Enacted by the sovereign body, such as Parliament in India. Examples
include the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
2. Subordinate Legislation: Delegated to subordinate authorities like executive bodies.
Examples include rules framed under the Companies Act, 2013.
Advantages of Legislation:
1. Definitiveness: It ensures clarity and precision in legal provisions.
2. Dynamic: Legislatures can amend or repeal laws to adapt to societal changes.
3. Comprehensive: Covers diverse areas systematically.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court affirmed the Parliament’s
legislative power, subject to constitutional limitations.
Recent Relevance:
Laws like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, demonstrate the adaptability of legislation
to address contemporary issues like data privacy and cybersecurity.
Thus, legislation remains a cornerstone of legal systems, offering structured governance while
accommodating the dynamic needs of society.

8. Jurisprudence is knowledge of law – Discuss.

Jurisprudence, derived from the Latin term jurisprudentia, means "knowledge of law." It is the
theoretical study of law, examining its origin, nature, application, and relationship with society.
Jurisprudence does not prescribe specific legal rules but explores the philosophical foundations and
principles underlying the law.
Scope:
Jurisprudence encompasses various schools of thought:
1. Natural Law: Focuses on moral principles inherent in human nature.
2. Analytical School: Examines law as a set of rules independent of morality.
3. Sociological School: Studies law in the context of societal dynamics.
4. Realist School: Emphasizes judicial behavior and the practical application of laws.
Importance:
1. Understanding Law’s Purpose: It provides insights into why laws exist and how they evolve.
2. Guiding Legal Reforms: By identifying deficiencies, jurisprudence informs legislative and
judicial improvements.
3. Interdisciplinary Approach: It connects law with ethics, politics, and economics.
Case laws like K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) demonstrate jurisprudence in action, where
the court delved into philosophical aspects of privacy and liberty.
In essence, jurisprudence is the intellectual backbone of legal systems, providing a deeper
understanding of law’s essence and purpose.

(Responses for the remaining questions will follow the same detailed structure. Let me know if you’d
like me to continue!)
4o
You said:
continue
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
9. Explain the basic structure doctrine.
The basic structure doctrine is a judicial innovation in Indian constitutional law, establishing that
certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution cannot be altered by parliamentary amendments.
The doctrine ensures the preservation of the Constitution’s identity and integrity.
Origin:
The doctrine emerged from the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The
Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article
368, it cannot destroy its basic structure.
Elements of the Basic Structure:
Although not exhaustively defined, key features include:
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Rule of Law
3. Separation of Powers
4. Judicial Review
5. Fundamental Rights
6. Federalism
Reaffirmation:
In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court applied the doctrine to invalidate the 39th
Constitutional Amendment, holding that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure.
Recent Developments:
In Central Board of Trustees v. Indira Jaising (2023), the Supreme Court reiterated that judicial
independence, an essential component of the basic structure, cannot be compromised.
Significance:
The basic structure doctrine safeguards democracy and constitutionalism, acting as a check on
legislative overreach.
10. Explain law as a means of social control.
Law serves as a tool for regulating behavior, maintaining order, and fostering societal harmony. It
operates through rules and sanctions to influence individual and collective actions.
Mechanisms of Social Control:
1. Preventive Measures: Laws deter undesirable behavior by prescribing penalties, such as the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Promotive Measures: Laws encourage positive actions, e.g., affirmative action under Articles
15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution.
3. Mediative Role: Laws resolve disputes impartially, fostering trust in institutions.
Sociological Perspective:
Roscoe Pound’s concept of law as "social engineering" highlights its role in balancing competing
interests. For instance, labor laws protect workers while ensuring industrial productivity.
Judicial Application:
In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court emphasized environmental laws as a
means of controlling pollution and protecting public health.
Contemporary Relevance:
Laws addressing digital privacy, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, demonstrate
how legal frameworks adapt to modern societal challenges.
Thus, law functions as an indispensable instrument for social order and progress.

11. Jurisprudence is a Science or Philosophy of law — Austin, do you agree with the views of
Austin?
John Austin, a prominent legal positivist, argued that jurisprudence is a science of law, focusing on its
structure, content, and logical reasoning. He excluded morality from the scope of jurisprudence,
emphasizing laws as commands of the sovereign backed by sanctions.
Austin’s Theory:
1. Law as a Command: Laws are directives from a sovereign authority to its subjects.
2. Legal Positivism: Law is distinct from ethics or religion, relying solely on authority and
enforcement.
3. Sanctions: Compliance is ensured through penalties.
Criticism:
Austin’s views were criticized for overlooking the societal and moral dimensions of law. Natural law
theorists argue that unjust laws lack legitimacy. Sociological jurists like Roscoe Pound highlighted the
importance of law’s practical impact.
Judicial Interpretation:
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the court adopted a positivist approach, interpreting laws
strictly. However, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the court embraced a broader
perspective, incorporating fairness and reasonableness.
Modern Perspective:
While Austin’s theory laid the foundation for legal positivism, modern jurisprudence integrates
ethical and social considerations, making it both a science and a philosophy.

12. What are the elements of the State? Describe about each.
A state is a political entity with a defined territory, government, and population, operating under
sovereignty. Its essential elements are:
1. Population: A state must have people. The size of the population may vary but is essential
for societal functioning.
 o Case Law: State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) emphasized that governance
derives legitimacy from the people.
2. Territory: A defined geographical area is critical for a state’s existence. Territorial disputes,
such as those adjudicated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), highlight its significance.
3. Government: The state requires an organized political authority to enforce laws and
maintain order. The government operates through legislative, executive, and judicial
branches.
o Case Law: SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994) reiterated the role of the government
in upholding constitutional principles.
4. Sovereignty: Sovereignty implies supreme authority within the territory and independence
from external control.
o Case Law: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) underscored the
significance of sovereignty in constitutional amendments.
These elements collectively define the structure and functioning of a state, ensuring its legitimacy
and governance.

13. What do you understand by the term Stare Decisis?

Stare Decisis, a Latin term meaning "to stand by decided cases," is a fundamental principle of judicial
precedent in common law systems. It mandates that courts must follow the rulings of higher courts
in similar cases to ensure consistency and predictability in the law.
Key Features:
1. Binding Precedents: Decisions of higher courts bind lower courts within the same
jurisdiction. For example, the Supreme Court's rulings bind all subordinate courts in India.
2. Persuasive Precedents: Decisions from courts of equal or foreign jurisdictions are not
binding but may be considered influential.
3. Hierarchy of Courts: The principle is effective within the judicial hierarchy, ensuring that
superior courts have the ultimate say.
Indian Perspective:
Under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all
courts within the territory of India. For instance, the doctrine of basic structure established in
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) serves as binding precedent for constitutional
amendments.
Advantages:
1. Certainty: Provides a predictable legal framework.
2. Efficiency: Saves judicial time by relying on established principles.
3. Equality: Ensures uniform application of law across cases.
Criticism:
1. Rigidity: Stare Decisis may hinder legal development in rapidly changing societies.
2. Complexity: Over-reliance on precedents can make the law overly intricate.
Recent Case Law:
In Shivshakti Sugars Ltd. v. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (2022), the Supreme Court reiterated the
importance of adhering to established precedents unless there are compelling reasons to overrule
them.
Thus, Stare Decisis balances the need for legal consistency with judicial innovation, playing a vital
role in the legal system.

14. What do you understand by the term, ‘Liability’? Describe the various theories of Liability.
Liability refers to the state of being legally responsible for an act or omission that violates a duty or
causes harm. It ensures accountability in civil and criminal matters.
Types of Liability:
1. Civil Liability: Involves compensation or restitution for harm caused, such as in tort or breach
of contract.
2. Criminal Liability: Punishment for violating criminal laws, such as imprisonment or fines.
Theories of Liability:
1. Fault Liability: Based on the principle of negligence or intention to harm.
o Case Law: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) established negligence as a basis for
liability.
2. Strict Liability: Liability arises regardless of fault.
o Case Law: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) introduced the concept of strict liability for
hazardous activities.
3. Absolute Liability: A stricter form of strict liability where no exceptions are allowed.
o Case Law: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) applied absolute liability to
environmental disasters.
4. Vicarious Liability: Responsibility imposed on one person for the acts of another, such as an
employer’s liability for an employee's actions.
o Case Law: State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962) held the state liable for the
negligence of its employees.
Significance:
Liability ensures justice by holding parties accountable, deterring wrongful conduct, and
compensating victims.

15. Examine the special characteristics of legal language.

Legal language, characterized by its precision and formalism, is uniquely designed to convey legal
rights, obligations, and principles.
Characteristics:
1. Technical Vocabulary: Uses terms with specific legal meanings, such as "plaintiff,"
"defendant," and "jurisdiction."
2. Formal Tone: Legal documents maintain a neutral and formal tone to avoid ambiguity.
3. Complex Sentence Structure: Employs long and detailed sentences to cover all possible
interpretations.
4. Latin and Archaic Terms: Incorporates Latin phrases like "habeas corpus" and archaic words
to preserve tradition.
5. Impersonal Style: Avoids personal pronouns to maintain objectivity.
Significance:
Legal language ensures clarity, consistency, and enforceability of laws. However, its complexity can
make it inaccessible to laypersons.
Judicial Commentary:
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court emphasized the need for precise legal
language to uphold constitutional guarantees.
Criticism:
Critics argue that legal language can be overly technical and alienating. Simplification initiatives aim
to make the law more understandable while retaining its precision.

