BARKATULLAH UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL STUDIES AND
RESEARCH

2020 – 2021

SR. NAME ENROLLMENT ROLL

NO NUMBER NUMBER
1. Abhay Kumar R218088090056 2180800005

2. Adeeba Khan R218088090054 2180800006

3. Aditya R218088090042 2180800007
Navreti
4. Aditya Yadav R218088090033 2180800008
5 Aishwarya R218088090055 2180800009
Vishwakarma
6. Akshay R218088090019 2180800011
Sharma
7. Amrita R218088090013 2180800012
Bharadwaj
8. Ananya Hada R218088090040 2180800013
9. Anil Singh R218088090016 2180800014
Gond
10. Anuja Singh R218088090012 2180800016
11. Arya R218088090022 2180800019
Choubey
12. Ayushi R218088090003 2180800022
Deoliya
13. Deepak Jatav R218088090025 2180800023
14. Devika Tiwari R218088090049 2180800024

15. Devrat R218088090050 2180800025

Pandey
16. Diwakar R218088090034 2180800026
Shukla
17. Ekta R218088090008 2180800027
Suryvanshi
18. Harshita R218088090004 2180800029
Sharma
19. Hritik Dubey R218088090006 2180800031
20. Isha Mandloi R218088090038 2180800033
21. Janvee R218088090017 2180800034
Choukikar
22. Jyoti Suman R218088090030 2180800036
23. Khushi Tiwari R218088090045 2180800038

24. Mohammad R218088090036 2180800043

Atiaf
25. Monika Dangi R218088090048 2180800045

26. Mukashfa R218088090011 2180800046

Khan
R218088090053 2180800047
Mukesh
27. Rajput
28. Muskan Jain R218088090020 2180800048
29. Muskan R218088090015 2180800049
Parmar
30. Naina R218088090009 2180800050
Lakshakar
31. Nainil R218088090010 2180800051
Tripathi
32. Nancy Thakur R218088090046 2180800052

33. Nikita R218088090026 2180800053

Malaiya
34. Nikita Meena R218088090035 2180800054
35. Nikita R218088090028 2180800055
Shrivastava
36. Nimish R218088090014 2180800056
Mewada
37. Palak R218088090058 2180800058
Bhargava
38. Parul Sariyam R218088090018 2180800059
39. Prince Joshi R218088090027 2180800063

40. Priya Neelam R218088090021 2180800064

Saket
41. Rishab R218088090029 2180800071
Mishra
42. Rishab Tiwari R218088090059 2180800072

43. Sailee R218088090037 2180800073

Prajapati
44. Sakshi R218088090032 2180800074
Kushwaha
45. Sana Arshi R218088090043 2180800075
46. Satyam R218088090051 2180800076
Pandey
47. Shailesh R218088090024 2180800078
Saiyam
48. Shankar R218088090052 2180800079
Prajapati
49. Shikha Shukla R218088090039 2180800080

50. Shivani Gupta R218088090047 2180800083

51. Sonam R218088090023 2180800086

Dasoriya
52. Sonendra R218088090041 2180800087
Shukla
53. Tanisha Rai R218088090031 2180800089
54. Tushar R218088090007 2180800090
Sharma
55. Vidhan R218088090005 2180800092
Mishra
56. Jahanvi R218088090057 2180800098
Prakash

