KSLU Solved Question Papers
Jurisprudence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2022 Apr Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Jurisprudence 2022 Apr 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 2022 Apr examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2022 Apr examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2022 Apr 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 80 · 20 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.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Discuss the natural law theory. State the criticisms against natural law theory.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the natural law theory in brief (a higher law of reason; its classical, natural rights and revived forms); the criticisms, each explained (vagueness; deriving "ought" from "is"; confusing law with morality; a changing "eternal" law; misuse to justify any regime; Bentham's attack on natural rights; cultural relativism; uncertainty and judicial subjectivity); the replies of modern natural lawyers (Fuller, Finnis, Hart's minimum content); the Indian experience (ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, 1976; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973); a balanced assessment; a conclusion.
The theory in brief
The natural law theory holds that above the law made by rulers there is a higher law of reason and justice. Human law draws its moral authority from that higher law, and a human law that seriously violates it is defective. In its classical form, from Aristotle and Cicero to Aquinas, the higher law came from nature or from God. In its natural rights form, from Grotius and Locke, it became a theory of rights that every person holds. In its revived form after 1945, in Radbruch, Fuller and Finnis, it became a set of moral limits on what can count as law.
The criticisms
1. Vagueness. Natural law has never had a fixed content. Different thinkers have drawn opposite conclusions from it. Hobbes used it to support an absolute ruler, and Locke used it to support limited government. A standard that can justify both is hard to apply.
2. Deriving "ought" from "is". Hume argued that one cannot logically move from a statement of fact about human nature to a statement of what people ought to do. Natural law often makes exactly that move.
3. Confusing law with morality. Austin insisted that "the existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another". Hart agreed. Suppose an unjust law is said to be no law at all. The citizen then loses the clear statement that it is law, but too wicked to obey. Clarity, Hart argued, is better served by keeping the two questions apart.
4. A changing "eternal" law. Natural law claims to be eternal and universal. Yet what was once called natural has changed. Slavery and the subjection of women were once defended as natural, and are now condemned.
5. Misuse. Because its content is uncertain, anyone can claim that natural law supports his own interests. Kings used it to claim divine right, and others used it to resist all change.
6. Bentham's attack. Bentham called natural rights "nonsense upon stilts". For him, rights exist only where a law creates them. Talk of natural rights, he said, was dangerous because it encouraged people to disobey the law.
7. Cultural relativism. Moral beliefs differ between societies. It is doubtful whether a single law of reason can command agreement across all cultures.
8. Uncertainty and judicial subjectivity. If judges may set aside laws they think unjust, the law becomes uncertain and depends on the views of individual judges.
The replies of modern natural lawyers
Modern natural lawyers have answered many of these points.
- Fuller moved away from vague morality to an inner morality of law: generality, publicity, clarity, consistency and similar formal qualities. These are definite and testable.
- Finnis identified a short list of basic human goods, such as life, knowledge and friendship, and reasoned from them carefully, without deriving "ought" directly from "is".
- Hart, though a positivist, accepted a minimum content of natural law: rules protecting life, property and promises, which any society needs to survive.
The Indian experience
The cost of rejecting natural law. In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207, during the Emergency, a Presidential order had suspended the right to move courts for the enforcement of article 21. The majority held that no detenu could then seek habeas corpus. Khanna J. dissented, holding that the right to life and liberty does not depend on the written Constitution alone. The majority view is now regarded as wrong. The episode shows the danger of treating any enacted rule as beyond moral scrutiny.
The criticism of uncertainty. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to destroy its basic structure. The doctrine reflects the natural law idea of limits on the law-maker. Its critics, however, point out that the contents of the basic structure are not fully listed. They are worked out by judges case by case, which raises the very objection of uncertainty.
Assessment
The criticisms show that natural law cannot be a precise code. But they do not destroy its central insight: that law must answer to standards of justice. Most modern legal systems, including India's, combine positive law with constitutional limits inspired by that insight.
Conclusion. The natural law theory holds that human law must answer to a higher law of reason and justice. It is criticised as vague, logically flawed, confusing law with morality, changeable, open to misuse, culturally relative and a source of uncertainty. Modern writers such as Fuller, Finnis and Hart have met some of these criticisms. ADM Jabalpur shows the cost of ignoring natural law, while Kesavananda shows both its value and its uncertainty.
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.