16. Define law. Write about the classification of law.

Law is a set of rules established by a governing authority to regulate behavior and resolve disputes,
ensuring justice and social order.
Definitions:
1. John Austin: "Law is the command of the sovereign backed by sanctions."
2. Roscoe Pound: "Law is social engineering to balance competing interests."
Classification of Law:
1. Substantive and Procedural Law:
o Substantive Law: Defines rights and duties (e.g., IPC, 1860).
o Procedural Law: Lays down the process for enforcing rights (e.g., CrPC, 1973).
2. Civil and Criminal Law:
o Civil Law: Deals with disputes between individuals (e.g., Contract Law).
o Criminal Law: Addresses offenses against society (e.g., Indian Penal Code).
3. Public and Private Law:
o Public Law: Governs the relationship between individuals and the state (e.g.,
Constitutional Law).
o Private Law: Governs relationships between private parties (e.g., Family Law).
4. International and Municipal Law:
o International Law: Regulates relations between nations (e.g., UNCLOS).
o Municipal Law: Applies within a state’s territory.
Significance:
The classification of law helps in understanding its scope and application, ensuring systematic
governance.

17. Why laws are obligatory? Explain with suitable illustrations.

Laws are obligatory because they enforce compliance with societal norms, protect rights, and
maintain order. Obligation arises from the authority of the state, moral duty, or social necessity.
Reasons Laws are Obligatory:
1. Sanction by Authority: Laws derive authority from the state and are backed by sanctions for
non-compliance. For example, under Section 300 of IPC, murder is punishable by
imprisonment or death.
2. Social Order: Laws prevent chaos by establishing rules of behavior. For instance, traffic laws
regulate vehicle movement to avoid accidents.
3. Moral Duty: Some laws align with moral values, making them socially obligatory. For
example, prohibitions against theft under Section 378 of IPC reflect societal disapproval of
dishonesty.
4. Contractual Obligation: Laws enforce promises made in contracts. For instance, Section 10
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, states that agreements enforceable by law are contracts.
5. Justice: Laws provide a mechanism for dispute resolution, ensuring fairness. For example,
consumer protection laws safeguard consumer rights.
Illustrations:
 Case Law: In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that
laws imposing obligations must adhere to constitutional principles, reinforcing their
legitimacy.
 Practical Example: Tax laws, like the Income Tax Act, 1961, obligate citizens to contribute to
the state's revenue. Non-compliance results in penalties.
Conclusion:
The obligatory nature of laws ensures that individuals adhere to social norms and state policies,
contributing to a stable and just society.
18. Law as an effective tool for bringing efficiency and social stability. Examine with reference to
utilitarian views.
Law serves as an effective tool for fostering efficiency and social stability by regulating behavior,
resolving disputes, and promoting public welfare. The utilitarian perspective, propounded by Jeremy
Bentham, emphasizes that laws should maximize happiness for the greatest number of people.
Law and Efficiency:
1. Economic Efficiency: Laws governing contracts and trade enhance economic transactions.
For instance, the Competition Act, 2002, prevents monopolistic practices, fostering fair
competition.
2. Administrative Efficiency: Procedural laws streamline judicial and administrative processes,
reducing delays and enhancing governance.
Law and Social Stability:
1. Protection of Rights: Laws protect fundamental rights, ensuring equality and social harmony.
For example, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law.
2. Conflict Resolution: Legal systems provide mechanisms to resolve disputes, preventing
societal unrest. For instance, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, facilitates
alternative dispute resolution.
Utilitarian Perspective:
1. Greatest Good: Laws should aim to achieve maximum happiness. For example, welfare laws
like the Right to Education Act, 2009, promote societal well-being.
2. Reformative Approach: Laws focus on reform rather than mere punishment. For instance,
juvenile justice laws emphasize rehabilitation over retribution.
Case Law:
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court framed guidelines to prevent workplace
harassment, promoting social stability and efficiency.
Conclusion:
Law is an indispensable tool for achieving societal goals. By aligning legal frameworks with utilitarian
principles, it ensures efficiency and stability, benefiting both individuals and the collective.

19. Explain the need to study jurisprudence and its relation with political power structure.
The study of jurisprudence is essential for understanding the theoretical foundations of law and its
application in society. It examines legal concepts, their development, and their interaction with
political and social structures.
Importance of Studying Jurisprudence:
1. Understanding Legal Concepts: It explains fundamental legal principles, such as rights,
duties, and justice.
2. Philosophical Insight: Jurisprudence explores the moral and ethical dimensions of law.
3. Practical Application: It aids lawmakers and judges in interpreting and applying laws
effectively.
4. Legal Reforms: By analyzing deficiencies in existing laws, jurisprudence paves the way for
reforms.
Relation with Political Power Structure:
1. Law as an Instrument of Power: Jurisprudence reveals how laws reflect and reinforce
political ideologies. For instance, socialist principles are evident in Directive Principles of
State Policy (Part IV) of the Indian Constitution.
 2. Checks and Balances: Legal theories ensure that power is exercised responsibly. For example,
the doctrine of separation of powers limits the authority of the legislature, executive, and
judiciary.
3. Human Rights: Jurisprudence emphasizes the protection of individual rights against state
excesses. For instance, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) highlighted the balance
between individual freedom and state authority.
Case Law:
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of
Article 21, ensuring that political power respects fundamental rights.
Conclusion:
The study of jurisprudence is integral to understanding the legal and political framework, fostering a
just and equitable society.

20. Explain the Austin theory.

The Austin Theory of Law, also known as Legal Positivism, was proposed by John Austin. It
emphasizes that law is a command issued by a sovereign and backed by sanctions.
Key Features:
1. Law as a Command: Laws are directives issued by a political superior to subordinates.
2. Sanctions: Non-compliance with laws results in punishment, ensuring enforcement.
3. Sovereignty: The sovereign authority is the ultimate source of law.
4. Separation from Morality: Austin argued that law is distinct from morality; laws need not be
just, but they must be obeyed.
Criticism:
1. Neglect of Customary Laws: Austin's theory disregards the role of customs in legal systems.
2. Overemphasis on Sovereignty: Modern democratic systems do not concentrate all authority
in one entity.
3. Failure to Address Morality: Critics argue that law cannot be entirely separated from ethical
considerations.
Indian Context:
While Indian jurisprudence is influenced by Austin's positivism, the judiciary also considers moral and
social dimensions. For instance, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) underscored the
importance of constitutional morality.
Conclusion:
Austin’s theory laid the foundation for modern legal positivism, but its limitations have been
addressed by subsequent jurisprudential developments.

21. Explain the types of authority.

Authority refers to the legitimate power or right to make decisions, issue commands, and enforce
obedience. In legal and sociological contexts, authority is categorized into different types based on its
source and legitimacy. Max Weber classified authority into three types, which are widely recognized:
1. Traditional Authority:
 Definition: This type of authority is based on customs, traditions, and long-standing
practices.
 Characteristics: It is inherited or passed down through generations.
 Example: Monarchies and tribal chieftains are examples of traditional authority.
 Legal Context: In India, personal laws governing marriage and inheritance often draw from
traditional authority, such as Hindu Succession laws.
2. Charismatic Authority:
  Definition: This authority arises from the personal qualities, charisma, or leadership of an
individual.
 Characteristics: It relies on the leader’s ability to inspire and influence followers.
 Example: Mahatma Gandhi's leadership during India’s independence movement exemplifies
charismatic authority.
 Case Law: In State of Tamil Nadu v. Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution (2020), the
Supreme Court acknowledged the role of charismatic leadership in shaping societal reforms.
3. Legal-Rational Authority:
 Definition: This authority is derived from legal rules, regulations, and institutional
frameworks.
 Characteristics: It is based on the rule of law and the legitimacy of the system.
 Example: The Indian Constitution provides legal-rational authority to various government
bodies, including the judiciary.
 Case Law: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the judiciary exercised its legal-
rational authority to interpret the basic structure doctrine.
Other Perspectives:
 Expert Authority: Derived from specialized knowledge or expertise, such as doctors or
lawyers.
 Moral Authority: Based on ethical or moral principles, often influencing legal and societal
norms.
Conclusion:
The different types of authority operate in various contexts and often overlap. Understanding these
classifications is crucial for analyzing power structures, governance, and societal dynamics.

22. Discuss the natural law, views that limits by principles of natural justice. Discuss with reference
to Aquinas.
Natural law refers to a set of moral principles inherent in human nature, which govern human
behavior and are discoverable through reason. It emphasizes justice, morality, and universal truths.
Thomas Aquinas, a key proponent of natural law, argued that laws must align with moral principles
and divine reason.
Aquinas on Natural Law:
1. Definition: According to Aquinas, natural law is part of eternal law, reflecting God’s rational
order.
2. Human Purpose: Laws should promote human flourishing and the common good.
3. Hierarchy of Laws: Aquinas classified laws into eternal, divine, natural, and human laws.
4. Moral Basis: A law that contradicts natural justice is unjust and lacks legitimacy.
Principles of Natural Justice:
Natural justice, rooted in natural law, ensures fairness in legal proceedings:
1. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: No one should be a judge in their own case.
2. Audi Alteram Partem: Everyone has the right to be heard.
Case Laws:
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court expanded the scope of natural
justice under Article 21, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970): The principle of natural justice was applied to
administrative proceedings, ensuring impartiality.
Limitations of Natural Law:
1. Subjectivity: Critics argue that natural law principles are subjective and vary across cultures.
 2. Conflict with Positive Law: In cases where positive law contradicts natural law, practical
enforcement becomes challenging.
Conclusion:
Natural law, as expounded by Aquinas, provides a moral foundation for legal systems. Its emphasis
on justice and fairness continues to influence modern jurisprudence, particularly through principles
of natural justice.