“JURISPRUDENCE IS THE SYSTEMATIC

ARRANGEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PRINCIPAL OF LAW”. EXPLAIN
1. 1.   Introduction
 The word jurisprudence is derived from Latin
word “jurisprudentia”, means ‘knowledge of
law’. The Latin word ‘juris’ means law and
‘prudentia’ means skill or knowledge. Thus,
jurisprudence signifies knowledge of law and
its application.
 According to Oxford dictionary
“It is defined as jurisprudence is the
systematic and formulated knowledge or
science of human law.”
In this sense it covers the whole body of legal
principles in the world. The history of the
concept of law reveals that jurisprudence has
assumed different meanings at different times.
It is therefore, difficult to attempt a singular
definition of the term. It has a long history of
evolution beginning from classical Greek
period to 21st Century modern jurisprudence
with numerous changes in its nature in various
stages of its evolution.
Scholars of jurisprudence, or legal
philosophers, hope to obtain a deeper
understanding of the nature of law, of legal
reasoning, legal systems and of legal
institutions. Modern jurisprudence began in
the 18th century and was focused on the first
principles of the law of nature, civil law, and
the law of nations. General Jurisprudence can
be broken into categories both by the types of
questions scholars seek to address and by the
theories of jurisprudence or schools of thought
regarding how those questions are best to be
answered. Contemporary philosophy of law,
which deals with general jurisprudence,
addresses problems in two rough groups:
v     Problems internal to law and legal
systems as such
v     Problems of law as a particular social
institution as it relates to the larger political
and social situation in which it exist.
During the formative era of the common law
in England, the term “jurisprudence” was
being used in a generic sense to include the
study of various facets of law. However, in the
early decades of the 19th century with the
theories propounded by Bentham and his
disciple Austin, the term ‘jurisprudence’
acquired a definite meaning. Bentham
differentiated between studies of law as “it is”
and “as it ought to be” and called them
‘expositorial’ and ‘censorial’ jurisprudence
respectively.
 Later, Austin concerned himself mainly with
the formal analysis of the English and its
related concepts, which still continues to be
the basic contents of English jurisprudence.
Jurisprudence has been considered at various
times and by different schools of thought as
philosophy, history or science. It is concerned
essentially with the nature and function of law.
It deals with such questions as what is law,
where does it come from. What does it do?
And what are the means for doing it.
1. 2.   Jurisprudence – it’s meaning
v     Jurisprudence in its limited sense means
elucidation of the general principles upon
which actual rules of law are based. It is
concerned with the rules of external conduct
which persons are constrained to obey.
Therefore, etymologically jurisprudence is that
science which imparts to us knowledge about
‘law’.
v     The term ‘law’ of course is a term of
various connotations; here we use it in its
abstract sense, that is to say, not in the sense
of concrete statutes but in the sense of general
principles underlying law. Thus, for example:
there are various branches of law prevalent in
the modern State such as contract, tort, crime,
property, trusts, companies, labor relations,
insolvency etc. and in jurisprudence we have
to study the basic principles of each of these
branches and we are not concerned with the
detailed rules of these laws. These have to be
studied in detail when we study those branches
of law separately.
v     Jurisprudence examines the general
principles of penal liability but it does not
attempt to detail out the essentials of each
offence. In short, jurisprudence may be
considered to be the study and systematic
arrangement of the general principles of law.
In another sense, jurisprudence may be
regarded as the philosophy of law dealing with
the nature and function of law. This approach
to jurisprudence is receiving primacy in
modern times keeping in view the rapid social
changes taking place all around the world in
recent decades. This has eventually given rise
to what is now termed as the “functional
jurisprudence”, the thrust being on inter-
relationship between law and justice.
v     The Indian jurisprudence owes its origin
to the ancient concept of “Dharma” which was
considered to be the best way to discipline
one’s mind. The practice of Dharma enabled
citizens to inculcate a sense of discipline in
conducting themselves in the society.
However, with the march of time and progress
of Indian society, the concept of law and
therefore, of jurisprudence has changed
radically.
v     India is now a Sovereign, Socialist,
Secular, Democratic, Republic. Democracy
pre-supposes government of the people, by the
people and of the people, and, therefore,
citizens are expected to be self – restrained
and self – disciplined. They should also be
conscious of their rights and duties. ‘Law’
plays a significant role in sustaining as table
social order. India being a welfare state, a new
Indian jurisprudence needs to be developed so
as to ensure that law becomes an effective
instrument of social change in various facets
of life.
v     Law has to play the functional role of
harmonizing the conflicting interests of
individuals in the society by maintaining
equilibrium between the freedom of
individuals on one hand and social welfare on
the other.
v     The study of jurisprudence as a separate
branch of knowledge stated with the Romans.
For them, jurisprudence meant “knowledge of
law”. But in the Modern sense this meaning is
too vague and general. Though the Romans in
practice never confused law with morality or
religion, in theory this distinction is hardly
found to be in existence in earlier times. The
definition and conception of jurisprudence by
Roman jurists may appear to be vague or
inadequate in the modern sense of the term,
but the credit of recognizing jurisprudence as
an independent branch of legal science for the
first time goes to Roman legal philosophers,
which eventually paved way to development
of the subject in the present form.
1. 3.   Definitions of Jurisprudence
 The term ‘jurisprudence’ has meant different
things at different times. The variation is due
to different methods of inquiry and approach
to the study of the subject. It is for this reason
that Julius Stone has described jurisprudence
as “the lawyer’s extraversion” meaning
thereby that jurisprudence involves
examination of precepts, ideals and techniques
of the law by lawyers in the light of disciplines
other than law. The definition of jurisprudence
as given by some of the eminent Jurists may
be stated as follows:
3.1.           Definition According to Ulpian
 
