Comprehension
Both lawmen and laymen often ask, ``What is the law applicable to a given set of facts?'' The answers to this question differ depending upon the specific jurisdiction to which the given set of facts is linked. Contrary to this, scholars and students of jurisprudence are likely to ask the general question, viz ``What is Law?''. This question on the philosophy and nature of law supposes that law is a distinctive social-political phenomenon with universal characteristics that can be perceived through philosophical analysis. In such a study, the assumption is that law possesses some universal characteristics.
An analysis of the philosophy of law can be done for different reasons. Apart from a purely intellectual interest in understanding this complex phenomenon known as law, scholars also study the same as a normative social practice that purports to guide human behaviour, giving rise to reasons for action. The primary challenge of the branch of scholarship known as jurisprudence is based on this ``normative, reason-giving aspect of law''. At the same time, we must understand that law is not the only normative realm in any given society. It is one of the many normative standards such as morality, religion, customs and usages, etiquette, self-regulatory standards within a family or corporation, etc. So, it is also essential that we study law on the differences and similarities of the same with these normative standards.
While discerning these connections and contradictions, legal theories often study the content of the norm apart from giving importance to the source. Generally, theoretical studies on the content such as natural lawyers emphasize values such as fairness, justice, liberty, etc., as qualifications for the norms to be called laws. They have argued that laws must be in tune with certain principles of inner morality, such as that laws be general, public, prospective, coherent, clear, stable, and practicable, which are indispensable to law-making. Whereas theories that give prominence to the sources of the norm, such as enactment/command by political institution/authority, do not always emphasize the content.
Such philosophical analysis of law comprises both explanatory and justificatory aspects. While the explanatory aspect consists of explaining how laws can give rise to reasons and what kinds of reasons are involved, one example of this would be Dworkin’s classification of law as concepts, principles and rules. The aspect of justification concerns whether people ought to comply with the law's demands. In other words, it is the attempt to explain the moral legitimacy of law and the subjects’ reasons for complying with it.
An analysis of the philosophy of law can be done for different reasons. Apart from a purely intellectual interest in understanding this complex phenomenon known as law, scholars also study the same as a normative social practice that purports to guide human behaviour, giving rise to reasons for action. The primary challenge of the branch of scholarship known as jurisprudence is based on this ``normative, reason-giving aspect of law''. At the same time, we must understand that law is not the only normative realm in any given society. It is one of the many normative standards such as morality, religion, customs and usages, etiquette, self-regulatory standards within a family or corporation, etc. So, it is also essential that we study law on the differences and similarities of the same with these normative standards.
While discerning these connections and contradictions, legal theories often study the content of the norm apart from giving importance to the source. Generally, theoretical studies on the content such as natural lawyers emphasize values such as fairness, justice, liberty, etc., as qualifications for the norms to be called laws. They have argued that laws must be in tune with certain principles of inner morality, such as that laws be general, public, prospective, coherent, clear, stable, and practicable, which are indispensable to law-making. Whereas theories that give prominence to the sources of the norm, such as enactment/command by political institution/authority, do not always emphasize the content.
Such philosophical analysis of law comprises both explanatory and justificatory aspects. While the explanatory aspect consists of explaining how laws can give rise to reasons and what kinds of reasons are involved, one example of this would be Dworkin’s classification of law as concepts, principles and rules. The aspect of justification concerns whether people ought to comply with the law's demands. In other words, it is the attempt to explain the moral legitimacy of law and the subjects’ reasons for complying with it.
Question: 1
Validity of law resides in the political sovereignty of the maker of that law refers to:
Validity of law resides in the political sovereignty of the maker of that law refers to:
Show Hint
In Legal Positivism, “valid law” simply means “law made by the recognised law-making authority,” regardless of its moral quality.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Legal Positivism
- Natural Law
- Historical School
- Sociological School
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the core idea of the statement.
The question focuses on the source of law’s validity — specifically, the idea that the legitimacy of law depends on the political authority (sovereign) that created it, and not necessarily on its moral content.
Step 2: Link to jurisprudential theories.
- Legal Positivism holds that law derives its validity from being enacted by a recognised authority or sovereign power, in accordance with prescribed procedures. Moral considerations are separate from legal validity.
- The emphasis is on the source (political sovereignty) rather than the content (morality, justice).
Step 3: Eliminating wrong options.
- (B) Natural Law focuses on moral content and universal principles; it would reject the idea that validity is solely from political sovereignty.
- (C) Historical School attributes law’s authority to customs, traditions, and historical development, not sovereign commands.
- (D) Sociological School emphasises law as a tool for social engineering, prioritising social needs over mere sovereignty.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
The question focuses on the source of law’s validity — specifically, the idea that the legitimacy of law depends on the political authority (sovereign) that created it, and not necessarily on its moral content.
Step 2: Link to jurisprudential theories.
- Legal Positivism holds that law derives its validity from being enacted by a recognised authority or sovereign power, in accordance with prescribed procedures. Moral considerations are separate from legal validity.
- The emphasis is on the source (political sovereignty) rather than the content (morality, justice).
Step 3: Eliminating wrong options.