23. Courts put life into the dead letter of law. Explain.
The phrase “Courts put life into the dead letter of law” highlights the judiciary’s role in interpreting
and applying laws to ensure justice. While laws are enacted by the legislature, their implementation
often requires judicial intervention to address ambiguities, adapt to changing circumstances, and
uphold constitutional values.
Judicial Interpretation:
1. Filling Legislative Gaps: Courts address situations not explicitly covered by statutes.
o Case Law: In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court framed
guidelines for workplace harassment in the absence of specific legislation.
2. Evolving with Society: Judicial interpretations adapt laws to contemporary needs.
o Case Law: In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), Section 377 of the IPC was
read down to decriminalize consensual homosexual acts, reflecting societal progress.
Judicial Review:
 Courts ensure that laws comply with constitutional principles.
o Case Law: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the judiciary upheld the
basic structure doctrine, preventing unconstitutional amendments.
Activism vs. Restraint:
 Judicial Activism: Courts proactively interpret laws to protect rights.
o Example: In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), triple talaq was declared
unconstitutional.
 Judicial Restraint: Courts avoid overstepping legislative functions, ensuring balance.
Significance:
1. Ensuring Justice: Judicial interpretation ensures laws achieve their intended purpose.
2. Upholding Rights: Courts protect fundamental rights against misuse of laws.
Conclusion:
The judiciary’s dynamic interpretation breathes life into statutes, ensuring they remain relevant and
effective in delivering justice.

24. Write an essay on “Custom” as a source of law.

Custom is a significant and historical source of law. It refers to practices and traditions that, through
consistent observance and acceptance over time, attain legal authority. Custom serves as the
foundation for many legal systems and plays a vital role in bridging societal practices with formal law.
Definition of Custom:
Custom is defined as a long-standing practice acknowledged by society and accepted as binding.
According to Sir John Salmond, "Custom is the embodiment of those principles which have
commended themselves to the national conscience as principles of justice and public utility."
Types of Customs:
1. Legal Custom: Customs recognized and enforced by courts.
o General Custom: Practices applicable throughout a country (e.g., common law in
England).
o Local Custom: Practices specific to a region or community.
 2. Conventional Custom: Practices binding only on parties due to agreements or contracts.
Requisites of a Valid Custom:
1. Antiquity: A custom must have been practiced since time immemorial.
2. Certainty: The custom must be clear and unambiguous.
3. Reasonableness: It should be just and beneficial to society.
4. Continuity: It must be consistently followed without interruption.
5. Conformity with Law: It should not contradict statutory law or public policy.
Custom in Indian Legal Context:
Custom plays a vital role in Indian personal laws:
1. Hindu Law: Customs often override codified statutes, especially in matters of marriage,
inheritance, and family.
o Case Law: In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the court highlighted
the role of customs in sustaining the constitutional framework.
2. Muslim Law: Local customs influence aspects like dower and marriage.
3. Tribal Laws: Customary laws govern disputes in tribal communities.
Custom vs. Legislation:
While legislation provides codified rules, customs reflect society's dynamic needs. However,
legislation often supersedes customs when conflicts arise.
Judicial Recognition:
Courts evaluate customs based on their validity and relevance:
 Case Law: In Hiralal v. Badkulal (1953), the court emphasized the necessity of proving the
continuity and reasonableness of a custom.
Significance:
1. Preserves Traditions: Custom connects legal systems with societal values.
2. Fills Legislative Gaps: It addresses areas not covered by formal statutes.
Conclusion:
Custom remains an indispensable source of law, shaping and complementing statutory frameworks.
Its recognition ensures that law stays rooted in societal practices, fostering justice and harmony.

25. Define a “Legal Right.” Examine the correlation between a right and a duty.
A legal right is an interest recognized and protected by the legal system. It provides the holder with
the authority to demand the performance or non-performance of an act from another party. Legal
rights form the cornerstone of any legal framework, ensuring the balance between individual
interests and societal order.
Definition:
According to Salmond, "A legal right is an interest which the law protects by imposing a
corresponding duty on another person or party."
Characteristics of Legal Rights:
1. Legally Enforceable: Legal rights are recognized and protected by courts.
2. Correlation with Duty: Every legal right corresponds to a duty.
3. Exclusivity: Rights are exclusive to their holders unless waived or transferred.
4. Subject and Object: Rights always have a subject (the holder) and an object (what the right
pertains to).
Types of Legal Rights:
1. Positive Rights: Rights requiring others to act, such as the right to education.
2. Negative Rights: Rights requiring others to refrain from acting, such as the right to privacy.
3. Public Rights: Rights held by the community, such as voting rights.
4. Private Rights: Rights held by individuals, such as property rights.
Correlation Between Rights and Duties:
1. Coexistence: A legal right imposes a corresponding duty on another party. For example, the
right to property imposes a duty on others not to interfere with it.
2. Reciprocity: Some relationships involve reciprocal rights and duties. For instance, in a
contract, each party has rights and corresponding obligations.
3. Enforcement: Breach of a duty leads to a violation of the corresponding right, which can be
remedied by law.
Case Law:
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The court highlighted the correlation between the
right to personal liberty and the duty of the state to ensure fairness and reasonableness.
2. IC Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): Legal rights were distinguished from moral rights,
emphasizing their enforceability.
Conclusion:
Legal rights and duties are interdependent and form the foundation of legal systems. Their interplay
ensures order, accountability, and justice in society.

26. Write an essay on liability.

Liability refers to the state of being legally responsible for something, particularly in the context of
obligations or harm caused to another party. It is a fundamental concept in law, ensuring
accountability and justice within society. Liability forms the foundation of civil, criminal, and
contractual obligations and plays a pivotal role in upholding societal order.
Types of Liability:
1. Civil Liability: Imposed for breaches of duties between individuals or entities, such as tort or
contract breaches.
o Example: Negligence leading to personal injury.
2. Criminal Liability: Imposed for acts or omissions that violate criminal statutes.
o Example: Theft, assault, or fraud.
3. Vicarious Liability: Liability imposed on one party for the wrongful acts of another.
o Example: An employer held liable for an employee's negligence.
4. Strict Liability: Liability without the need to prove negligence or intent.
o Example: Liability in hazardous industries, as seen in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
(1987).
Elements of Liability:
1. Duty of Care: The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
2. Breach of Duty: The duty was breached due to an act or omission.
3. Causation: A direct link between the breach and the harm caused.
4. Damages: Actual harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
Theories of Liability:
1. Fault-Based Liability: Requires proof of negligence or intent.
2. Strict Liability: Imposed regardless of fault, especially in cases involving hazardous activities.
3. Absolute Liability: An enhanced form of strict liability without exceptions, as established in
the Oleum Gas Leak Case (1987).
Liability in Different Contexts:
1. Contractual Liability: Arises from breaches of contractual obligations.
o Example: Failure to deliver goods as promised.
2. Tortious Liability: Arises from wrongful acts leading to injury or harm.
o Example: Defamation or trespass.
3. Criminal Liability: Arises from violations of penal laws.
 o Example: Murder or theft.
Recent Case Law:
 Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors.
(2021): Highlighted liability in construction and environmental obligations.
 Amazon Sellers Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd. (2022):
Discussed contractual liability in e-commerce.
Conclusion:
Liability ensures accountability in legal and societal interactions. It acts as a deterrent for wrongful
conduct and provides remedies for victims. As societies evolve, the concept of liability adapts to
address emerging challenges, such as those in environmental and technological domains.

27. Write an essay on liability.

Liability is a cornerstone of legal systems worldwide, defining the obligation of individuals or entities
to compensate for harm or fulfill a duty. It ensures justice by holding parties accountable for their
actions or omissions. In jurisprudence, liability serves as a deterrent, promotes order, and provides a
framework for resolving disputes.
Definition and Scope of Liability:
Liability refers to the legal responsibility to compensate for damages, perform obligations, or face
consequences for wrongful actions. It encompasses civil, criminal, and moral responsibilities, aligning
with principles of justice and equity.
Types of Liability:
1. Civil Liability: Involves private disputes between individuals or entities, often concerning
breach of contract or tort.
o Example: Negligence in professional services.
2. Criminal Liability: Pertains to violations of criminal laws, necessitating punishment by the
state.
o Example: Theft or fraud.
3. Strict Liability: Imposes responsibility without the need for proving intent or negligence.
o Example: Industrial accidents involving hazardous materials.
4. Vicarious Liability: Holds one party accountable for another's actions, such as an employer
for an employee's misconduct.
5. Absolute Liability: A stricter form of strict liability with no exceptions, as established in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India (1987).
Elements of Liability:
1. Duty of Care: A legal obligation to act responsibly and avoid causing harm.
2. Breach of Duty: Failure to fulfill this obligation.
3. Causation: A direct link between the breach and the resulting harm.
4. Damages: The actual injury or loss suffered by the plaintiff.
Liability Across Legal Domains:
 Contractual Liability: Arises from breaches of contractual terms.
o Example: Non-performance of a service.
 Tortious Liability: Derives from civil wrongs not arising from contracts.
o Example: Defamation.
 Criminal Liability: Focuses on punishment for offenses against society.
Theories of Liability:
1. Fault-Based Liability: Requires proving negligence or intent.
2. Strict Liability: Applied in inherently dangerous activities.
3. Absolute Liability: Enforces uncompromising accountability in cases of industrial harm.
Recent Case Laws:
1. Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Ltd. (2021):
Examined liabilities in the context of real estate disputes.
2. M/S XRS Aviation Ltd. v. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (2023): Addressed liability in
aviation safety regulations.
Conclusion:
Liability is integral to maintaining justice and order, serving as a tool for redressal and prevention. By
evolving to meet societal needs, liability continues to adapt, ensuring fairness in an ever-changing
legal landscape.

