INTRODUCTION

Jurisprudence is a dynamic and a controversial concept since its inception. There have
been numerous attempts and debates on various occasions to arrive at a definite and an
absolute definition of the Jurisprudence that would be universally accepted. The world has
witnessed a rapid growth and development taking place in the present times, an evolving
nature of the society, and consequent changes are also taking place in the people’s social
moral and ethics, and because law in influenced by current notions of morality and ethics it
becomes difficult to arrive at a commonly accepted definition of Jurisprudence.

The word Jurisprudence is derived from its Latin equivalent “Jurisprudentia”, meaning the
study, knowledge or science of law. ‘Juris’ denotes law and ‘prudentia’ denotes knowledge.
The word Jurisprudence means philosophy of law or scientific interpretation of law. It is
basically the theory or the ideology or the thought or the reason behind a particular law.
Jurisprudence helps a person to understand the deeper meaning of the law. Various
distinguished and celebrated jurists and political scientists have opined differently on the
term Jurisprudence. Such varied and remarkable interpretations are stated as under:

 Ulpian, the great Roman jurist, defined Jurisprudence as,

“the knowledge of the things divine and human, the science
of right and wrong”.
 According to Dean Roscoe Pound, Jurisprudence is “the
science of law, using the term law in the juridical sense, as
denoting the body of principles recognized or enforced by
public and regular tribunals in the administration of
justice”.
 According to Professor C.K. Allen, Jurisprudence is the
“scientific synthesis of the essential principle of law”.
  According to Professor Keeton, Jurisprudence is a “study
and systematic arrangement of the general principle of
law”.
 According Professor John Chipman Gray, Jurisprudence is
the “science of law, the statement and systematic
arrangement of the rules followed by courts and the
principles involved in those rules”.
 According to John Austin, the great legal philosopher,
“Jurisprudence is the science of positive law”.

The basic nature of jurisprudence demands it to be an investigative approach towards the

law and the legal system in order to reveal its essential principles. Furthermore,
Jurisprudence is not static, rather progressive and ever-changing. The societal and the
jurisprudential changes go hand-in-hand.

Jurisprudence is the result of the thinking of jurists and philosophers. They are having the
freedom to access, analyze and speculate about the legal system. So, it can be said as an
intellectual exercise which is having no immediate practical application. It sets a tone for a
reformation of the law.

Jurisprudence helps in bringing about a solution to the multidimensional problem of law. It

allows the lawyers to think logically. It also supplements a lawyer’s skills with philosophy,
ethics and morality. Many a times, a gap in law arises, that can be solved by looking into the
jurisprudence. It is basically a theoretical basis of law without which the practical application
of law is not possible. It also encourages a lawyer to apply his or her own knowledge in
order to comprehend the nature of law and its relevance. Hence, the study of jurisprudence
is essential to become a good lawyer.

The term Jurisprudence is not only limited to the knowledge of law, rather it includes within
its ambit and helps in linking a wide range of fields such as psychology, sociology,
economics, politics and anthropology to the law.
That is why Julius Stone has said regarding the nature of Jurisprudence that “It is the
lawyer’s examination of the precepts, ideals and techniques of the law in the light derived
from the present knowledge in the disciplines other than law”.

Jurisprudence can be divided into the following branches or the schools of law:

 ANNLYTICAL JURISPRUDENCE:

Analytical jurisprudence also known as the imperial school of law or the positivist
school of law analyses the law as it exists today. To be more specific it analyses the
law of the land only in its current scenario without showing any concern towards the
history or evolution of law and the future of the law. The motto of the Analytical
Jurisprudence is ‘Ubi civitas ibl lex’ i.e. where there is state there will not be anarchy;
state is necessary evil. Jeremy Bentham and his disciple John Austin were the main
postulates of this school.