Ulpian defined jurisprudence as- “the
observation of things human and divine, the
knowledge of the just and the unjust.”
It connotes more or less the same meaning as
the term ‘Dharma’ under the Hindu
jurisprudence and covers the province of
religion, ethics and philosophy. Thus, this
definition is too broad and has wider
connotation.
3.2.           Definition According to Gray
Professor Gray has also defined
jurisprudence more or less in the same
manner. He opined that “jurisprudence is the
science of law, the statement and systematic
arrangement of the rules followed by the
courts and the principals involved in those
rules.”
Thus, jurisprudence deals with that kind of
law which consists of rules enforced by courts
while administering justice. In other words,
the laws of the jurist deal with man and seek
to regulate external human conduct in the
society. It does not concern itself with the
inner beliefs of man imbibed in religious laws,
which derive their authority from super human
source which we can call as “God’. The
sanction for their enforcement is spiritual
reward or curse according to man’s deeds.
 Criticism
Stone has criticized Gray’s definition and said
that Gray has failed to determine any province
of jurisprudence rather he has reduced
jurisprudence to merely a matter of
arrangement of rules.
3.3   Definition According to Salmond
 Salmond defines jurisprudence as “the
science of the first principles of the civil law.”
Thus, he points out that jurisprudence deals
with a particular species of law namely; civil
law or the law of the State.
The civil law consists of rules applied by
courts in the administration of justice. He
agrees with Gray in upholding that
jurisprudence is concerned with only jurist’s
law and it is not concerned with the laws of
theologian and moralist although they also
govern the conduct of man in society. The
juristic laws regulate external human conduct
only and not the inner beliefs f man in society.
They are enforced by courts of judicial
tribunals and carry with them sanctions
ranging from capital punishment to a fine or
even a mere admonition.
Salmond supports Holland and Austin in
holding that jurisprudence is a science, that is,
a systematic study of the basic principles of
individual specific legal systems. He classified
jurisprudence in ‘generic’ and ‘specific’ sense.
The former includes the entire body of legal
doctrines whereas the latter means only a
particular branch of such doctrines. According
to him, specific sense alone is the proper
jurisprudence because it deals with general
principles of a particular legal system.
Salmond observed that as the ‘science of law’
there may be three kinds of jurisprudence:
 Expository or systematic jurisprudence,
which deals with the contents of an actual
legal system as existing at any time
whether past or present.
 Legal history, which is concerned with the
legal system in its process of historical
development.
 The science of legislation, the purpose of
which is to set forth law as it ought to be.
 It deals with the ideal future of the legal
system and the purpose which it may
serve.
Criticism
Dr. Allen has objected to the Salmond’s
definition on the ground that he has limited the
scope of jurisprudence to a particular legal
system. It is rather too narrow a view.
3.4.           Definition According to John
Austin
 