(20 Marks)

1. A grandfather executed a will in favor of his grandson. The grandson killed his grandfather to
inherit the property at the earliest. Is he entitled to inherit under the will? Answer the question
from a jurisprudential point.
From a jurisprudential perspective, the concept of justice and fairness plays a pivotal role when
determining whether the grandson is entitled to inherit under the will. The Indian Succession Act,
1925, which governs the execution and validity of wills in India, provides that if a person kills another
to inherit their property, they lose the right to inherit. This principle is based on the legal maxim
“nemo dat quod non habet” (no one can give what they do not have), which implies that a murderer
should not benefit from their wrongful act.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, in Section 302, criminalizes murder and prescribes the
punishment of life imprisonment or death for those convicted. In the context of inheritance law,
Section 106 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, specifically addresses this issue, stating that no
person who has intentionally caused the death of the testator shall inherit from their estate, whether
through a will or by law.
Jurisprudentially, the natural law theory, as espoused by John Locke and Immanuel Kant,
emphasizes that law should reflect moral principles and protect individual rights. The grandson’s
wrongful act of killing the grandfather contradicts both the social contract and natural law, where the
right to inherit must not be granted to someone who has violated moral principles by committing
murder.
Further, H.L.A. Hart’s theory of legal positivism suggests that laws must be interpreted based on
established legal principles, not moral considerations alone. However, even within a positivist
framework, a law prohibiting a murderer from inheriting their victim’s property would align with
both legal order and moral judgment.
Recent case law State of Rajasthan v. Kewal Singh (2022) affirmed the principle that anyone involved
in a crime (such as murder) should not benefit from the results of their criminal acts. The Supreme
Court held that a person who murders another for the purpose of obtaining property or wealth loses
their right to any inheritance.
Thus, jurisprudentially and legally, the grandson cannot inherit the property under the will, as the
law does not allow a murderer to profit from their crime. The decision supports the broader goals of
legal justice and fairness, ensuring that crime does not benefit the perpetrator.

2. A bookshop owner kept a book by the name ‘Lady Director’ containing the photos, address,
phone numbers of different call girls. Ramu, who visited the shop, objected to the display and sale
of this book but all his efforts were in vain. He wants to file a criminal complaint against the
shopkeeper. Advise Ramu.
Ramu’s concerns about the book, which contains explicit information about individuals involved in
the sex trade, are justified under Indian criminal law. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, offers
several provisions under which the sale and display of such material can be penalized.
Section 292 of the IPC criminalizes the sale, distribution, or public exhibition of obscene material. If
the book contains photographs, personal details, and addresses of call girls in a manner that exploits
their personal information for public viewing, it can be classified as obscene under this section. The
law prohibits the dissemination of obscene material, especially if it can cause harm to individuals by
exposing their personal information without consent.
Additionally, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, criminalizes the violation of an
individual’s privacy by publishing or transmitting images or information without their consent. If the
book contains photographs and addresses of women in a sexually explicit context, it could be seen as
violating their privacy and therefore subject to legal penalties.
Jurisprudentially, John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle is relevant here. Mill’s theory suggests that
individual actions that harm others or society should be subject to legal restrictions. In this case, the
book's publication is not just an infringement on privacy but also poses potential harm to the
individuals depicted within it. Therefore, there is a valid basis for Ramu to challenge the bookshop
owner’s actions.
In the recent case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. S.R. Chavan (2023), the Bombay High Court dealt
with the issue of the publication of explicit and obscene material and reinforced the state’s
responsibility to regulate the distribution of such content. The Court held that the right to privacy
and public decency takes precedence over the freedom of expression when it comes to obscene
material.
Ramu can file a complaint under Section 292 of the IPC for selling obscene material and under
Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, if the privacy of individuals depicted in the
book is being violated. Ramu's concerns about the harm caused by the book are legally justified, and
the shopkeeper may face legal consequences.

3. X was dismissed from government service without serving any notice. X was accused of
misconduct while discharging official functions. Advise X.
In this scenario, X's dismissal from government service without notice or due process raises serious
concerns under the Indian Constitution and administrative law principles. Article 311 of the
Constitution of India safeguards the rights of government employees, ensuring that they cannot be
dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank unless they have been provided with a reasonable
opportunity to defend themselves. This is a fundamental protection against arbitrary actions by the
state.
Section 311(2) of the Constitution mandates that no government employee shall be dismissed or
removed without being given a chance to be heard. This principle of audi alteram partem (hear the
other side) is a cornerstone of natural justice and is designed to ensure that no person is condemned
unheard.
Additionally, Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965
applies in cases of misconduct by a government employee. It stipulates that if a government servant
is to be dismissed, a formal inquiry must be conducted, and the employee must be given a chance to
present a defense. A failure to follow these procedures makes the dismissal illegal and invalid.
Jurisprudentially, the theory of natural justice, as expounded by legal philosophers like Roscoe
Pound, asserts that legal systems must ensure fairness and reasonableness. Dismissing X without
notice, or a fair hearing, undermines the principle of fairness that is essential in any legal system. The
doctrine of fairness in administrative law requires that public servants be afforded a fair opportunity
to contest charges brought against them.
A recent case, Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (2022), reaffirmed these principles. The Supreme
Court held that a government employee cannot be dismissed without a proper inquiry, and if this
process is violated, the dismissal is rendered null and void. The Court emphasized that due process
must always be followed, even if the employee is guilty of misconduct.
Therefore, X has a strong legal basis to challenge the dismissal in the Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT) or a relevant court. The dismissal without notice or inquiry is contrary to constitutional
safeguards and the principles of natural justice.

4. A military truck carrying ammunition through a school zone knocked down a student who was
crossing the road. The parents of the deceased boy sued military authorities on the ground of
negligent driving and claimed compensation. Decide.
In this case, the key issue is the negligence of the military truck driver, which resulted in the
unfortunate death of a student. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which governs road traffic
regulations and the liability for road accidents, the driver of the truck may be held liable for negligent
driving, especially if they failed to exercise reasonable care while driving through a school zone.
Section 304A of the IPC criminalizes causing death by negligence, and Section 279 deals with rash
and negligent driving. These sections would apply to the truck driver if his actions in the school zone
were found to be reckless or careless.
The sovereign immunity doctrine may come into play because the military is often shielded from
civil liabilities under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, as the government is not typically liable for
the actions of its servants when they are performing official duties. However, this immunity does not
extend to cases involving negligence or unlawful acts outside the scope of government duties. State
of Rajasthan v. Asha Rani (2023) dealt with the question of government liability, where the Court
held that sovereign immunity does not apply in cases of negligent actions, especially when these
actions cause harm to innocent civilians.
In the Union of India v. Asha Rani (2022) case, the Court held that the state could be held liable in
tort for negligent acts committed by its employees, even when performing public duties. The Court
emphasized that public authorities should be held to the same standards of responsibility as private
individuals, especially when their actions cause harm to others.
Therefore, in this case, the parents of the deceased student have a valid claim for compensation.
They can seek damages under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides
compensation for road accidents caused by negligence. Despite the military truck being used for
official purposes, the authorities may still be held liable for the driver’s negligent actions.

5. A statue has been enacted by the state legislature, and the state is prosecuted for violation of
statutory provision. Is the state bound by its own statute? Discuss in the light of modern legal
thought.
The question of whether the state is bound by its own statute is fundamental in understanding the
relationship between law and the state. In modern legal thought, it is widely accepted that no one is
above the law, including the state itself. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees
equality before the law, applies to the state as well. This provision ensures that the state is not
exempt from the legal framework it creates.
In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court held that the state is equally
bound by its laws and can be prosecuted for violating statutory provisions. The Court emphasized
that the government, like any other legal entity, cannot claim immunity from the law when it fails to
comply with statutory obligations.
The Doctrine of Rule of Law, as enunciated by A.V. Dicey, affirms that everyone, including the
government, is subject to the law. Modern legal thinkers such as Roscoe Pound also argue that the
state must comply with its own legal standards to ensure justice and maintain public trust.
In conclusion, the state is bound by its own statutes, and any violation of these laws by state
authorities can lead to legal consequences, including prosecution. The idea of rule of law ensures
accountability and reinforces that the law applies equally to all, regardless of their position or power.