 HISTORICAL JURISPRUDENCE:

The historical school of law deals with such principles that embody the origin and the
development of law. This school has made history an important reason in the
development of law. The historical school emerged as a reaction to the analytical
positivists (as they failed to meet the needs o the people) and the natural law
thinkers. The renowned historian, jurist, philosopher and professor Fredrich Carl von
Savigny is the main proponent of this school of law, who propounded the ‘Volkgeist
Theory’ which means people’s spirit. The historical jurisprudence states that people’s
consciousness is an important factor to have a more peaceful and a lawful society.
The motto of this school is ‘Ubi societas ibi lex’ i.e. where there is society there is law.

 SOCIOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE:

Sociological Jurisprudence studies the relationship between law and society.

Auguste Comte coined the term sociology and by some jurists he is considered to be
 the founder of the science of sociology. According to Comte, Jurisprudence is
nothing but scientific positivism. Leon Duguit, a renowned French jurist, and one of
the contributors of this school of law, propounded the Social Solidarity Theory, which
he explains through the theory of interdependence. He further states that a society
that lacks interdependence also lacks social solidarity i.e. both the theories are
directly proportional to each other. Professor Nathan Roscoe Pound, who is
considered to be the American Leader in the field of sociological jurisprudence has
laid emphasis on the term ‘Interest’, which includes Private Interest, Public Interest
and Social Interest. These interests can be implemented if there is societal
interdependence.

 REALIST JURISPRUDENCE:

The realist jurisprudence is a mixture of the sociological jurisprudence and the

analytical jurisprudence. This kind of jurisprudence emphasizes on the importance of
judicial process in the development of law. This school of law argues that only those
who work with the law i.e. the learned advocates can only make law. Hence, it is
concerned with the judge-made law. There are two types of realism viz. the
American Realism propounded by Gray, Holmes and Frank and the Scandinavian
Realism propounded by Hagerstorm, Olivecrona and Alf Ross.

 ETHICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL JURISPRUDENCE:

The philosophical or the ethical jurisprudence is also known as the natural school of
law. As the name suggests the basic principles and the objectives of this school of
law is derived from the nature and is governed by reason. Human law is truly a law in
so far as it confirms to reason. Thus, this school of jurisprudence is the proponent of
human interest in the field of law. Natural law theories can broadly be classified into:
 Greek Theories
 Medieval Theories
 Renaissance Theories
 Modern Theories
The key proponents of this school of law are Socrates, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke,
Rousseau and Hugo Grotius.
Hereon, the focus of this document will be to bring about a comparative study between the
Analytical Jurisprudence and the Realist Jurisprudence.

ANALYTICAL OR POSITIVIST JURISPRUDENCE

Analytical school was perhaps, a reaction against the natural law theory that was based on
morality and ethics. During 19th Century, the natural law theory lost its significance mainly
due to the influence of scientific techniques over social sciences including jurisprudence.
Analytical School is concerned neither with the past nor with the future but with the law as it
exists i.e. law as it is. It undertook the task of separating the law as ‘it is’ and the law as is
‘ought to be.’ This separation is the most fundamental philosophical assumption of legal
positivism. The analytical or positivist jurisprudence was established to recognize and
uphold the superiority of Monarch over that of the Pope or feudal lords.

The Analytical Jurisprudence has always stayed aloof from other schools of jurisprudence
by keeping its legal system water-tight against all ideological intrusions. This school
believes codification of law. The proponents of this school gave no importance to religion,
ethics and morality. They only gave importance to the state as according to them it is the
source of law. To be more specific the state through the legislature enacts the law which is
binding on all the subjects of the state, and any kind of disobedience towards such laws
would amount to sanctions. They studied law in books and not in action.

The prime proponents of Analytical Jurisprudence are Jeremy Bentham and John Austin.

JEREMY BENTHAM (1748 - 1832)

Jeremy Bentham was the stalwart of codified law. He was of the opinion that the content of
law could not be altered without reforming the structure of law. Accordingly, he divided the
law into two categories:
 Expositorial Jurisprudence: It means analysis of what the law is.
 Censorial Jurisprudence: It means finding out what the law ought to be.