Austin calls jurisprudence as the “philosophy
of positive law.”
He was the first jurist to make jurisprudence
as a science. By the term “positive law” he
meant “jus positivum”. That is law laid down
by a particular superior for commanding
obedience from his subjects. Thus, it is
identical with “civil law” of Salmond. Austin
pointed out that science of law is concerned
with law ‘as it is’ and not ‘as it ought to be’,
which he considers as the science of
legislation.
Austin distinguishes law from those of
customs and ethical abstract ideas. He
preferred to divide jurisprudence into two
parts, namely:
(1) General jurisprudence
(2) Particular jurisprudence
By “General jurisprudence”, he meant “the
science concerned with exposition of the
principles of nations which are common to all
the systems of law” whereas “Particular
jurisprudence”, consisted of the science of any
such system of positive law as now obtains or
once actually obtained in specifically
determined nation.
Criticism
This classification has been criticized by his
critics as being unscientific and impracticable.
Professor Holland argues that it is vague to
think of general jurisprudence. According to
him, science is science and it cannot be
classified as general or particular.
Salmond repudiated the notion of ‘General
jurisprudence’ as conceived by Austin.
According to him, a principle to become a
topic of jurisprudence need not be, to use
Austin’s words, “common to the systems of
law.” Universal reception is not the sine qua
non for a principle to qualify itself for
treatment by the science of law. Salmond
points out that even if the doctrine of judicial
precedent or case-law system prevails only in
England, the rule of Stare would be a fit
subject for jurisprudence. He concludes that
“Jurisprudentia generalis or general
jurisprudence is not the study of legal systems
in general but the study of the general or
fundamental elements of a particular legal
system.”
 Professor Allen regards this statement as
meaning that in Salmond’s opinion ‘Particular
Jurisprudence’ is the only kind of
jurisprudence properly so-called. No doubt,
the sentence of Salmond above-quoted seems
to warrant this view, but what Salmond really
repudiates is only the notion of ‘general’
jurisprudence, such as that of Austin, which
carries the misleading suggestion that
principles germane to general jurisprudence
are such only because they are common to the
mature legal systems. That there can be a
theoretical jurisprudence embodying the
principles that are basic to any legal systems is
plainly affirmed by Salmond.
 Buckland criticized Austin’s concept of
‘general jurisprudence’; he observed that even
those who professed this view including
Austin himself, did not adhere to it in practice.
Dias and Hughes characterized Austin’s
definition of general jurisprudence as full of
ambiguities as it lacked amplitude and
maturity in the prevailing legal system.
3.5.           Definition According to Holland
 Sir Thomas Erskine Holland defines
jurisprudence as “the formal science of
positive law.”
According to him, jurisprudence should only
concern itself with the basic principles or
concepts underlying any natural system of
law. Holland defines positive law as a general
rule of external human action enforced by a
sovereign political authority. He calls
jurisprudence as a ‘formal’ science as it deals
not with concrete details but only with the
fundamental principles underlying them.
To illustrate: there are fundamental principles
in concepts relating to property, possession,
contract, etc. in all the well-developed legal
systems. Jurisprudence harmonizes these
separate ideas under a basic concept and
frames out a scheme of their purposes and
evolves methods and principles for their
retention without interfering in anyway with
the working of specific rules in any given
legal system.
Holland therefore rightly observed,
“Jurisprudence deals with the human relations
who are governed by rules of law rather than
the material rules themselves.” Since
jurisprudence deals only in a “formal or
abstract way with those relations of mankind
which are generally recognized as having legal
consequences”, it is not a material science but
rather a formal science of law.
 Criticism
Professor Gray and Dr. Jenks, however,
object to the Holland’s description of
jurisprudence as a ‘formal science’. They
pointed out that the real relation of
jurisprudence to law depends not upon what
law is treated, but how law is treated. Gray
further stated that in fact jurisprudence is no
more formal science than physiology.
Dr. Edward Jenks criticized Holland’s
definition of jurisprudence as ‘formal science
of law’ and remarked that jurisprudence
cannot be said to be purely formal science
because it cannot afford to ignore the social
forces which give shape to law.
Dias and Hughes while criticizing Holland
observation that the Holland’s analogy of
jurisprudence with ‘geology’ is erroneous.
Now the substances and forces became the
same everywhere. Law is a social institution
and structures of societies differ in their
objectives, traditions and environments. Same
is the view of Buckland who put a question,
‘how the principles of geology elaborated
from the geology of England alone, hold good
all over the globe.’ He further says, ‘law is not
a mechanical structure like geological
deposits.’
Salmond also criticized Holland for his
rejection of particular jurisprudence. He
supported Austin’s particular jurisprudence.
He protests against attributing jurisprudence
any quality whatever of generality or
universality.
3.6.           Definition According to Keeton
 According to Keeton, “jurisprudence is the
study and systematic arrangement of the
general principles of law.” The definition
seeks to explain the distinction between public
and private laws.
3.7.           Definition According to Dean
Roscoe Pound
 According to Pound, “jurisprudence is the
science of law using the term ‘law’ in the
juridical sense, as denoting the body of
principles recognized or enforced by public
and regular tribunals in the administration of
justice.”
He emphasized that there is an inevitable co –
relationship between jurisprudence and other
social sciences. Thus, he opined that
“jurisprudence, ethics, economics, politics and
sociology are distinct enough as the core, but
shade out into each other.
”Pound suggested a separate branch of
sociological jurisprudence, which is concerned
with the influence of law on society at large.
He firmly believed that behind every issue,
there is something special; therefore, in the
study of jurisprudence, the emphasis should be
on the relationship between law and society.
3.8.           Definition According to Dr. Allen
 
