KSLU Solved Question Papers
Jurisprudence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2016 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Jurisprudence 2016 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 2016 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2016 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 · 13 questions answered
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.
Q1Discuss the nature of Law and difficulties in the definition of Law.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why lawyers want a definition of law; the difficulties in defining it, each explained (many senses of the word; different schools, different definitions; borderline systems such as international and primitive law; change over time; the gap between law in books and law in action; the link with morality; the open texture of language); the main definitions in brief (natural law, Austin, Salmond, Savigny, Pound, Holmes, Hart); the nature of law that emerges (normative, social, institutional, general, coercive yet accepted, purposive, changing); the difficulty seen in the Indian Constitution (article 13(3)(a); the debate whether a constitutional amendment is "law": I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, 1967, article 13(4), Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973; State-made law or fair law: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978); a table; a conclusion.
Why a definition is sought
Lawyers, judges and students deal with law every day. It seems natural to ask what law is, and to want a short definition. A definition would tell us which rules a court must apply, and which it may ignore. It would also show how law differs from morals, manners and religion. Yet after centuries of effort there is no agreed definition. Hart began The Concept of Law (1961) by observing that few questions have been asked so persistently and answered in so many ways.
The difficulties in defining law
1. The word has many senses. We speak of the laws of physics, the moral law, the law of God, the laws of cricket and the law of the land. Only the last is the concern of jurisprudence, but the other senses colour how people think about it.
2. Different schools give different definitions. Each school of jurisprudence looks at law from its own angle. The natural lawyer looks at its justice, the analytical jurist at its form, and the historical jurist at its origin. The sociologist looks at its social purpose, and the realist at what courts do. Each definition captures a truth and leaves out others.
3. Borderline systems. International law has no sovereign and no regular police, yet States treat it as law. Primitive societies had rules enforced by custom and kinship, without courts. Canon law governs a church. Any definition must decide whether these are "law", and each choice is contested.
4. Law changes over time. Law once rested largely on custom and religion; today it rests mainly on legislation. A definition fitted to one age may not fit another.
5. Law in books and law in action. The rules in statutes may differ from what courts and officials actually do. A definition based on the text may miss the law as it operates.
6. The link with morality. Is an unjust law still law? Natural lawyers have said no; positivists say yes. The answer changes the definition itself.
7. The open texture of language. Words have a settled core and a doubtful fringe. Hart's example is a rule forbidding "vehicles" in a park, which leaves bicycles and toy cars uncertain. Any definition of law, made in words, has the same fringe.
The difficulty in one example
A village community has long followed a rule that a widow may remarry only with the consent of the caste council. Is that rule "law"? On Austin's test it is not, because no sovereign commanded it. On Savigny's test it may be, because it expresses the people's own sense of right. On Salmond's test it is law only if the courts recognise and apply it. On Holmes's test it is law if the courts will in fact enforce it. And on the Constitution's own terms, even a proved custom yields to the fundamental rights. One rule, five answers: that is the difficulty of definition.
The main definitions in brief
- Natural law (Cicero, Aquinas): law is right reason in agreement with nature; an unjust law is a corruption of law.
- Austin: law is the general command of a sovereign, backed by a sanction.
- Salmond: law is the body of principles recognised and applied by the State in the administration of justice.
- Savigny: law is the product of the common consciousness, the Volksgeist, of a people.
- Pound: law is a tool of social engineering, balancing competing interests.
- Holmes: law is the prophecy of what the courts will do in fact.
- Hart: law is the union of primary rules of obligation and secondary rules of recognition, change and adjudication.
Can the difficulty be overcome?
Modern jurists suggest that the search for a one-line definition is mistaken. Hart did not offer a definition in the usual form. He chose instead to elucidate law by explaining its central features: rules, the internal point of view and the union of primary and secondary rules. Finnis spoke of the focal meaning of law, the central case of a legal system working well. Other cases can then be understood as weaker forms of it. Dworkin treated law as an interpretive practice, whose meaning is found by reading it in its best light. On these views, the difficulty is not a failure. It reflects the richness of the thing being described, which is better explained than defined.
The nature of law that emerges
Though no single definition satisfies everyone, the debate shows the main features of law.
- Normative. Law tells people what they ought to do, not merely what they do.
- Social. Law exists in and for a society, and regulates relations between its members.
- Institutional. Law is made, applied and enforced by institutions: legislatures, courts and officials.
- General. Law lays down rules for classes of persons and situations.
- Coercive yet accepted. Law is backed by force, but it works mostly because people accept it as binding.
- Purposive. Law aims at order, justice, security and welfare.
- Changing. Law develops with society, through legislation, judicial decision and custom.
The difficulty in the Indian Constitution
A working definition. Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution says that "law" includes "any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law". The framers avoided a single definition and listed the forms law can take.
Is a constitutional amendment "law"? In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, 1967 AIR 1643, eleven judges held by six to five that a constitutional amendment is "law" within article 13(2). So, they held, it is subject to the fundamental rights. Parliament responded by inserting clause (4) into article 13. It provides that nothing in that article shall apply to any amendment made under article 368. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, the Supreme Court departed from Golak Nath. It held that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, but may not destroy its basic structure. Whether an amendment is "law" was thus a question of the highest importance, and the answer changed within six years.
State-made law or fair law? In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27, the majority read "law" in "procedure established by law" in article 21 as State-made law. Any procedure the legislature enacted would satisfy it. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, the Supreme Court held that the procedure must be fair, just and reasonable. The meaning of "law" in the same article moved from the positivist to something closer to the natural law view.
| Difficulty | What makes it hard | Indian illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Many senses of the word | Physical, moral, divine, legal laws | Article 13(3)(a) lists forms instead of defining |
| Rival schools | Each stresses one aspect | Positivist Gopalan; reasonableness in Maneka Gandhi |
| Borderline systems | International, primitive, religious law | Custom with the force of law in article 13(3)(a) |
| Change over time | Shift from custom to legislation | Codification of personal law |
| Difficulty | What makes it hard | Indian illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Law and morality | Is unjust law law? | Maneka Gandhi reading "law" as fair law |
| Open texture | Words have doubtful edges | Is an amendment "law"? Golak Nath, article 13(4), Kesavananda |
Conclusion. Law is hard to define because the word has many senses and the schools look at different aspects. Borderline systems, change over time and the gap between books and action add to the difficulty. So do the question of morality and the open texture of language. The leading definitions, from Austin and Salmond to Holmes and Hart, each capture part of the truth. Together they show law as normative, social, institutional, general, coercive yet accepted, purposive and changing. Indian constitutional law shows the difficulty in practice. Golak Nath and Kesavananda divided over whether an amendment is law, and Gopalan and Maneka Gandhi over whether law means fair law.
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.