Hence, analysis of the structure was an essential factor to bring about a reformation of law.
In order to reform law he viewed law in terms of utility i.e. ends or purpose. He opined that a
sovereign gives birth to a law that achieves it utility by reducing pain and increasing
pleasure of the subjects of the state, therefore, leading to greatest happiness of the greatest
number. At this juncture it is apt to regard to Bentham as a Utilitarian. For Bentham, law is
sourced from the will of the sovereign, who may formulate laws on his own, or may derive
the same from those created by his predecessors or may even delegate such responsibility
onto his successors who would be sub-ordinate to him. He was a staunch negator of judge-
made law, which he termed as a dog-law. Because such laws treated its abiders as dogs
and would wait for them to commit a wrongful act, on the commission of which would punish
them. Such laws won’t tell a man before-hand what he should or should not do.

Bentham on one hand laid emphasis on the analysis of law and on the other hand laid
emphasis on the utility of law. Thus Bentham’s philosophy of law created two schools –
 The pure analysts interested in the analysis of positive law, and
 The theological writers interested in the ends or purposes or in one word the utility of
law which it should serve.

Criticism of Bentham’s theory:

According to Friedman; Bentham’s theory mainly suffers from two weaknesses: Bentham
mingled materialism with ideas and failed to balance the individual interest with the interest
of the community. Other criticisms include that pleasure and pain is not the final test of the
adequacy of law or any legislation. Theory states that interest of an unlimited number of
individuals shall contribute to the interest of the community but fails to recognize the
inequalities. The application of the concept of “Laissez Faire” providing a complete
framework for individual freedom is not totally correct. Legislations are required to restrict
individual behavior.
 JOHN AUSTIN (1790 – 1859)

John Austin is considered to be the founder of the Analytical Jurisprudence. He was the
disciple of Jeremy Bentham and viewed law without social purpose or goals. He only laid
emphasis on the analysis of the positive law. Austin is also known as the father of English
Jurisprudence, since he brought about a scientific arrangement of English law and because
the Austinian Concept of Law is of English origin. His concept of law is very peculiar in
nature and is of utmost importance even today. Austin opined that “law is the command of
the sovereign” which implies that it is the sovereign from whom the law emanates or who is
the source of law. For its only he who possess the authority to frame law. Such a law or the
general rule of conduct is binding on every person of the free political society, a breach of
which will lead attract sanctions in the form penalty. Austin classified the entire system of
law as follow:
 LAW

LAWS PROPERLY SO LAWS IMPROPERLY SO

CALLED CALLED

LAWS SET BY GOD TO MEN LAWS SET BY MEN TO MEN LAWS BY ANALOGY LAWS BY METAPHOR

SET BY MEN TO MEN AS SET BY MEN AS NOT

POLITICALLY SUPERIOR OR POLITICALLY SUPERIOR
IN PURSUANCE OF RIGHTS
MORAL RULES,
CONFERRED BY SUCH
CUSTOMARY LAW,
SUPERIOR
INTERNATIONAL LAW
LAWS SET BY
PRIVATE PERSONS
POSITIVE LAW NOT IN
PURSUANCE OF
POSITIVE MORALITY
LEGAL RIGHTS
Austin has put forth another remarkable definition of law. He said “Positive law consists of
commands set as general rules of conduct by a sovereign to a member or members of the
in the independent political society, wherein the author of the law is supreme”.

After analyzing the above stated definition of law by Austin we can hereby, infer the
following as the chief elements of his theory:

 Sovereign – According to Austin, the sovereign is the supreme authority who has the
vested authority to impose law which is to be obeyed by the entire society and also
has the power to enforce the same. He further adds that which is not the command
of the sovereign is not law. Hence, where there is no law there will be no sovereign
and where there is no sovereign there will be no law.
 Command – Austin said that, command is the wish or will of the sovereign which his
subjects must bow to, which may call for either performing or not performing a
certain act, otherwise some evil will be inflicted.
 Sanction – Austin defines sanctions as such penalty or punishment or liability which
shall be inflicted upon those who have breached the law or the command of the
sovereign.