Dr. Allen defined jurisprudence as “the
scientific synthesis of the essential principles
of law.” Though this definition may seem to
be abstract at a glance, it surely takes notice of
the widening scope of law in its various facets.
3.9.           Definition According to Radcliffe
 He defined “jurisprudence as a part of history,
a part of economics and sociology, a part of
ethics and a philosophy of life.” Thus, it is and
amalgam of a number of other disciplines
inter-woven together for the common good of
the society.
3.10.       Definition According to Paton
Paton says: “A particular method of study not
of laws of one country but of general Notions
of law itself “.According to Paton, it is a
proper way to study not only the law of one
country but general concepts and rules of
every country or whole world. Paton says law
is an independent study.
3.11.       Definition According to E. W.
Patterson
E. W. Patterson defined jurisprudence “as a
body of ordered knowledge which deals with a
particular species of law.”
1. 4.    Benefits of Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence is basically a theoretical subject
but it also has a practical and educational
value. The practical value or purposes of
jurisprudence has been enumerated as under.
4.1.           Remove the complexities of LAW
One of the tasks of jurisprudence is to
construct concepts and make law more
manageable and rational.
4.2.           Answer the new problems
Jurisprudence can teach people to look around
them and realize that answers to legal
problems must be found by a consideration of
the present social needs and not in the wisdom
of the past.
4.3.           Grammar of LAW
Jurisprudence is the grammar of law. It throws
light on the basic ideas and the fundamental
principles of law e.g. negligence, liability etc.
4.4.           Training of mind
Jurisprudence trains the mind to solve the
difficult legal provisions in legal way.
4.5.           Grasp on the subject
It helps in knowing and grasping the language,
grammar, the basics of treatment and
assumption upon which subject rests.
4.6.           Useful in art of pleading and
legislation
It helps legislators and the lawyers the proper
use of legal terminology. It relieves them of
botheration, creation of defining again and
again certain expressions e.g. right, duty etc.
4.7.           To interpret LAW
It helps the judges and the lawyer’s in
ascertaining the true meanings of the law
passed by the legislatures by providing the
rules of interpretation.
4.8.           To study foreign LAW
It enables a lawyer to study foreign law
because the fundamental principles are
generally common to all systems of law.
4.9.           Importance under the light of
different jurists
 