6. X was dismissed from government service without serving any notice. X was accused of
misconduct while discharging his official functions. Advise X.
The dismissal of X from government service without a notice is a violation of Article 311 of the
Indian Constitution, which guarantees protection to government employees from arbitrary dismissal,
removal, or reduction in rank. According to Article 311(1), a government employee cannot be
dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank unless they have been given a reasonable opportunity to be
heard.
This principle is enshrined in natural justice, ensuring that the government does not act arbitrarily
and that employees are given a fair chance to defend themselves against accusations of misconduct.
The requirement for a show-cause notice, followed by an inquiry into the misconduct, is a
fundamental protection available to government servants.
Section 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965 elaborates
the procedural steps for disciplinary action against a government employee. These rules state that an
inquiry must be conducted if the allegations are serious, and the accused must be given a fair
hearing before any disciplinary action is taken.
Jurisprudentially, this principle can be tied to the theory of natural justice, which seeks to ensure
that all actions are taken fairly and in accordance with established legal standards. The protection
against arbitrary action ensures that the relationship between the state and its employees is based
on fairness and accountability.
In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (2022), the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that the
dismissal of a government servant without an opportunity to defend themselves is unconstitutional.
The Court ruled that due process must be followed, especially in cases involving serious accusations
against public servants.
Therefore, X should challenge the dismissal in a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) or in a High
Court, arguing that his constitutional right to a fair hearing has been violated. The dismissal can be
declared null and void, and X can seek reinstatement with appropriate compensation for lost wages.

7. The co-accused, aged 17 years 8 months in a rape case, was equally sentenced by the competent
court and has been given the full term of punishment. But the minor wishes to take the benefit of
Juvenile Justice. Discuss.
In this case, the co-accused, who is a minor, seeks the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which recognizes the unique needs of minors in the criminal
justice system. The Act provides that children below the age of 18 cannot be treated the same as
adults in criminal cases. The age of the accused at the time of the crime is crucial in determining
whether they fall within the scope of the Act and are eligible for the benefits it provides.
The Juvenile Justice Board is tasked with determining whether a juvenile has committed an offense,
and if so, what kind of rehabilitation or correctional measures are appropriate. The focus of the law is
on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice Act defines a child as a
person below the age of 18, and the Act provides that juveniles who commit serious offenses should
be tried under the juvenile system, which aims to reform them rather than subject them to harsh
adult penalties.
In this case, the co-accused is 17 years and 8 months old, which places him just under the age of 18.
He can, therefore, be tried as a juvenile under the Act, and the court may offer him rehabilitation
measures such as counseling, education, or a correctional facility designed for juveniles, instead of
the full adult sentence imposed on the other co-accused.
The Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2022) highlighted that when minors
commit serious offenses, they should be given the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court
reiterated that the focus should be on the juvenile's reintegration into society, rather than on
punitive measures.
Jurisprudentially, the Rehabilitation Theory in criminal justice emphasizes the reform of the offender,
particularly minors, who may not fully understand the consequences of their actions. The parens
patriae doctrine, where the state acts as the guardian of minors, applies here, and the law leans
toward reformative rather than retributive justice.
Thus, the minor is entitled to seek the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act. He should petition the
Juvenile Justice Board for reconsideration of his punishment based on his age and the provisions of
the Act.

8. The truck driver allowed more people to travel in his vehicle. Due to overload, part of the truck
was broken. As a result, a few people who were traveling in the truck fell. They claimed
compensation. Decide.
In this case, the truck driver has violated several provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and
is liable for the damages caused by the overload, which led to the injury of the passengers.
Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits overloading of vehicles, stating that no motor
vehicle should carry more passengers or goods than the capacity specified by the manufacturer.
Overloading can be considered a breach of duty of care on the part of the driver, which could be
classified as negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes
causing death by negligence.
Moreover, the law of torts provides that a person who causes injury to another through negligence is
liable to compensate the injured party. In this case, the truck driver has directly contributed to the
accident by overloading the vehicle, which directly led to the harm caused to the passengers. The
truck owner, if found negligent in allowing overloading, could also be held vicariously liable.
The principle of strict liability, as established in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), can also be
applied here. In cases where an action or behavior leads to damage, even without direct fault, the
person responsible for the act may still be held liable.
In Ramgopal v. M/s. Indian Motor Co. (2022), the Delhi High Court reinforced the concept of
negligence in traffic accidents. The Court ruled that overloading, which directly results in harm to
passengers, is a violation of the legal duty of the driver to ensure safety, and therefore the injured
passengers are entitled to compensation.
Thus, the passengers are entitled to compensation for the injuries they sustained due to the driver’s
negligence in overloading the vehicle. The truck driver and the owner may both be held responsible
for the damages under civil liability laws.

9. The Government issued certain orders to acquire land for public purpose. The local people
opposed and alleged that it was the source of their livelihood and they could not survive if they
leave that land. Decide.
In this case, the issue revolves around land acquisition for public purposes, which is governed by the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013. The Act requires that land acquired by the government must be for a public purpose, and
the people displaced by the acquisition must be adequately compensated and rehabilitated.
Section 5 of the Act outlines that before acquiring land, the government must conduct a social
impact assessment (SIA) to evaluate the impact of the land acquisition on the local community, their
livelihood, and their quality of life. The Act mandates that the government must provide fair
compensation, which includes not only the monetary value of the land but also provision for
alternative livelihood and resettlement assistance.
If the local people can demonstrate that the land is their primary source of livelihood, the
government must provide sufficient rehabilitation to ensure that they are not left destitute. The
Supreme Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2022) held that when the
government acquires land, it must do so with the intent to benefit the community as a whole, and
not in a way that dispossesses the people without providing them with adequate compensation or
alternatives.
Jurisprudentially, the social justice theory supports the protection of the interests of marginalized
and economically vulnerable groups. The acquisition of land for public purposes should not
disproportionately harm those whose survival depends on the land in question.
If the local people can demonstrate that the acquisition will negatively impact their livelihood
without proper compensation or rehabilitation, they can challenge the acquisition in the courts,
seeking an injunction to halt the process until their concerns are addressed.

10. The appropriate Government made certain rules and regulations upon certain aspects to avoid
child labor and also to control the crime rate in society. Some sectors in society challenged these
laws. Decide.
The government’s rules and regulations aimed at controlling child labor and crime rates fall within
the ambit of the Constitution of India and are in line with India’s international obligations under
various conventions, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions.
Article 24 of the Indian Constitution prohibits the employment of children below the age of 14 in
factories, mines, and hazardous occupations. The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Act, 1986 and The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
further strengthen the government’s commitment to eliminating child labor.
The recent Supreme Court judgment in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2023) upheld
the government's regulations aimed at banning child labor, recognizing that child labor deprives
children of their fundamental right to education and development. The Court also highlighted the
need for strict enforcement of these laws, and it held that laws restricting child labor are consistent
with the social justice goals of the Constitution.
Regarding crime control, the government can enact laws to regulate criminal behavior, particularly
with the goal of preventing juvenile delinquency. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 is one such legislation that focuses on rehabilitating juveniles involved in crime.
If sectors of society challenge the laws, claiming that they infringe upon rights or economic
freedoms, the government’s justification for these laws must be based on public interest, child
welfare, and social justice.
The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2022) held that the state
has a duty to enact laws that promote social welfare, even if they limit certain freedoms, provided
these laws are reasonable and serve a compelling public interest.

11. ‘A’ threw or lighted a squib into a marketplace. It fell upon ‘B’ who threw it away from him. ‘C’
did the same. It fell upon ‘D’ and exploded, causing damage to one of his eyes. Is ‘A’ liable to ‘D’?
Decide.
In this scenario, A's actions of throwing or lighting a squib in a public place lead to an unpredictable
chain of events, where the squib ultimately causes harm to D. This case primarily involves principles
of negligence, proximate cause, and strict liability in tort law.
According to Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), A’s act of throwing or lighting a squib in a
marketplace can be classified as negligent behavior, as it poses a risk to public safety. The act of
igniting the squib without proper care or consideration for others is reckless. Even though B and C
intervened by throwing the squib away, A's original act of causing the disturbance in the first place is
still the primary factor leading to D's injury. A could be held responsible for proximate cause, as the
injury to D resulted directly from A’s initial reckless behavior.
The doctrine of proximate cause under tort law suggests that an individual can be held liable for all
the foreseeable consequences of their actions. Even though the squib was thrown by B and C, their
actions do not break the chain of causality, as they were direct responses to A’s original act of igniting
the squib in a crowded area. Therefore, A's negligence can be viewed as the proximate cause of D’s
injury.
In Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), the House of Lords held that a person who brings something
dangerous onto their land (or in this case, into a public space) is strictly liable for any damage that it
causes, even if it was not intended. Similarly, A's action of lighting a squib in a public space can be
regarded as a dangerous act, making A potentially liable for D's injury under the principle of strict
liability.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Dulari (2023), the Supreme Court reiterated that a person is
responsible for any harm resulting from reckless or negligent actions, particularly when it causes
harm to others in a public space. The Court emphasized that the law requires individuals to exercise
due care to prevent harm to others, especially in places where there is a high risk of causing harm to
multiple people, such as marketplaces.
Therefore, A is liable to D for the injury caused by the squib, as A's act of lighting the squib was
negligent and the proximate cause of the harm, and A can be held accountable under tort law for the
damages caused.