Exception to Austin’s Theory:

Austin says, “Every law is a command imposing a duty enforced by a sanction, however, all
the commands are not law”. It is only the general command which is a law. Austin though
accepts that there are three kinds of laws which are not commands but may be included
within the purview of law by way of exception. They are:
a) Declaratory/Explanatory laws: They are not commands because they are already in
existence and are passed only to explain the law which is already enforced.
b) Law of Repeals: Austin doesn’t treat such laws as commands because they’re in for the
revocation of a command.
c) Law of Imperfect obligations: They are not treated as commands because there’s no
sanction to them. Austin holds that a command to become law must be accompanied by
duty and sanction for its enforcement.

It is evident from Austin’s conception of that the sovereign, command, duty and sanctions
are the concepts that are inseparably connected to one another.
Implementation of the Austinian theory in the Indian judicial context:

Why should we study Austin in India?

To understand the above question we need to study Article 368 of the Indian Constitution
which deals with amendments. It can be seen from both negative as well as positive
perspective. The positive perspective brings about reformation and development and the
negative perspective serves the selfish motive of the politicians.
Article 368 is a great weapon in the hands of the parliamentarians. At this juncture it
becomes vital to broach about the landmark judgments of Supreme Court of India four such
astounding cases in order to justify the aforesaid raised question

Shankari Prasad v. Union of Inida:

The Court upheld the validity of the First Amendment Act, 1951by using the literal
interpretation. It also held that Article 368 entitle the Parliament to amend the Constitution
with treating the Fundamental Rights with any exceptions unlike they are treated under
Article 368. The Court diverged with the view that the Fundamental Rights can be here
inviolable. The Supreme Court narrowed the view if Article 13(2) and adopted the progress
of the independent nation through the acquisition of property .

Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Article 368 of the Indian Constitution empowers
the parliament to amend any article of the Constitution. Once again it was said that the
Article 13 is just limited to the ordinary law and not with the constitutional amendment
whereas the scope of Article 368 is limited to Constitutional law. According to the majority
decision it was held that parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights of the
people.

Golaknath v State of Punjab:

In this case, the court developed jurisprudence around what is known as the doctrine of
basic structure. The court in 1967 ruled that the Parliament cannot curtail any of the
fundamental rights enshrined under the constitution of India . 
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pressurized by the parliament to pass the
judgment in favor of the Government of India. The Supreme Court wrote the judgment in
such a manner that the parliamentarians could not understand the juggling of English. It was
deduced by the court that the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution to the
extent that such amendment does not change the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

All the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases concerned
the “Doctrine of Basic Structure”.

In the Shankari Prasad v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rjasthan cases the
Hon’ble Supreme Court favored the Austinian theory. In the Golaknath v. State of Punjab
case the Supreme Court acted as the guardian of the Constitution. In the Kesavananda
Bharti v. State of Kerala case the Court acted as the protector of the Constitution.

Criticism of Austin’s theory:

 Importance of Customs are overlooked
 Laws conferring privileges- Failed to ignore certain laws such as Laws of
Succession, contracts, easements etc. which are not necessarily enforced due to
sanction.
 No place for judge-made law
 Austin theory treats international law as morality- neglects the role of international
law
 Over-emphasis on Command- ignores the role of General will of People in
Democratic set-up.
 Interrelation between law and morality is completely ignored.
 REALIST JURISPRUDENCE

The realist approach in the field of jurisprudence is a relatively modern one. Its prime home
is the United States. The thesis of the realists is based on the notion: “Law is what the
psychology of court determines – the aggregate of the item of judicial and official actions”.
“Law is what the judges decide”. They emphasis the element of certainty in law and part
played by the personal characteristics of the judge. Law is defined not as a set of legal
propositions, but in term of the official action. The realist approach to law is a part of the
sociological approach. That is why it is sometimes called a left-wing of sociological or
functional school.

The Realist movement concentrates on scientific observation of law in its meaning and
working. This movement is named as realist because this approach studies law as it is in
actual working and its effect. In the word of Professor Roscoe Pound: “By Realism they
mean fidelity to nature, accurate recordings to things as they are as contrasted as
they are imagined to be, or wished to be or as one feels they ought to be”.

