The Author, Kumar Kaustubh, is a 1st-year, BBA.LLB student at Christ University, Bangalore. He is Campus Ambassdor of LatestLaws.com.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”, rightly said by Martin Luther King, Jr. but what if Pre-existing legal theories constrains judicial practice. Is it not an Injustice to the Justice? We will be illuminating this doubt in this article in light of the Case of Speluncean Explorers, Ram Chandra Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand on 24 November 2010 and thirdly Damodar Naryan Singh v. Sardar Hira Singh And Anr. on 6 May 2002.
The Case of Speluncean Explorers was published by Lon L Fuller, in Harvard Law Review 1949 to understand the diverse legal theories. Originally 4 Explorers were accused of the murder of their fellow Explorer and were sentenced to death, but the death sentence was challenged in the Supreme Court and a bench of 5 Justices was established to solve the issue.
Out of the five Justices, two Upheld Conviction, two sought Acquittal, and one of them recused.
Chief Justice Truepenny and Justice Keen upheld the conviction, rendering the positivistic stance. Legal positivism is the theory which states the law to be legitimate only if it is codified or written down and recognized by the government authority. There is no role of morals in this theory. It affirms, “Law to be Law”.
Chief Justice Truepenny asserted that Judges are bound by the Law and hence Law will remain the same for everyone, although Chief Executive could be directed to exercise clemency, given in particular circumstances. This opinion by the Chief Justice explicates that he gave the judgment by adhering to the law. Justice Keen also upheld the conviction but he was extremely critical of Chief Justice’s recommendation to direct the Chief Executive to confer clemency. As per the law Chief Justice has no right to direct The Chief Executive. He also stated that this case can’t be an exception due to the ‘self-defense’ determinant. This clearly shows that he was a Rational Positivist.
Justice Foster sought acquittal, rendering the naturalistic stance. Legal Naturalism is inherent and may not require government enforcement, anything with universal applicability counts as the part of the law regime. The constituent of morality plays a requisite role in this theory. Justice Foster stated “We have Law for a reason if the reason disappears, the law disappears”, the case is of self-preservation, consequently same law of self-defense should be followed. His stance reveals that he was deemed out of the books of law and was more pondering on that particular situation when that act was deemed to be mandatory, hence morality factor comes into play.
Justice Handy did a populist appeal, rendering the realistic stance. According to realist theory, judges examine not only abstract rules, but also social interests and public policy when deciding a case. 90% of the public wanted the accused to be pardoned, hence Justice Handy also pleaded for acquittal and revealed the public decent and social interest is also indispensable in judgments.
Justice Tatting recused and hence portrayed a neutral stance. He puts down his arguments by scrutinizing Justice Foster’s arguments.
Now coming on to the case of Ram Chandra Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand, Justice Katju drew the Legal Positivistic approach. He delivered the judgment by exerting the provisions of Article 493 of IPC in the literal sense and took the support of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which proves that his judgment is principally based on written and codified laws. While Justice Gyan Sudha Misra portrayed the Realistic approach. While giving the Judgment the custom of man and women residing together for a long period will be termed married, prevailing in the District of Lohardaga was taken care of. Moreover, rather than exerting Section 493 of IPC in its literal sense, she paid more accent on the documents such as the voter list and the witness of the relatives as proof of their marriage.
In the case of Damodar Naryan Singh v. Sardar Hira Singh And Anr. Justice P.K. Ray depicts a naturalist stance. In India, Hindu Law is exercised as the Family Law, and according to Justice P.K. Ray, a conflict between Father and Son should be resolved in a way that it should not affect the family or the family should not be disturbed due to it, rather the family should develop as a whole. This determines that Morality played a much vital role than the pre-existing law, hence it can be termed as the naturalistic theory.
Therefore, we can conclude by asserting that although pre-existing legal theories constrain judicial practice sometimes, still we can’t get off them because we live in a dynamic world and dynamic society, where one day or the other, the new legal theories will also fail.
Picture Source :
