Common LLB Examination
Jurisprudence (Legal Theory)
3
General Instructions
- Answer all questions in Part A and Part D.
- Answer any four questions from Part B.
- Answer any one question from Part C.
- Refer to the views of leading jurists wherever necessary.
- Marks are indicated against each question.
Part A – Short Answer Questions
Answer all ten questions. Each carries 2 marks.
Define 'jurisprudence' according to Austin. How does it differ from Salmond's definition?[2 Marks]
What is the 'command theory' of law as propounded by John Austin?[2 Marks]
Distinguish between 'law in action' and 'law in books' as conceptualised by Roscoe Pound.[2 Marks]
Define 'legal right' and state its essential elements according to Salmond.[2 Marks]
What is the 'Grundnorm' in Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law?[2 Marks]
Distinguish between 'ownership' and 'possession' according to Salmond.[2 Marks]
What is meant by 'Volksgeist' in Savigny's Historical School of Jurisprudence?[2 Marks]
Define 'vicarious liability'. State its essential conditions.[2 Marks]
What is the 'rule of recognition' in H.L.A. Hart's concept of law?[2 Marks]
Explain the meaning of 'legal personality'. Can an idol or a corporation be a legal person?[2 Marks]
Part B – Descriptive/Analytical Questions
Answer any four questions out of five. Each carries 10 marks.
Critically examine Austin's Analytical Positivism and his command theory of law. What are the main criticisms of Austin's theory? How did H.L.A. Hart improve upon Austin's positivism through his concept of primary and secondary rules and the rule of recognition in 'The Concept of Law' (1961)? Discuss the differences between Austin and Hart on the nature of legal obligation.[10 Marks]
Discuss the Natural Law theory from its ancient origins (Aristotle, Cicero, St. Thomas Aquinas) to its modern revival (Lon Fuller, John Finnis). How does the Natural Law school differ from Legal Positivism in its understanding of the relationship between law and morality? Refer to the debate between H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller on the 'grudge informer' cases and the morality of law.[10 Marks]
Explain Hohfeld's analysis of legal rights. Discuss the four jural correlatives (right-duty, privilege-no right, power-liability, immunity-disability) and the four jural opposites with suitable illustrations. How has Hohfeld's analytical scheme contributed to the understanding of the nature of legal rights?[10 Marks]
Discuss the Sociological School of Jurisprudence with special reference to Roscoe Pound's theory of 'social engineering' and his classification of interests (individual, public, and social interests). How does Pound's approach differ from Ehrlich's concept of 'living law'? Evaluate the relevance of sociological jurisprudence in modern legal systems.[10 Marks]
Examine the American Realist School of Jurisprudence. Discuss the contributions of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ('The path of the law is not logic but experience'), Karl Llewellyn (rule-scepticism and fact-scepticism), and Jerome Frank (the role of judicial psychology in decision-making). How does American Realism differ from Scandinavian Realism as propounded by Axel Hagerstrom and Alf Ross?[10 Marks]
Part C – Problem/Essay Questions
Answer any one question out of two. Each carries 15 marks.
'A' keeps a wild tiger in a cage on his property. Despite all precautions, the tiger escapes and injures 'B', a passerby on a public road. 'A' argues that he exercised the utmost care and that the escape was due to an act of a stranger. Analyse this problem in light of: (a) Salmond's theory of liability — whether liability here is based on fault or is strict/absolute; (b) The distinction between strict liability as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) and absolute liability as established in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987); (c) The jurisprudential basis of imposing liability without fault — discuss the theories of 'social interest' (Pound) and 'risk theory'. Is strict liability consistent with justice and fairness? (d) Whether the defence of 'act of a stranger' can absolve 'A' from liability.[15 Marks]
Critically analyse the debate between 'legislation' and 'precedent' as sources of law. Discuss the respective merits and demerits of each source. Examine the declaratory theory of precedent (Blackstone) versus the constitutive theory (Austin, Gray, Salmond). How do courts use techniques of 'distinguishing', 'overruling', and 'prospective overruling' to develop the law through precedent? Illustrate with reference to the doctrine of stare decisis and its exceptions in the Indian legal system, referring to Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Regional Asstt. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1976) and Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967).[15 Marks]
Part D – Short Note/Case-Based Questions
Answer all five questions. Each carries 5 marks.
Write a short note on Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law. Explain the hierarchy of norms and the concept of Grundnorm. What criticisms have been levelled against Kelsen's theory?[5 Marks]
Discuss Salmond's theory of ownership. Explain the essential elements of ownership — right to possess, right to use and enjoy, right to dispose, indeterminate duration, and residuary character. Distinguish between corporeal and incorporeal ownership.[5 Marks]
Explain 'custom' as a source of law. Discuss the essential requisites of a valid custom — antiquity, continuity, reasonableness, certainty, consistency, and obligatory force. Refer to the views of Savigny and the Historical School.[5 Marks]
Write a short note on the concept of 'legal personality' with reference to corporations, unborn persons, deceased persons, animals, and idols. Discuss the fiction theory, concession theory, and realist theory of corporate personality.[5 Marks]
Discuss the concept of 'administration of justice' — civil and criminal. Explain the distinction between 'distributive justice' (Aristotle) and 'corrective justice'. What is the relationship between law and justice according to Rawls' theory of justice?[5 Marks]