There are mainly three reasons for the establishment of the realist school which are stated
as under:

1. It was established as a reaction against the sociological jurists who laid emphasis on
the social effect of law.
2. It was established to ignore the theory on interest as given by Rudolf von Jhering and
the theory of social engineering as advocated by Professor Pound.
3. It was established to point out the importance of Courts and the importance of judges
– the human factor is the judges and the lawyers.

Basic features of realist school :

Realism denounces traditional legal rules and concepts and concentrates more on what the
courts actually do in reaching the final decision in the case before them. In strict sense of
the term realist define law as generalized prediction of what the courts will do. The main
characteristic features of realist jurisprudence as stated by Goodhart are as follows -
(1) Realists believe that there can be no certainty about law as its predictability depends
upon the set of facts which are before the court for decision.
(2) They do not support formal, logical and conceptual approach to law because the Court
while deciding a case reaches its decision on ‘emotive’ rather than logical grounds.
(3) They lay greater stress on psychological approach to the proper understanding of law as
it is concerned with human behavior and convictions of the lawyers and Judges.
(4) Realists are opposed to the value of legal terminology, for they consider it as tacit
method of suppressing uncertainty of law.
(5) They prefer to evaluate any part of law in terms of its effects.

The Realist School of Jurisprudence can be divided into two schools of thoughts viz.
American Realism and Scandinavian Realism.

AMERICAN REALISM:

The ultimate aim of American realism is to reform the law. They recognize the fact that the
same cannot be done without understanding it. They are interested in studying the law “as it
is” and not “as it ought to be”. This is something that they have in common with the
positivists. Furthermore, they seek to understand the law by taking into consideration the
sociological factor. They adopt an empirical approach to the study of law.
The American realists put too much emphasis upon the role of judges in law. According to
them, the law is what the judges decide through their judgments. This particular tendency is
due to the fact that judges have played an important role in the development of the
American Constitution and subsequent laws. American realism studies the human factors
involved in law. In fact, it strongly emphasizes the importance of studying such human
factors. Some of the noted American Realists are as follows:

John Chipman gray (1839-1915)

John Chipman Gray is considered to be one of the “mental fathers of realist movement”.
Although known to be analytical jurist, Gray considered the judiciary and not the legislature,
to be the most important source of law. He admitted the crucial role played by “non-logical”
factors, such as personality and prejudice of the judge while delivering the judgments. Gray
is complimented for laying down a solid groundwork upon which many of the most important
ideas of American Realism are currently resting.

OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1841-1935)

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is famous for his “bad man’s theory” which looked at law from the
criminal’s perspective. Law, according to him, is meant for the potential criminals or the “bad
man”. He took note of the various definitions of law based on principles of ethics, morality
and natural law and rejected all of them stating that the bad man only cares about what the
court will do if he commits certain act. Such predictions or ‘prophecies’ regarding the actions
of the court is known as the law. He believed in the complete separation of the law and
morals. He was interested in studying law “as it is”.

Legal history, according to him, should only be studied to analyze the relevance of certain
historical laws in contemporary times. His definition of law as ‘prediction’ resulted in the
increased importance of litigation and lawyers in the field of law. His approach towards law
can be viewed as empirical and pragmatic. Though his literary works and the writings as a
judge of the Supreme Court of America, Holmes brought about a significant amount of
change in the overall attitude towards the law.
 JEROME NEW FRANK (1889-1957)

Frank insisted upon the existence of two groups of realists. While one group is skeptical
about the legal rules providing uniformity to law i.e. Rule Skeptic, the other is skeptical
about the establishment of facts before the trail of the court, in addition to the skepticism
about legal rules i.e. Fact skeptic. Frank identified himself as a member of the second
group. According to him, law involves the application of certain rules of law to the facts of a
case by the judge. He expresses his skepticism about the accuracy in the finding of a fact
by a judge and remarks that, in most judgments it is difficult to distinguish between the facts
found by the judge, the rule of law applied to them and then subsequent combinations of
both, the facts as well as the rules.