- (B) Natural Law focuses on moral content and universal principles; it would reject the idea that validity is solely from political sovereignty.
- (C) Historical School attributes law’s authority to customs, traditions, and historical development, not sovereign commands.
- (D) Sociological School emphasises law as a tool for social engineering, prioritising social needs over mere sovereignty.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
A norm cannot become legally valid unless its content is fair and just in accordance to:
A norm cannot become legally valid unless its content is fair and just in accordance to:
Show Hint
Natural Law links legal validity with moral principles — if the law is unjust, it is not truly law.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Legal Positivism
- Natural Law
- Historical School
- Sociological School
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the requirement in the question.
The statement focuses on content-based validity — meaning that for a law to be valid, it must be morally fair and just. This is a hallmark of Natural Law theory, which integrates morality with legal validity.
Step 2: Linking to theory.
Natural Law asserts that unjust laws are not true laws (lex iniusta non est lex). Thinkers like Aquinas, Finnis, and Fuller emphasize that the moral content of law is inseparable from its legitimacy.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) Legal Positivism separates legal validity from moral content.
- (C) Historical School ties law to customs and traditions.
- (D) Sociological School looks at social needs and effects, not necessarily moral content.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
The statement focuses on content-based validity — meaning that for a law to be valid, it must be morally fair and just. This is a hallmark of Natural Law theory, which integrates morality with legal validity.
Step 2: Linking to theory.
Natural Law asserts that unjust laws are not true laws (lex iniusta non est lex). Thinkers like Aquinas, Finnis, and Fuller emphasize that the moral content of law is inseparable from its legitimacy.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) Legal Positivism separates legal validity from moral content.
- (C) Historical School ties law to customs and traditions.
- (D) Sociological School looks at social needs and effects, not necessarily moral content.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
“The falsehood of legal positivism resides in envisaging that the law consists of only rules... The distinction between rules and principles is a logical one...” according to:
“The falsehood of legal positivism resides in envisaging that the law consists of only rules... The distinction between rules and principles is a logical one...” according to:
Show Hint
Dworkin’s hallmark: Law = Rules + Principles, both guiding judicial decision-making.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, 1977
- John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights, 1980
- H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, 1961
- Joseph Raz, Legal Principles and the Limits of Law, 1972
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Identifying the author’s core argument.
The quoted text critiques positivism for ignoring principles as part of law, and only focusing on rules. Dworkin’s theory emphasizes that legal reasoning involves both rules (all-or-nothing) and principles (weight-based).
Step 2: Context from work.
In Taking Rights Seriously, Dworkin rejects Hart’s positivism, arguing that principles are binding standards that influence judicial reasoning even if not codified.
Step 3: Elimination.
- (B) Finnis is a Natural Law theorist.
- (C) Hart is the positivist being critiqued here.
- (D) Raz also worked on legal positivism but did not make this specific argument about rules vs. principles in this form.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
The quoted text critiques positivism for ignoring principles as part of law, and only focusing on rules. Dworkin’s theory emphasizes that legal reasoning involves both rules (all-or-nothing) and principles (weight-based).
Step 2: Context from work.
In Taking Rights Seriously, Dworkin rejects Hart’s positivism, arguing that principles are binding standards that influence judicial reasoning even if not codified.
Step 3: Elimination.
- (B) Finnis is a Natural Law theorist.
- (C) Hart is the positivist being critiqued here.
- (D) Raz also worked on legal positivism but did not make this specific argument about rules vs. principles in this form.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Principles requiring that laws be general, public, prospective, coherent, clear, stable, and practicable are indispensable to law-making correspond to:
Principles requiring that laws be general, public, prospective, coherent, clear, stable, and practicable are indispensable to law-making correspond to:
Show Hint
Fuller’s “inner morality” is about procedural virtues that make laws effective and morally legitimate.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Inner Morality
- Method of logic
- Legitimacy and Transparency in law making
- Democratic law making
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Recognising the description.
The qualities listed — generality, publicity, prospectivity, coherence, clarity, stability, practicability — are directly from Lon L. Fuller’s concept of the inner morality of law.
Step 2: Fuller’s view.
Fuller argued that these procedural principles are necessary for laws to function as guides to behaviour; without them, law loses its moral authority.
Step 3: Elimination.
The other options describe political or logical processes but do not match Fuller’s formulation.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
The qualities listed — generality, publicity, prospectivity, coherence, clarity, stability, practicability — are directly from Lon L. Fuller’s concept of the inner morality of law.
Step 2: Fuller’s view.
Fuller argued that these procedural principles are necessary for laws to function as guides to behaviour; without them, law loses its moral authority.
Step 3: Elimination.
The other options describe political or logical processes but do not match Fuller’s formulation.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
‘I mean simply that history, in illuminating the past, illuminates the present, and in illuminating the present, illuminates the future’ opined by:
‘I mean simply that history, in illuminating the past, illuminates the present, and in illuminating the present, illuminates the future’ opined by:
Show Hint
Cardozo stressed that precedent is not static but a living link between past, present, and future.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Roscoe Pound
- Benjamin Cardozo
- Duguit
- Auguste Comte
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Identifying the source.