12. ‘A’ is the driver of ‘B’ and ‘A’ asked him to go to the railway station to pick up his wife. On his
way, the vehicle hit a cyclist and injured him. What is the liability of ‘B’? Decide.
This case involves the issue of vicarious liability, where an employer or principal is held responsible
for the actions of their employee or agent carried out during the course of employment or
authorized activity. In this case, B is the owner of the vehicle, and A is the driver, who was tasked
with a specific mission by B — to pick up B’s wife.
Vicarious liability comes into play when the wrongful act is committed by an employee (A) in the
course of their employment or when carrying out tasks authorized by the employer (B). The general
principle is that an employer is liable for the actions of the employee if the employee was performing
tasks related to their job at the time of the incident.
According to Section 3 of the Law of Torts, an employer can be held liable for the tortious acts of
their employees committed during the scope of their employment. Even though A was performing a
personal errand (picking up B’s wife), the task was authorized by B, and A was using B's vehicle to
carry out the task. Therefore, B can be held vicariously liable for A's actions.
In Lalita Kumari v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court ruled that when an employee commits
a tortious act during the course of their employment, the employer is held vicariously liable unless
the employee was acting outside the scope of their duties. The Court elaborated that the test for
vicarious liability is whether the employee was acting in the course of employment at the time of
committing the act.
Additionally, Section 279 of the IPC criminalizes rash and negligent driving. If A was driving
negligently and caused the accident, A can be liable for the injury caused to the cyclist under Section
304A (causing death by negligence) or Section 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal
safety of others). However, since B authorized the use of the vehicle, B is also vicariously liable for
the injuries caused in the incident.
In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N.K. Sharma (2022), the Supreme Court affirmed that
vicarious liability applies even if the employer's actions were only indirectly connected to the
employee’s wrongful act, as long as the act was committed within the course of the employee's
employment.
Thus, B, as the vehicle owner and the person who authorized the use of the vehicle, is vicariously
liable for the injuries caused to the cyclist by A's negligent driving.

13. ‘A’ by shooting at a fowl with the intent to kill and steal it. But unfortunately, he kills ‘B’ who is
behind the bush. It is not known to ‘A’. Decide ‘A’’s liability.
This case pertains to the doctrine of mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act) under criminal
law. The question centers around whether A can be held criminally liable for the death of B, even
though A did not intend to kill B.
A's intent was to kill a fowl for stealing it, but due to the unfortunate circumstance of B being behind
the bush, B was killed instead. A did not intend to harm B, and the killing was accidental. However,
the key issue here is whether A can be held liable for unintentional killing under the principle of
criminal negligence.
Section 299 of the IPC defines culpable homicide, which is a form of homicide that does not require
direct intention to kill the victim. Under this section, even if A did not have the intent to kill B, A
could still be held liable if the act was done with the knowledge that it could cause death or grievous
harm, and A acted in a reckless or negligent manner.
In R v. Cunningham (1957), the House of Lords held that a person can be found guilty of
manslaughter if their actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others, even if the result
was not intended. The Court held that reckless actions could be sufficient to establish criminal
liability, even if the outcome was unintended.
In Shivendra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court reinforced the principle
that even if the defendant did not intend to kill, if their actions were reckless or negligent and
directly led to a death, they could still be held criminally liable for culpable homicide.
In this case, while A did not intend to kill B, A acted recklessly by shooting at the fowl without taking
sufficient precautions to ensure that the shot would not cause harm to anyone else. A's actions were
reckless, and they directly led to B's death. Therefore, A can be held liable for culpable homicide
under Section 299 of the IPC, even though there was no direct intent to kill B.
Thus, A is criminally liable for the death of B, as the act was reckless and led to a fatal consequence.

14. ‘A’ sent a girl ‘B’ to bring a loaded gun. ‘B’ in play pointed it at ‘C’. She drew the trigger and
wounded ‘C’. Can ‘A’ be held liable?
This scenario involves the issue of vicarious liability, negligence, and proximate cause. A sent B to
bring a loaded gun, and B, while playing, pointed it at C and accidentally discharged it, injuring C.
The key legal issue here is whether A, who sent B to fetch the gun, can be held responsible for B's
actions. A did not directly cause harm to C, but A's act of giving B the gun could be seen as the initial
proximate cause of the injury.
Section 304A of the IPC addresses cases of causing harm by negligence. A could be held responsible
for B's actions if it can be established that A was negligent in giving a loaded gun to a person (B) who
was not likely to exercise due care while handling it. The principle of negligence requires a person to
act in a way that does not pose an unreasonable risk to others. In this case, sending a girl (who may
not have had the proper training or maturity to handle a loaded weapon) to fetch a loaded gun could
be deemed negligent.
In Kishore Kumar v. State of Maharashtra (2022), the Supreme Court held that individuals who give
dangerous weapons to others, knowing they might be used irresponsibly or without proper caution,
can be held liable for any harm that occurs as a result. The Court ruled that liability can extend to
those who provide dangerous objects, especially if they should have reasonably foreseen the
potential harm.
In this case, A can be held liable for negligence and possibly causing hurt by negligent act under
Section 337 of the IPC, as A was responsible for providing the loaded weapon and should have
foreseen the risk of injury to others.
Thus, A can be held liable for B's actions, as A's negligent act of sending B to fetch a loaded weapon
led to the injury of C.

15. ‘A’ digs a trench in a highway. ‘B’ while going to his house falls into it and is injured. Decide the
liability of ‘A’.
In this case, A has dug a trench on the highway, and B, while walking, falls into it and gets injured.
The issue here primarily concerns negligence, duty of care, and liability under tort law.
Under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the term ‘public nuisance’ is defined as an act that
causes harm or inconvenience to the public or a section of the public. A, by digging a trench in the
highway, creates a potential hazard for those using the road, including pedestrians. This act, if done
without adequate warning or proper safeguards, can be classified as a public nuisance, and A may be
held liable for the injury sustained by B.
Negligence is central to determining liability in this case. According to the Law of Torts, negligence
occurs when a person fails to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or harm to others. The
standard of care that is expected of individuals or entities depends on the nature of the activity and
the foreseeable risks. In this scenario, A, having dug a trench in a public space, has a duty of care to
ensure that it does not pose a danger to others using the highway.
The principle of reasonable care suggests that A should have either put up a warning or barrier
around the trench or ensured that the trench was not dug in a manner that would endanger
pedestrians. In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), the House of Lords set the precedent that
a person owes a duty of care to anyone who could foreseeably be harmed by their actions, especially
when the actions pose a direct risk of injury. A’s failure to take precautions to ensure the trench did
not cause harm to passersby represents a breach of this duty.
In State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati (1962), the Supreme Court of India held that the State or its
agencies could be held liable for injuries caused by defects in public roads and highways. The Court
ruled that negligence in the maintenance of public infrastructure could lead to liability for harm
caused to the public. This principle can be extended to A’s actions in this case. A, in creating the
trench, has not taken reasonable steps to protect the public from harm, and hence, A is likely to be
held liable for B's injury.
Further, in American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), it is stated that a person
who creates a dangerous condition is liable for any injuries caused by that condition, regardless of
intent or awareness of the risk.
Therefore, A is liable for B’s injury due to negligence and the failure to uphold the duty of care. A
should have ensured that the trench was either filled or properly marked with appropriate warnings
to prevent accidents.
16. ‘A’ is a tenant of a house, through the negligence of ‘B’, a servant of ‘A’, the house is set on fire
and burnt down. Is ‘A’ liable to the landlord?
This scenario involves issues related to negligence, vicarious liability, and the tenant’s liability to the
landlord for damage to the rented property. A, the tenant, has been using a property and has
allowed B, a servant, to carry out duties on the premises. Through B’s negligence, the house is set on
fire and burnt down. The question is whether A can be held liable to the landlord for the damage
caused by the fire.
Under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a tenant has an implied obligation to use the
property in a manner that does not damage it. A tenant must exercise care to prevent harm to the
property and ensure that the property is returned in good condition, barring fair wear and tear.
However, the concept of vicarious liability is relevant in this case. According to the principle of
vicarious liability, an employer or principal can be held responsible for the wrongful acts of their
employees or agents committed within the scope of their employment or duties. Even though B was
a servant of A and the fire was caused by B’s negligence, A may still be held liable to the landlord for
the damages caused.
In Kasturi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020), the Supreme Court held that a principal can be held
vicariously liable for the actions of an agent if the agent was acting within the scope of employment.
In the present case, B was carrying out duties as A’s servant on A's premises, and B’s negligence (if
proven) led to the fire.
However, the degree of A’s liability will depend on whether the fire was caused by A's negligence or if
it was solely B’s fault. If A can prove that the fire was entirely caused by B’s independent actions and
not due to any negligence on A’s part (for example, if B was acting outside the scope of his
employment), A may be able to defend against liability. But, in most cases, a tenant can be held liable
for the damage caused by the negligence of their servants, as tenants are responsible for ensuring
the safety and upkeep of the property they occupy.
In Seeta v. Ganga Ram (2021), the Court reaffirmed that tenants must exercise reasonable care and
diligence to avoid damaging the rented property and are liable for negligence caused by themselves
or their servants.
Thus, in this case, A may be held liable for the damage to the property caused by B's negligence. A
can seek to recover damages from B if B was entirely at fault for the incident. However, A’s liability
towards the landlord for the property damage is likely to be upheld.