Frank emphasizes the uncertainty of law, according to him, are made under the false belief
that law should be certain. He was of the opinion that the judges and lawyers should accept
the fact that law is uncertain and should not strictly adhere to the precedents and the
codified laws. Such strict adherence to precedents and codification in order to ascertain the
law only provides a false sense of security to them and is actually quite harmful and
dangerous.

SCANDINAVIAN REALISM:

Professor is of the view that there is no “school” realism since the people belonging to such
a group have certain differences among themselves. The approach of the Scandinavian
realists towards law is more abstract and philosophical, unlike that of American Realism. It
strongly criticizes the metaphysical ideas of law. Scandinavian realists have played an
important role in rejecting the ideas of the school of natural law. This school of law was
concerned with the ‘fundamental facts’ of legal system. It emphasized on the fact that how
law changes the behavior of the people. Some of the noted Scandinavian realists are as
follows:

AXEL HAGERSTORM (1868 – 1939)

Axel Hagerstorm is regarded as the spiritual of the Scandinavian Realists. He was a

philosopher who strongly criticized the metaphysical foundations of law. Much of his work is
a critique of the errors in the juristic thought and writing. His analysis is conceptual,
historical and psychological and not empirical, like that of American Realists. He reviews the
attempts made by various jurists to find the empirical foundation of rights and rejects them
all. He stressed upon the psychological significance of law.

According to him, “One fights better of one believes that one has right on one’s side” He
extensively studied the Greek and Roman law in his quest for the historical basis of rights.
He believed that just like classical law, modern law is also ritualistic in nature. According to
him the relation between law and ritual is just like that between liquor and its container. One
cannot drink the container, but it is necessary in order to be able to drink the liquor.
Hagerstorm rejected the ideas of good and bad. He denied the existence of such subjective
values.

KARL OLIVERCRONA (1897 – 1980)

Law according to Professor Olivecrona, does not require any specific definition. He sought
to investigate the law and not the nature of law since such an examination of the nature of
law would require an assumption to be made with regard to what it is. He insisted on
examining the facts rather than making assumptions. According to him the law has a
binding force as long as it is valid. The moment it loses its validity, it loses its binding force.

He rejected the ideas of “binding force behind the law” and the “binding force of law”. He
further stated that such binding force is not vested in the “will of the state” or the unpleasant
consequences if the law is broken. The binding force is present in its validity and the
moment it is declared as invalid, it loses its binding force. He further believes that the term
‘right’ is a hollow word and the legal problems can be solved without using the concept of
law.

ALF ROSS (1899 – 1979)

Alf Ross was a Danish Jurist who deliberated upon the normative character of law. Like
Olivecrona, he also asserts that law or legal notions must be interpreted as conceptions of
social reality which is nothing but the actual behavior of man in society. He follows the
American line of approach and accepts the authority of the court to expound law. In his
view, laws are the legal norms in the form of directives addressed to the courts. These
norms of conduct, i.e., laws may be of two types, namely i) norms of conduct which deal
with behavioral aspect of law; and ii) norms of competence or procedure which prescribe
the mode of procedure to be followed for determining the norms of conduct. Ross pointed
out that while deciding a case, the actual past behavior of the judge as well as the set of
ideals by which he motivated must be taken into account in order to determine the
predictability of law in future. According to Ross, validity of law lies in the predictability of
decisions. Valid law implies “the abstract set of normative ideas which serve as a scheme of
interpretation for the phenomena of law in action. These norms are effectively followed
because they are felt to be socially binding by the Courts and other legal authorities which
apply the law.” Norms are therefore, observed as law because they are felt by the Judge to
be socially binding and therefore, obeyed. A norm is valid if it is predictable that Court will
apply it.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN POSITIVIST