Benjamin Cardozo, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, often wrote about the role of history in judicial decision-making and the evolution of law. This quote is from his reflections on legal method.
Step 2: Reasoning.
The idea connects history to law’s progression — understanding past precedents to guide present and future legal development.
Step 3: Elimination.
The other jurists/philosophers focus on different jurisprudential schools — Roscoe Pound (Sociological Jurisprudence), Duguit (Social solidarity), Comte (Positivism in sociology).
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
Benjamin Cardozo, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, often wrote about the role of history in judicial decision-making and the evolution of law. This quote is from his reflections on legal method.
Step 2: Reasoning.
The idea connects history to law’s progression — understanding past precedents to guide present and future legal development.
Step 3: Elimination.
The other jurists/philosophers focus on different jurisprudential schools — Roscoe Pound (Sociological Jurisprudence), Duguit (Social solidarity), Comte (Positivism in sociology).
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
‘The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience’ is stated by:
‘The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience’ is stated by:
Show Hint
Holmes’s quote is a cornerstone of legal realism — law adapts to life’s realities, not just to rigid logic.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Holmes
- Dworkin
- Cardozo
- Amartya Sen
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Recognising the quotation.
This famous line is from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in The Common Law (1881). It reflects the pragmatic view that law evolves from societal experience rather than pure deductive logic.
Step 2: Meaning.
Holmes emphasises the adaptability of law — its shaping through real-life experiences, customs, and societal changes, rather than abstract reasoning alone.
Step 3: Elimination.
The other options do not match the authorship of this foundational legal realist idea.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
This famous line is from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in The Common Law (1881). It reflects the pragmatic view that law evolves from societal experience rather than pure deductive logic.
Step 2: Meaning.
Holmes emphasises the adaptability of law — its shaping through real-life experiences, customs, and societal changes, rather than abstract reasoning alone.
Step 3: Elimination.
The other options do not match the authorship of this foundational legal realist idea.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Jurisprudence
- Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Provision} & \textbf{Case Law} \\ \hline \text{(A) Strict Liability} & \text{(1) Ryland v. Fletcher} \\ \hline \text{(B) Absolute Liability} & \text{(II) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India} \\ \hline \text{(C) Negligence} & \text{(III) Nicholas v. Marsland} \\ \hline \text{(D) Act of God} & \text{(IV) MCD v. Subhagwanti} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Jurisprudence
- Eugen Ehrlich in his theory includes the following: (A) Law is to be found in Social Facts
(B) Living Law is the fact that governs social life
(C) If statute is not observed in practice, it is not part of living law
(D) The task of law is 'social engineering' Choose the correct answer from the options given below:- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Jurisprudence
- "Legal theory is science, not volition. It is knowledge of what the law is, not of what the law ought to be." It was said by:
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Jurisprudence
- Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{List-1} & \textbf{List-II} \\ \hline \text{(A) Complete Justice} & \text{(I) Article 137} \\ \hline \text{(B) Special Leave Petition} & \text{(II) Article 131} \\ \hline \text{(C) Review of the Judgments} & \text{(III) Article 142} \\ \hline \text{(D) Original Jurisdiction} & \text{(IV) Article 136} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Jurisprudence
- The solidary obligation imposes ___________ liability in law.
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Jurisprudence
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ 2008(3) Apex Court Judgements 232 (SC), while granting the custody to the maternal grandparents observed: In our judgement, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem in live in relationship and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgement, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’-(2009)1 SCC 42, while giving paramount importance to the welfare of the child, which should include moral and ethical values, besides ethical well-being, observed as under:
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case, the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.
(Extracts from Jaswinder Singh and Another vs Surjit Singh, AIR 2010 (NOC) 425 (P. & H.))- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed, and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The purpose of the equal opportunity principle in Article 16(1) and the reservation provision in Article 16(4) has emerged as a focal point of the jurisprudence on reservations in this Court. A discussion of the journey of the competing models of equality that the Court has espoused and their evolution over the course of the years is necessary to understand the constitutional vision on equality.
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) have been inserted, flow from Article 16 (4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16 (4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons which enables the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the state administration under article 335. Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sections of a class; Sub-classification must not lead to the exclusion of one of the categories in the class. A model that provides sufficient opportunities to all categories of the class must be adopted; and Sub-classification among a class must be on a reasonable basis.
Justice Bela Trivedi opined, in dissent, that presidential list of scheduled castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Any change to this list can only be made by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification, according to her would amount to tampering with the Presidential List and undermine the object Article 341, which aims to eliminate political influence in the SC-ST List. Further, she emphasised the importance of adhering to the rule of plain and literal interpretation. She mentions that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the presidential list would deprive other classes within the same category of their benefits. In the absence of executive or legislative power, state lack the competence to sub-classify castes and the benefit reserved for all SCs. Allowing states to do so would constitute a colourable exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Justice Trivedi concluded by affirming that affirmative action by States must remain within constitutional boundaries and held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case was correct and should be upheld.
(Extract from The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. 2024 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
View More Questions