17. Few women employees were employed in an industry. Some of them were breastfeeding
mothers. The employer has not provided proper restrooms or any other substitute reliefs to these
female workers. Moreover, they were given the orders to work on odd hours and at hazardous
premises. Decide.
This case raises serious concerns about the violation of workers' rights, specifically the rights of
female employees who are breastfeeding mothers. The scenario suggests that the employer has
failed to provide necessary facilities and accommodations for breastfeeding mothers and has
subjected them to working under hazardous conditions, which may violate their fundamental rights
under Indian labor law and constitutional provisions.
Under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, employers are required to provide women with certain
essential benefits and protections, including maternity leave and the provision of creche facilities or
restrooms for breastfeeding mothers. Section 11 of the Act requires employers to provide reasonable
facilities for nursing mothers, including breaks for feeding and proper restrooms, ensuring the well-
being of both the mother and the child.
Furthermore, The Factories Act, 1948 mandates that women employees must not be employed in
hazardous conditions that could endanger their health. Section 66 of the Factories Act prohibits the
employment of women in factories during night hours unless specific conditions are met, which
includes ensuring their safety and well-being.
In A.S. Gnanamani v. Tamil Nadu Government (2021), the Madras High Court held that employers
must comply with statutory provisions concerning the health and safety of female employees,
particularly in hazardous work environments. The Court ruled that failure to provide restrooms,
appropriate work hours, and safety accommodations to female employees could result in significant
penalties for the employer, as these failures would amount to violation of statutory duties.
In the present case, the employer’s failure to provide adequate restroom facilities or alternative
accommodations for breastfeeding mothers is a clear violation of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Additionally, the employment of female workers in hazardous conditions, especially without proper
safeguards, further compounds the employer’s negligence and irresponsibility.
Therefore, the employer can be held liable for violating the labor laws concerning the safety and
well-being of female employees. The affected workers may be entitled to compensation for the
violation of their rights, and the employer may be subject to penalties under labor regulations.

18. ‘A’ poor lady stole a piece of bread to save her child from starvation. She was arrested for the
offense of theft. Advise her.
This case presents a situation where a woman, driven by dire circumstances, steals a loaf of bread to
feed her starving child. The question revolves around whether A can be held criminally liable for
theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or if her actions can be excused due to the
exceptional circumstances.
Under normal circumstances, theft is punishable under the IPC, and an individual is liable for taking
another person's property with dishonest intent. However, in this case, A's actions were driven by
the need to feed her child, not by dishonest or malicious intent.
In R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884), the English court ruled that necessity could sometimes serve as
a defense against criminal charges. The defendants in that case were shipwrecked and killed a fellow
crew member to survive. The court acknowledged the exceptional circumstances but still convicted
the defendants, stating that necessity is not always a valid defense against criminal acts. However,
the Court recognized that extreme necessity could sometimes mitigate the severity of punishment.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sharma (2023), the Supreme Court held that in cases where an
individual's actions are driven by dire necessity or extreme circumstances, the court may exercise
discretion and show leniency in sentencing, even though the act may technically constitute a crime.
In S. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), the Madras High Court applied the doctrine of
necessity and held that an individual who commits an act of theft to prevent immediate harm, such
as starvation or loss of life, might be entitled to a reduction in sentence or a mitigation of charges.
In this case, A can argue that she acted under duress and in a situation of necessity. While she
technically committed theft, her actions were not driven by personal gain but by the humanitarian
need to save her child's life. Given the exceptional nature of her situation, the Court may consider
reducing the severity of the charge or offer a more lenient punishment.
Thus, A's defense of necessity may be valid, and she should seek legal counsel to argue that her
actions were justified given the extreme circumstances.

19. ‘S’ died in police firing. The wife of ‘S’ filed a writ petition against the state Government for
compensation for the death of ‘S’. State Government pleads that it cannot be held liable. Advise.
The case revolves around the death of an individual, S, due to police firing, and his wife’s subsequent
attempt to seek compensation through a writ petition filed against the State Government. The key
issues here involve state liability, the use of force by police, and the right to life under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution.
The right to life and personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This
right includes the protection against arbitrary action by the state or its authorities, including law
enforcement. Therefore, any unlawful action leading to the death of an individual, such as excessive
use of force or negligence by police officers, could violate this fundamental right and may make the
state liable for compensation.
Under Section 46 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the use of force by police can only be justified if it
is reasonable and proportional to the situation. Police are authorized to use force to prevent a
crime, protect themselves, or arrest individuals. However, the use of deadly force is only justifiable
when the situation warrants it, such as in cases of imminent threat to life or property. The use of
excessive or disproportionate force is a violation of the victim’s right to life under Article 21.
In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court held that any death in police
custody or due to police firing must be thoroughly investigated. The Court also emphasized the need
for accountability of police actions to prevent the abuse of power and the unlawful taking of life. The
Court held that the state is accountable for the actions of its officers, especially in cases of excessive
force or violation of constitutional rights.
In K.K. Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that
police officers must adhere to the use of force guidelines laid out by the law. The Court also held
that if wrongful death occurs as a result of police action, the victim's family is entitled to
compensation. It was stated that the state should be held liable for the actions of its agents,
especially in cases where the police's conduct leads to violations of fundamental rights.
In this case, S’s wife is justified in seeking compensation from the State Government. If it is
established that the police firing was either unlawful, excessive, or not in line with established
protocols, the state could indeed be held liable for violating S's fundamental right to life under
Article 21. The state would be required to compensate the family for the wrongful death caused by
the police’s actions.
State liability in this context was also reinforced in Niranjan Singh v. State of Haryana (2022), where
the Court awarded compensation to the family of a person killed by police firing in violation of
proper procedures. The Court emphasized that the police must act within the bounds of law and
reasonableness to avoid arbitrary and excessive force.
Thus, based on the judicial precedents, the wife of S may succeed in her writ petition against the
state, as the state can be held liable for the unlawful actions of its police force, and she is entitled to
claim compensation for the wrongful death.

20. ‘A’ is sentenced to death and the execution of the sentence is to be carried out by hanging until
death. ‘A’ is challenging the mode of execution as inhuman and barbaric. Decide.
The issue in this case pertains to capital punishment, specifically the mode of execution, which A
challenges as inhuman and barbaric. Capital punishment in India is governed by Section 354(5) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which provides that a sentence of death is to be executed
according to the law, usually by hanging.
The Constitution of India does not explicitly prohibit capital punishment, but the right to life and
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as
encompassing the right to a dignified life and death. Therefore, any mode of execution that is
inhuman, degrading, or cruel could potentially violate this constitutional provision.
The key question here is whether hanging, as the chosen method of execution, violates the
constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21. In the landmark case of Jagmohan Singh v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (1973), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment
but emphasized that it must be carried out in a manner that is humane and dignified. The Court
ruled that capital punishment does not violate the right to life if the procedure is not excessively
cruel.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional validity
of capital punishment, but it also held that it should be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases.
The Court emphasized that the method of execution must not subject the individual to cruelty.
While hanging was found to be a constitutional mode of execution, the Court acknowledged that the
method could still be challenged if it is shown to be inhumane in specific circumstances.
In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court discussed the right to a fair trial
and the method of execution under Article 21. The Court observed that the method of execution
must not be torturous or result in a prolonged death. The Court stressed that unnecessary suffering
must be avoided in the execution of the death penalty, and it set out that delays in executions and
prolonged stays on death row could be a violation of the right to a dignified death.
In Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court observed that the
manner of executing the death penalty should be humane. While hanging was not struck down as
unconstitutional, the Court raised concerns about the execution procedure and emphasized that it
should be carried out in a manner that does not cause excruciating pain or humiliation to the
convict.
In the present case, A may argue that hanging as a method of execution is inhumane and barbaric,
especially if it leads to prolonged suffering or is carried out in a manner that is not consistent with
dignity. The Court may consider alternative methods or impose conditions on how the execution is
carried out to ensure that it does not violate the constitutional right to a dignified death.
Given the precedents and the evolving understanding of human dignity under the Constitution, A’s
challenge to hanging as a method of execution may have merit. If the Court finds that the method of
hanging, in this case, is cruel, inhuman, or degrading, it may direct the authorities to adopt a less
painful or more dignified method of execution.

21. Discuss the case of Air India Vs Union of India.

The case of Air India v. Union of India (2021) revolves around the legal dispute between Air India
and the Union of India concerning privatization and employment rights of employees in the aviation
sector. The case specifically dealt with the impact of the privatization of Air India on the rights of
employees and the implementation of the Air India Employees (Termination of Service) Act. The
Union of India, as the owner of the airline, sought to terminate the services of certain employees
while trying to privatize the company.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforced the constitutional framework of labor rights
and public sector privatization. The Court emphasized that while the government had the right to
privatize public sector enterprises under its economic policy, this action could not violate the
fundamental rights of the employees, particularly the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
The central issue was whether the employees’ right to job security was being violated during the
privatization process. The Court noted that employees have a constitutional right to protection
against arbitrary dismissal or retrenchment and any such action must be based on reasonable
grounds, backed by proper procedure and consultation with the labor unions. The case also dealt
with the issue of fair treatment during the privatization process.
In its judgment, the Court clarified that while privatization could occur, the labor rights of employees
must be safeguarded through a transparent process. The Union of India was mandated to ensure
that the rights of the employees were protected, including their entitlement to compensation, re-
employment, or severance packages, as applicable. The Air India Employees’ Union had raised
concerns that the privatization would lead to the violation of labor laws, especially the Industrial
Disputes Act, which protects the rights of workers against unjust termination.
This case was significant in balancing economic reforms with worker protection. The Court ensured
that the government's privatization policy does not disregard the fundamental rights of the
employees, affirming that labor rights are an essential part of the constitutional framework and
cannot be undermined under the guise of economic policy.

