KSLU Solved Question Papers
Jurisprudence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2014 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Jurisprudence 2014 Jun Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2014 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2014 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2014 Jun examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all 5 Questions. (2) Figures to the right indicate marks. (3) Answer to all Units compulsorily.
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)'In reality law consists of rules in accordance with reason and nature'. Elaborate.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what the statement means (natural law is known by human reason, not imposed by a ruler's will); how each age understood it: the Greeks and Stoics, Cicero, the Roman jurists' jus naturale and natural reason, Aquinas (law as an ordinance of reason; the first precept), Grotius (valid even without God), Hobbes (the laws of nature as dictates of reason), Locke (reason teaches that no one ought to harm another), Kant (practical reason); the modern restatements (Stammler, Fuller, Finnis's practical reasonableness); the objections (Hume; disagreement about what reason requires; relativism); reason and reasonableness in Indian constitutional law (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973; Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980); an evaluation; a conclusion.
What the statement means
The statement "natural law is the dictate of reason" makes two claims. First, natural law is not made by any ruler. It is discovered by human reason, by thinking about human nature and the conditions of a good life together. Second, it commands: reason does not merely describe what people do, but tells them what they ought to do. So a human law that conflicts with reason lacks moral authority.
The statement sets reason against will. For the positivist, law is what the sovereign wills. For the natural lawyer, true law is what reason requires, and the ruler's will is law only so far as it agrees with reason.
The Greeks and the Stoics
Heraclitus spoke of a logos, a common reason running through the world. Aristotle distinguished natural justice, the same everywhere, from legal justice, which depends on local enactment. The Stoics made reason central. They held that the universe is governed by a rational order, and that human beings share in it through their own reason. To live according to nature was to live according to reason.
Cicero and the Roman jurists
Cicero gave the classic statement. True law, he wrote, is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting, and it is not one law at Rome and another at Athens.
The Roman jurists used the idea in practice. They spoke of jus naturale, the law of nature. Gaius explained the jus gentium, the law common to all peoples, as the law that natural reason establishes among all human beings. So reason was the reason why different peoples arrived at similar rules.
Aquinas: law as an ordinance of reason
St Thomas Aquinas defined law as an ordinance of reason for the common good. It is made by the one who has care of the community, and promulgated. Natural law, for him, is the share that a rational creature has in God's eternal law, grasped through reason. Its first precept, self-evident to reason, is that good is to be done and evil avoided. More particular precepts follow from it, such as preserving life and living in society. A human law that departs from reason, he said, is not law but a perversion of law.
The age of reason: Grotius, Hobbes and Locke
From the seventeenth century, writers separated natural law from theology and rested it on reason alone.
- Grotius argued that natural law would be valid even if God did not exist. It is the dictate of right reason, showing whether an act is morally right or wrong according to its agreement with rational and social nature. He built the law of nations on it.
- Hobbes expressly called the laws of nature dictates of reason. Reason tells people to seek peace and to keep their covenants, because without these life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". For Hobbes, these dictates lead people to submit to a strong sovereign.
- Locke wrote that reason is the law of nature. It teaches all mankind that, being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. From this he derived natural rights and limited government.
Kant: practical reason
Kant grounded morality in practical reason. Its supreme principle, the categorical imperative, requires a person to act only on a rule that he could will to be a universal law. It also requires him to treat every person as an end, never merely as a means. Kant's idea of law as the conditions under which each person's freedom can coexist with the freedom of all is a rational ideal of justice.
Modern restatements
- Stammler spoke of natural law with a variable content. Reason supplies a constant ideal of justice, but its application changes with time and place.
- Fuller found an inner morality of law in requirements that any reasonable legal system must meet. Its rules must be general, published, prospective, clear and consistent. They must also be possible to obey, and applied as announced.
- Finnis treated practical reasonableness as itself a basic human good. It guides a person in pursuing other goods, such as life, knowledge and friendship, in a coherent and fair way.
Reason in the Indian tradition
Ancient Indian thought had a parallel idea in dharma. Dharma was an order of right conduct that bound the king as much as his subjects. It was known through the sacred texts, as interpreted by the reasoning of learned men. Its rules were applied with attention to time, place and circumstance. The king's duty was to uphold dharma, not to rule by his own will. So the idea that law answers to a rational and moral order is not foreign to India.
The objections
- Hume argued that reason alone cannot move us to act, and that one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is".
- Disagreement. Reasonable thinkers have drawn opposite conclusions. Hobbes reasoned his way to absolute rule, and Locke to limited government.
- Relativism. What seems reasonable often reflects the culture of the reasoner.
- The positivist reply. Austin and Hart insisted that a rule can be valid law even if it is unreasonable.
Reason and reasonableness in Indian constitutional law
Procedure must be reasonable. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27, the majority had read "procedure established by law" as any procedure enacted by the legislature. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, the petitioner's passport was impounded in public interest and the reasons were withheld. The Supreme Court held that the procedure must be "fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary". Reason became a test of valid law.
Limits that reason places on power. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, the Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to destroy its basic structure. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789, it struck down clauses (4) and (5) of article 368. These clauses had declared Parliament's amending power unlimited and beyond review. The Court reasoned that a limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure. Both decisions treat certain principles as binding on every law-maker because reason and the Constitution require them.
Reasonableness in the text. Article 19 permits only reasonable restrictions on the freedoms it guarantees. The rules of natural justice are themselves dictates of reason applied to decision-making. No one should judge his own cause, and both sides must be heard.
Evaluation
The statement captures the heart of natural law. It explains why natural law claims to be universal: reason is shared by all people. It also explains its weakness: people reason differently. Modern Indian law shows a middle path. It does not let judges replace enacted law with their own idea of reason. But it requires every law and every exercise of power to be reasonable, fair and non-arbitrary.
Conclusion. To say that natural law is the dictate of reason is to say that true law is discovered by reason. It commands by its rightness, not by force. The idea runs from the Stoics and Cicero, through Aquinas, Grotius, Hobbes, Locke and Kant, to Stammler, Fuller and Finnis. Hume and the positivists raised serious objections. Yet Indian law has given the idea practical force through the requirement of reasonableness, as Maneka Gandhi, Kesavananda and Minerva Mills show.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 5 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.