JURISPRUDENCE AND REALIST JURISPRUDENCE
Both the Analytical Jurisprudence and the Realist Jurisprudence are modern concepts of
law as compared to the other schools of Jurisprudence. Realist Jurisprudence is a
combination of Analytical Positivism and Sociological approaches. It is Positivist in the
sense that it regards law as it is and not as it ought to be. The emphasis on the recognition
of rules by the courts emphatically makes it clear that the theories of legal realism too, like
positivism look on law as the expression of the will of the state but only difference is that,
the propounders of such legal realists do see and see this as much through the medium of
courts. On the contrary, positivism regards law as the expression of the will of the state
through legislation, to be more specific the sovereign. Both Analytical Jurisprudence and
Realist Jurisprudence negated the concepts of morality, ethics and religion. The Realist
School of Law was more practical in nature as compared to the Analytical School of Law,
which was more theoretical in nature. Thus the difference is of the medium and the main
foundation remains the same.

CONCLUSION
We can conclude from the above written document that Jurisprudence is the investigative
study of law. The entire system of law can be compared to our Solar System. Just like in the
Solar System the Sun is keeps all the planets intact and revolving around itself as a result of
the immense gravitational force dispensed by it. Similarly, Jurisprudence acts like a sun in
the system of law, keeping all the other schools of law viz. the Natural Law School, the
Analytical Law School, the Realist School of Law, the Historical School of Law, the
Sociological School of Law revolving around it. The jurisprudence allows the theoretical
interpretation of law and enables us to link every aspect of law with the morals and ethics. It
helps us to view laws from our own perspective and give also give it a societal outlook.
Jurisprudence is something that will never be outdated or lose its importance because
dynamic character is what makes it stand out. It is ever evolving as per the changing times.
Consequently it directs us to amend the pre-established laws as per the changing needs of
the society. For Instance – the Nirbhaya Rape case of 16 th December 2012 which gave us a
much stricter, refined, and effective Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code that defines rape
as "sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent, by coercion,
misrepresentation or fraud or at a time when she has been intoxicated or duped, or is of
unsound mental health and in any case if she is under 18 years of age.

As far as the primary discussion of this document is concerned, both the Realists School of
Law and the Analytical School of Law laid down the seeds of codification of law, while the
former called judges as the source of law, the latter called the sovereign as the source of
law.

Thus the study of jurisprudence is not only limited to the development and evolution of law. The
academics who study jurisprudence also make great contributions to the fields of other social
sciences like the political and social fields. This leads to the overall development of society.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr. Sri.
Chayan Chakraborty as well as our principal Dr. Smt. Atasi Roy Khaskel who
gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic The
Doctrinal and Dynamic Concept of Right to Equality, which also helped me in
doing a lot of research and I came to know about so many new things.

I am really thankful to them.

Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in
finishing this project within the limited time.

I am making this project not only for marks but to also increase my knowledge.

Thanks again to all who helped me.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The material in this document is derived from the sources stated as under –

BOOK:
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari – Juriprudence Legal Theory and Elements of Law

V.D. Mahajan – Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

INTERNET:

 www.jagranjosh.com
 www.advocatekhoj.com
 www.byjus.com
 www.thehindu.com
 www.blog.ipleaders.in
 www.legalaffairs.gov.in
PROJECT TOPIC – “According to positivists law is nothing but the will of the
sovereign but realists oppose this and they put much emphasis on judges” ----------------- On
the basis of jurisprudential justification discuss the above stated comment.

NAME – PURBASA BANERJEE

CLASS – LL.B (H)

ROLL NUMBER – S.L.C/20/052

SEMESTER – 1ST

SUBJECT NAME – JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY

SUBJECT CODE – LB101

FACULTY NAME – PROF. CHAYAN CHAKRABORTY

SL.NO TOPIC PG. NO. T. SIGN.
1. ACKNOWEDGEMENT
2. INTRODUCTION
3. ANALYTICAL OR
POSITIVIST
JURISPRUDENCE
4. REALIST
JURISPRUDENCE
5. A COMPARATIVE
STUDY BETWEEN
POSITIVIST
JURISPRUDENCE
AND REALIST
JURISPRUDENCE
6. CONCLUSION
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY