KSLU Solved Question Papers
Jurisprudence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2025 Jan Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Jurisprudence 2025 Jan 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 2025 Jan examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2025 Jan examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2025 Jan 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)Examine the 'Austine' concept of law.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Austin and the analytical school; his separation of law and morality; his definition of law and its elements; the attributes of his sovereign, with a table; the merits of the theory; the criticisms (Maine's Ranjit Singh, Hart's rules, Duguit and the pluralists, Olivecrona's independent imperatives, international and constitutional law); the Indian position (A.K. Gopalan, 1950, as positivist reasoning; Minerva Mills, 1980, against an unlimited law-maker); a conclusion.
Austin and the analytical school
John Austin (1790 to 1859) lectured on jurisprudence at the University of London. His Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) founded the analytical or positivist school in England. He followed Bentham in one central idea. The law as it is must be kept separate from the law as it ought to be. In his words, "the existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another".
So for Austin, jurisprudence studies positive law: law actually laid down by political superiors for political inferiors. Questions of justice belong to ethics or to the science of legislation.
Austin's concept of law
Austin defined a law as a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him. Positive law is the command of the sovereign. It contains four connected ideas.
- Command: an expressed wish that another shall act or forbear.
- Sanction: the evil that will follow if the wish is disobeyed.
- Duty: the position of the person liable to the sanction.
- Sovereign: the source of the command.
A law must also be general, binding a class of persons to a class of acts. A single order to one person is not a law.
The attributes of the sovereign
| Attribute | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Determinate | A definite person or body, not the people at large |
| Habitually obeyed | The bulk of the society obeys him as a habit |
| Not habitually obedient | He does not habitually obey any other superior |
| Attribute | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Illimitable | His legal power has no legal limit |
| Indivisible | Sovereignty cannot be split between bodies |
From these attributes follow Austin's exclusions. Custom is not law until the sovereign adopts it. International law is only positive morality. Constitutional law, which limits the sovereign, is not law in the strict sense.
Merits
- It gave a clear and simple test of what counts as law.
- It separated the description of law from its moral evaluation.
- It fits criminal and regulatory statutes well, which are orders backed by penalties.
- It began the careful analysis of legal terms such as right, duty and sanction.
Austin's influence
Austin's method shaped the codes of the nineteenth century. Like Bentham, he believed that law stated clearly in a code could be known and reformed. The great Indian codes of that age share this ideal. The Indian Penal Code 1860 and the Indian Contract Act 1872 set out the law as clear rules laid down by the State. Analytical jurisprudence also gave students the habit of defining every legal term precisely.
Criticisms
- Maine and custom. Maine pointed to Ranjit Singh, the ruler of the Punjab. He had absolute power, yet he never made a law. His people lived by custom. So law existed without any sovereign's command.
- Hart and rules. Hart said law is a union of rules, not commands. Rules that confer powers, such as those on making wills or contracts, threaten no one. Austin's habit of obedience also cannot explain why law continues when one ruler dies and another takes over.
- The pluralists. Duguit and Laski denied that any single body holds unlimited power. Power is shared among groups, and law rests on social solidarity.
- Olivecrona. Most rules are independent imperatives: they bind long after their makers have died, without anyone now commanding them.
- International and constitutional law. Austin could not treat them as law, though States and courts do.
- Judge-made law. Austin's view that judges make law only as delegates of the sovereign is artificial.
The Indian position
Austin's influence can be seen in early Indian constitutional cases. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27, a detenu challenged the Preventive Detention Act 1950. The majority held that "law" in article 21 meant State-made law. It refused to read in natural justice or American due process. This is a positivist reading: law is what the competent authority enacts.
But India has no Austinian sovereign. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789, the Forty-second Amendment had added clauses (4) and (5) to article 368. Clause (5) declared that there was no limit at all on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Clause (4) said no amendment could be questioned in any court. The Supreme Court struck down both clauses. Parliament's amending power is limited, and it cannot destroy the basic structure. So even the highest law-maker in India is not illimitable.
Conclusion. Austin defined law as the general command of a determinate, habitually obeyed and legally unlimited sovereign, backed by a sanction. His theory gave clarity and separated law from morality. But it cannot explain custom, power-conferring rules, the continuity of law, international law or constitutional limits. Gopalan shows his influence in India, while Minerva Mills shows that the Indian law-maker is itself bound by 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.