4.9.1.     By Dr. M.J. Sethna
The value of jurisprudence lies in examining
the consequences of law and its administration
on social welfare and suggesting changes for
the betterment of the superstructure of laws.
4.9.2.     By R.W.M. Dias
The study of Jurisprudence is an opportunity
for the lawyer to bring theory and life into
focus, for it concerns human thought in
relation to social existence.
The true purpose of the study of Jurisprudence
should not be confined to the study of positive
law alone but must include normative study
that deals with the improvement of law in the
context of prevailing philosophies of time,
place and circumstances.
1. 5.    Scope of Jurisprucence
There is no unanimity of opinion regarding the
scope of jurisprudence. It may be discussed
under the following three heads:
5.1.           Early period
In the early period, Jurisprudence has been so
defined as to cover moral and religious
precepts and that has created confusion.
5.2.           Austinian period
It was the Austin, who distinguished law from
morality and theology and restricted the term
to the body of rules set and enforced by the
sovereign or supreme law-making authority
within the realm. Therefore, the scope of
Jurisprudence was limited to the study of the
concept of positive law only.
5.3.           Modern period
At present, there is a tendency to widen the
scope of Jurisprudence cannot be
circumscribed or limited. It includes all
concepts of human order and human conduct
in human state and society.
6.    Purpose of Jurisprudence
 The scope of jurisprudence has widened
considerably over the years. It is generally
believed that the scope of jurisprudence
cannot be circumscribed. Broadly, speaking,
jurisprudence includes all concepts of human
order and human conduct in State and society.
In other words, anything that concerns order in
the State and society will be within the domain
of jurisprudence.
Justice P.B. Mukherjee observed: –
“Jurisprudence is both an intellectual and
idealistic abstraction as well as behavioral
study of man in society. It includes political,
social, economic and cultural ideas. It covers
the study of man in relation to State and
society.”
Radcliffe also held a similar view and stated
that “jurisprudence is a part of history, a part
of economics and sociology, a part of ethics
and a philosophy of life.”
Jurisprudence involves certain types of
investigations into law, an investigation of an
abstract, general and theoretical in nature
which seeks to lay bare the essential principles
of law and legal systems. Elaborating the point
further, Salmond observed – “In jurisprudence
we are not concerned to derive rules from
authority and apply them to problem; we are
concerned rather to reflect on the nature of
legal rules, on the underlying meaning of legal
concepts and on the essential features of legal
system.” This makes the distinction between
law and jurisprudence amply clear.
Thus, whereas in law we look for the rule
relevant to the given situation, in
jurisprudence we ask, what is for a rule to be
legal rule, and what distinguishes law from
morality; etiquette and other related
phenomenon. It therefore, follows that
jurisprudence comprises philosophy of law
and its object is not to discover new rule but to
reflect on the rules already known.
Jurisprudence discloses knowledge of general
ideas and principles of all legal systems, so it
is called “eye of the law”. Certain fundamental
conceptions such as negligence liability etc.
have to be learned before provision of law
relating to them can be understood, and
jurisprudence teaches these fundamentals
conceptions. Jurisprudence trains the mind
into legal ways of thought. It teaches the
proper use of legal terms, and is called
grammar of law. The study of jurisprudence
helps law makers by providing them brief and
clear terminology. It enlightens students and
helps them in adjusting themselves in society
without causing injuries to the interest of other
student.
1. 7.    Conclusion
Jurists thus have given different definitions of
the term ‘jurisprudence’. However, no one
single definition can be said to be universally
acceptable. Perhaps, the exact connotation of
this term is not possible because as a method,
jurisprudence deals with concepts which
regulate human conduct in accordance with
the values, needs and goals of every society.
These values, needs and goals etc. vary from
time to time and from society to society as
also within the same society at different times
and hence the meaning and scope of
jurisprudence also varies.
It is well known that ‘law’ being a dynamic
concept, it changes with the evolution of
society under different socio-economic and
political conditions. The rapid changes in
modern times have given rise to new problems
and issues which are to be tackled by law
through pragmatic approach in interpreting
law. While doing so, the modern jurisprudence
has to take into consideration the social ethos
and changing patterns of the society which
immensely widens its scope as a science of
law.
In the ultimate analysis Holland’s definition of
jurisprudence as the formal science of positive
law seems to be more acceptable. The term
‘positive law’ is concerned with an inquiry
into the social relations regulated by the rules
of law which are imposed by the State and
enforced by the law – courts. Jurisprudence is
a ‘formal science’ because it only deals with
the purposes, methods and ideas of the legal
system and not with its concrete details.
Austin’s definition discussed above is also
relatively correct. Austin has at least widened
the scope of jurisprudence by classifying it
into two categories, ‘General’ and ‘Particular’
and by pointing out that the jurisprudence
includes the study of principles common to all
States and also the analysis of these principles
in a specific determined nation.
To sum up jurisprudence is a study,
knowledge understanding, philosophy or
research of the fundamental legal principles. It
is any thought or writing about law and its
relation to other social sciences such as
economics, psychology, philosophy,
sociology, politics and ethics etc. It digs into
the historical past and attempts to create the
symmetry of a garden out of the confusion of
different conflicting legal system. It consists in
whatever law thinks, says and does in any
field of human society.
 References
 Dr. N. V. Paranjape – “Studies in
Jurisprudence & Legal Theory”
 Prof. [Mrs.] Nomita Aggarwal –
“Jurisprudence (Legal Theory)
 V. D. Mahajan – “Jurisprudence and Legal
Theory”
 P.S.A. Pillai – “Jurisprudence and Legal
Theory”