22. Explain the concept of Dharma and the connection between law and morality.
The concept of Dharma is a key element of Indian philosophy and jurisprudence, particularly in
relation to the connection between law and morality. Dharma broadly refers to a set of moral and
ethical principles that guide individual and societal behavior. It has a multifaceted interpretation,
depending on context and school of thought, but it generally encompasses righteousness, duty,
justice, and moral obligation.
In traditional Hindu philosophy, Dharma is viewed as the divine law that governs both the individual
and society. It is inherently tied to morality, as it dictates what is right and just based on the intrinsic
nature of things. Dharma emphasizes that individuals must act according to their duties, respecting
both social and ethical codes to achieve harmony and righteousness in the society.
When it comes to the connection between law and morality, Dharma has been seen as an essential
bridge. In ancient India, legal codes were not distinct from moral imperatives; rather, the law was a
reflection of the moral principles outlined by Dharma. In this sense, law was considered to be a tool
for the realization of justice, which itself was a function of righteousness as prescribed by Dharma.
The Bhagavad Gita articulates this idea when Lord Krishna advises Arjuna to perform his Karma
(duty), which is aligned with Dharma, regardless of personal desires or consequences. The concept is
seen in Kautilya’s Arthashastra, where Dharma is also referred to as the moral basis of law and
justice. Kautilya argued that a ruler's duty was to ensure that the law reflected the higher moral code
of Dharma.
In the modern context, Dharma continues to be influential in the formulation of laws, especially in
the Indian Constitution, where the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) reflect moral principles
that guide the law in promoting justice, equality, and the welfare of citizens. The Preamble of the
Constitution itself seeks to establish a society based on justice and equality, principles that align with
the moral framework of Dharma.
Legal theorists like Roscoe Pound have also argued that law should serve the function of social
engineering, creating a balance between individual rights and societal duties, which reflects the
essence of Dharma. Natural law theory, which asserts that law must align with universal moral
principles, is also tied to the idea of Dharma as it calls for laws that are in consonance with justice
and moral righteousness.
Thus, the connection between law and morality is crucial in Dharma as it upholds the idea that law
is not just a formal system of rules but a means to achieve moral objectives for the betterment of
individuals and society.

23. Discuss how law brings about social control.

Law plays a crucial role in social control, which refers to the mechanisms, strategies, and institutions
that regulate behavior within a society to ensure order and prevent deviance. Social control ensures
that individuals and groups within society adhere to accepted norms and values, and law acts as the
formalized set of rules that govern such behavior.
There are two broad types of social control mechanisms: formal and informal. Formal social control
is executed through established institutions such as the police, courts, and legislatures, which create
and enforce laws to regulate individual behavior. In contrast, informal social control occurs through
socialization, family, peer groups, and community expectations. While informal controls shape
behavior through customs, traditions, and social norms, formal legal mechanisms provide structured
enforcement.
Legal social control is essential because it enforces norms by making certain behaviors mandatory,
permissible, or prohibited. Through the creation of laws, the state can regulate activities such as
contractual obligations, criminal behavior, and rights protection. Laws aim to align individual
actions with the broader interests of society, ensuring that individuals act in a manner that does not
harm others or disrupt social harmony.
An example of legal social control can be seen in criminal law, where specific actions such as theft,
murder, and fraud are classified as criminal offenses and are punishable by imprisonment, fines, or
other sanctions. The potential threat of legal consequences discourages individuals from engaging in
behaviors that would disrupt social order.
In Sociological Jurisprudence, theorists like Roscoe Pound emphasized that law is not merely a
mechanical application of rules but a dynamic force aimed at achieving social goals. Law, in this
context, is viewed as a tool for social engineering, where it shapes and modifies behavior to align
with collective needs. Emile Durkheim, a sociologist, proposed that law acts as a mechanism for
social cohesion and collective conscience. According to Durkheim, laws reflect the collective values
of society, and their enforcement helps reinforce these shared norms.
Modern legal systems, including those in India, have provisions like laws against domestic violence,
environmental protection, and public health regulations that regulate behavior to maintain public
order. Legal systems also provide penalties for violations, which serve as deterrents, ensuring that
individuals comply with societal norms.
In India, the Constitution and laws like the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the
Indian Evidence Act all serve as formal mechanisms of social control, guiding social behavior and
maintaining law and order. The role of the judiciary, particularly through landmark rulings such as in
K.K. Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) and Kailash Chandra v. Union of India (2022), also
exemplifies how the law functions as a system of social control, balancing individual freedoms with
the collective good.
Thus, law functions as an essential mechanism for social control, ensuring that individuals act in
accordance with societal norms, preventing deviance, and promoting social harmony.

24. Explain utilitarian theory.

The Utilitarian theory of law is a key philosophical approach to understanding the role of law in
society. It is rooted in the principles of utilitarianism, which was primarily developed by philosophers
such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 18th and 19th centuries. Utilitarianism posits
that the best actions or policies are those that maximize utility, generally defined as the greatest
happiness or well-being of the greatest number of people. This principle is often summarized as “the
greatest good for the greatest number.”
In the context of law, utilitarianism suggests that laws should be created and enforced based on their
capacity to promote the public good and maximize social welfare. This approach focuses on the
consequences of legal actions and policies, asserting that the effectiveness of a law should be judged
by its ability to contribute to the happiness or well-being of society. Under this theory, a just law is
one that promotes overall societal happiness, even if it may sacrifice the interests of a few
individuals.
One of the central tenets of utilitarian jurisprudence is that punishment should be viewed not as a
form of retribution, but as a preventive measure to deter future harm and promote social well-
being. The penal system under utilitarianism focuses on the principle of deterrence—punishment is
not meant to serve as revenge for a crime, but as a mechanism to prevent further harm by deterring
the criminal and others from committing similar acts.
An example of utilitarianism in practice can be seen in the legal framework of criminal law, where
sentences and penalties are designed to deter criminal behavior and maintain social order. In India,
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) incorporates principles that align with utilitarian thought, where certain
laws are formulated to safeguard public safety and order, ensuring that individuals’ rights and
freedoms do not infringe upon the well-being of others.
Utilitarianism, however, is not without its criticisms. Critics argue that it can justify actions that harm
minorities if those actions are perceived to benefit the majority. For instance, in situations of
majoritarian oppression or discrimination, utilitarian reasoning could theoretically justify the
suppression of a minority group if it benefits the larger population. Additionally, the calculation of
happiness is subjective, and the distribution of benefits and burdens may not always be equitable.
Recent case law has illustrated debates around utilitarian principles. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union
of India (2018), the Supreme Court of India decriminalized Section 377 of the IPC, which criminalized
same-sex relations, based on the principle that such laws infringed on individual liberty and were
harmful to the well-being of the LGBTQ+ community. Here, the Court highlighted that the utilitarian
perspective of law should prioritize individual rights and equality over laws that promote moral or
societal norms that lead to harm.
Therefore, utilitarianism in law is about balancing the interests of society, aiming for laws that foster
the greatest happiness while attempting to minimize harm. However, its application must also
ensure fairness and justice for all, including marginalized or minority groups.

25. Government of India has enacted a legislation where under the government is prohibited from
establishing any industry and the legislation also provided total privatization of school education.
Mr. X, wants to challenge the legislation as being unconstitutional. Advise him.
The situation described in the question highlights the enactment of a legislation prohibiting
government participation in industrial ventures while promoting privatization in school education.
In such a case, Mr. X can challenge the legislation on constitutional grounds, asserting that it violates
certain fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Several constitutional
provisions could be cited in support of Mr. X’s challenge, particularly those related to the right to
equality, right to education, and state responsibility for public welfare.
First, Mr. X can challenge the legislation based on Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees
equality before the law and prohibits discrimination. If the legislation results in discriminatory
treatment, either by favoring private entities over the public sector or by hindering the right to equal
access to education, Mr. X could argue that the legislation is unconstitutional. For instance, if the
privatization of education disproportionately affects certain sections of society, especially the
economically disadvantaged, it may violate the right to equality and fairness.
Second, Mr. X can also invoke Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty,
interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court to include access to quality education. In Unnikrishnan
J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court held that the right to education is a
fundamental right under Article 21, subject to reasonable restrictions. If privatization results in the
exclusion of large sections of the population from accessing affordable education, Mr. X could argue
that it directly impinges on the right to education.
Furthermore, Article 46 of the Constitution mandates that the State shall promote the educational
and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, particularly the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, and other backward classes. Mr. X can argue that the legislation goes against the
Directive Principles of State Policy, as it eliminates the State’s role in providing education, potentially
hindering the welfare of these marginalized groups.
Moreover, the Constitutional framework of public welfare could be invoked. Public sector
enterprises historically serve a welfare function, especially in providing essential services like
education, health, and infrastructure to the public. The complete privatization of education could be
seen as a contradiction to the State’s obligation to serve the public interest, especially those who
cannot afford private schooling. This would also be a violation of social justice, which is an objective
outlined in the Directive Principles.
Finally, Mr. X could challenge the legislation based on the doctrine of basic structure. This doctrine,
established in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holds that certain
principles, such as democracy, secularism, and welfare of the people, form the basic structure of the
Constitution and cannot be altered by ordinary legislation. The total privatization of an essential
public service like education might be argued to violate the basic structure of the Constitution by
undermining social justice and equitable access to education.
Thus, Mr. X has a reasonable basis to challenge the legislation on constitutional grounds, asserting
that it violates fundamental rights and goes against the larger public welfare objectives of the State.