What Is Natural Law?

Natural law is a philosophical and legal theory that suggests that certain ethical and moral principles are inherent in human nature and can be understood through reason and observation of the natural world. Natural law is based on the idea that there are universal principles of morality and justice that exist independently of human laws and social conventions. These principles are believed to be discoverable by reason, and they form the basis of a just and equitable society.

In the context of legal theory, natural law holds that laws should be based on these universal principles, rather than on the arbitrary will of those in power. he origin of natural law can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy, but it has been developed and refined by a number of thinkers throughout history, including St. Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant. In the context of law, natural law theory asserts that legal systems should be based on these fundamental principles and values, rather than on the arbitrary decisions of those in power.

Some of the key principles of natural law include the idea that all human beings are endowed with inherent dignity and worth, that human life is precious and should be preserved, and that there are certain universal human rights that should be respected and protected. These principles are often used to critique or challenge existing legal systems, particularly those that are seen as unjust or in violation of fundamental human rights.

Critics of natural law theory argue that it can be overly rigid and inflexible, and that it can lead to moral absolutism and intolerance of diversity. Others argue that it is an important counterbalance to the relativism and subjectivity of contemporary moral and legal discourse, and that it provides a useful framework for evaluating and improving legal systems.

Natural Law In Context To Legal Cases:

Natural law is a philosophical concept that refers to a set of fundamental principles or rules that are believed to be inherent in nature and govern human behavior. In legal cases, natural law can be seen as a basis for determining what is right and wrong, just and unjust, and fair and unfair.

Some legal systems, such as those based on common law, recognize natural law as a source of legal authority. In such systems, judges may use natural law principles to interpret and apply laws, especially in cases where the law is unclear or ambiguous. For example, if a law is ambiguous, a judge may look to natural law principles to help determine the meaning of the law and how it should be applied to the specific case before them.

Natural law can also be used as a basis for challenging laws that are seen as unjust or immoral. For example, civil rights advocates have used natural law arguments to challenge laws that discriminate against certain groups of people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Overall, natural law can play a significant role in legal cases by providing a framework for determining what is just and fair, and by serving as a basis for interpreting and applying laws. However, the extent to which natural law is recognized and applied in legal cases varies depending on the specific legal system and the views of individual judges and legal scholars.

What Is Positive Law?

Positive law is a legal system that is based on written laws or statutes that have been enacted by a legitimate authority, such as a government or a legislative body. Positive law is also sometimes referred to as "man-made law" because it is created by humans and not seen as inherent or natural law.

In a positive law system, the law is defined by the authority that creates it. This means that the law can be changed or modified at any time by the same authority that enacted it. Positive law is typically enforced through the use of sanctions or penalties for those who violate it, such as fines, imprisonment, or other forms of punishment.

Positive law can be contrasted with natural law, which is a philosophical concept that suggests that certain laws and principles are inherent in nature and can be discovered through reason and observation. Unlike natural law, positive law is based on specific statutes or legal codes that are created and enforced by human authority.

Most modern legal systems are based on positive law, including the legal systems of the United States, Canada, and many European countries. However, some legal systems, such as Islamic law, incorporate elements of natural law alongside positive law.

Positive law is also characterized by its emphasis on the enforcement of laws through sanctions or penalties for those who violate them. These penalties can range from fines and community service to imprisonment and other forms of punishment. The goal of these penalties is to deter individuals from breaking the law and to maintain social order.

Another important aspect of positive law is that it is dynamic and can change over time. As society evolves and new challenges arise, the laws and statutes that make up positive law can be amended or repealed to reflect these changes. This means that positive law is always evolving and adapting to meet the needs of society. Overall, positive law is a legal system that is based on the recognition and enforcement of laws created by human authority. It is dynamic, adaptable, and enforced through a system of penalties and sanctions. Positive law is the foundation of modern legal systems around the world and is essential for maintaining social order and promoting justice.

Positive Law In Context To Legal Cases:

In India, positive law is the foundation of the legal system and is closely related to legal cases. The Indian legal system is based on a mix of common law, which is law developed by courts through their decisions, and statutory law, which is law created by the legislative body.

Positive law is created through a democratic process, which involves the legislature passing laws, the executive implementing them, and the judiciary interpreting and applying them in legal cases. The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of the land and sets out the framework for the Indian legal system. It outlines the powers and functions of the various branches of the government and guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms to Indian citizens.

The Indian legal system is also based on the principle of the separation of powers, which means that the judiciary is an independent branch of the government that is responsible for interpreting and applying the law. The judiciary plays a crucial role in the enforcement of positive law in India and in resolving legal disputes through its decisions in legal cases.

Legal cases in India are typically brought before the courts by individuals, groups, or organizations seeking redress for a perceived legal wrong. The courts in India have the power to interpret and apply the law, as well as to strike down laws that are found to be unconstitutional. This means that the courts in India play a significant role in shaping positive law through their decisions in legal cases.

Overall, positive law is closely related to legal cases in India, as it provides the framework for the legal system and the basis for the decisions of the judiciary. Legal cases in India are an important means of resolving disputes and shaping positive law through the interpretation and application of statutes and judicial precedent.

In The Case Adm Jabalpur v/s. Shivkant Shukla:

This case is also known as the Habeas Corpus case, it was a landmark case in the Indian legal system.
Here are some key facts about the case:

1. The case was heard by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 1976.
2. The case arose from the Emergency declared in India in 1975, during which civil liberties and fundamental rights were suspended.
3. Shivkant Shukla, a political activist, was arrested during the Emergency and detained without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
4. Shukla's wife filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a legal order requiring a person who is detained or imprisoned to be brought before a court or judge.
5. The Supreme Court, in a split decision of 4-1, held that during an Emergency, the right to life and personal liberty of individuals could be suspended and that courts could not interfere with the detention of individuals under preventive detention laws like MISA.
6. The judgment was controversial and widely criticized for its stance on civil liberties and fundamental rights.
7. The case was overruled by the Supreme Court in 2017 in the case of KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, in which the court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
8. The ADM Jabalpur case remains an important case in the history of the Indian legal system and is often cited as an example of the dangers of executive overreach and the importance of protecting civil liberties and fundamental rights.

The Main Issue Of The Above Case Is:
The issue in the case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla, also known as the Habeas Corpus case, was whether during a state of Emergency, a person's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution could be suspended. The case arose from the Emergency declared in India in 1975, during which civil liberties and fundamental rights were suspended.

Shivkant Shukla, a political activist, was arrested during the Emergency and detained without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). Shukla's wife filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a legal order requiring a person who is detained or imprisoned to be brought before a court or judge.

The central issue in the case was whether the courts had the power to inquire into the validity of Shukla's detention and whether the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution could be suspended during a state of Emergency. The Supreme Court, in a split decision of 4-1, held that during an Emergency, the right to life and personal liberty of individuals could be suspended and that courts could not interfere with the detention of individuals under preventive detention laws like MISA.

The judgment was widely criticized for its stance on civil liberties and fundamental rights, and it has been overruled by the Supreme Court in 2017 in the case of KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, in which the court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

Final Judgement By The Hon'ble Supreme Court:
In the case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla, the final judgement by the Supreme Court was delivered on 28th April 1976. In a split decision of 4-1, the Supreme Court held that during an Emergency, the right to life and personal liberty of individuals could be suspended, and that courts could not interfere with the detention of individuals under preventive detention laws like MISA.

The majority judgment, written by Justice A.N. Ray, held that during an Emergency, the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution could be suspended. The court held that the Constitution conferred wide powers on the executive during an Emergency, and that the courts could not interfere with the exercise of those powers.

The dissenting judgment was delivered by Justice H.R. Khanna, who held that the right to life and personal liberty could not be suspended even during an Emergency. Justice Khanna held that the Constitution was not suspended during an Emergency, and that the courts had a duty to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.

The judgement was widely criticized for its stance on civil liberties and fundamental rights, and it has been overruled by the Supreme Court in 2017 in the case of KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, in which the court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.


Adm Jabalpur v/s Shivkant Shukla Case In The Light Of Natural Law And Positive Law:
The case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla, also known as the Habeas Corpus case, is an example of how natural law principles can clash with positive law principles.

Natural law is a theory that suggests that there are certain moral principles that are inherent in nature and are independent of human laws. These principles are based on the idea that there are certain inherent rights and wrongs that are universally applicable and do not change with time or place. According to natural law theory, human laws should be based on these moral principles and should be consistent with them.

In the case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla, the Indian Supreme Court had to decide whether during a state of Emergency, a person's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution could be suspended. The court held that during an Emergency, the right to life and personal liberty of individuals could be suspended and that courts could not interfere with the detention of individuals under preventive detention laws like MISA.

This decision by the Supreme Court went against the natural law principle of the inherent and universal right to life and personal liberty. Natural law theory suggests that these rights are inherent in human beings and cannot be taken away by any government or authority. The Supreme Court's decision was widely criticized for going against these natural law principles and allowing the government to violate fundamental human rights.

However, it is important to note that natural law theory can also be criticized for being too abstract and theoretical, and for not taking into account the practical realities of governance and administration. In the case of ADM Jabalpur, the Supreme Court may have felt that the suspension of fundamental rights was necessary to maintain law and order during a state of Emergency.

In conclusion, the case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla highlights the tension that can exist between natural law principles and positive law principles in the context of legal cases. While natural law theory suggests that human laws should be based on moral principles, the practical realities of governance and administration may sometimes require the suspension of fundamental rights, as was the case during the state of Emergency in India.

The case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla, also known as the Habeas Corpus case, is also a prime example of how positive law principles can override individual rights in exceptional circumstances.

Positive law refers to the written and enforced laws by the state, including statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions. Positive law is the foundation of the legal system in a country and provides a framework for governance and administration. The case of ADM Jabalpur involved the interpretation of positive law in the context of a national emergency.

During the 1970s, India was under a state of Emergency declared by the government. The government suspended certain civil liberties and fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In this context, the Indian Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an individual detained under preventive detention laws like MISA had the right to challenge their detention through a writ of habeas corpus.

The decision in ADM Jabalpur was criticized for its lack of regard for individual rights and liberties, but it was considered a necessary step in ensuring law and order during a state of Emergency. The Supreme Court's decision reflected the principles of positive law, which recognizes the authority of the state and the importance of maintaining order and security in society.

The abovementioned case highlights the importance of positive law principles in maintaining order and security in a country, especially during exceptional circumstances. Positive law may sometimes require the suspension of fundamental rights, but it is necessary to ensure the well-being of society as a whole.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Arpita Sahu

Authentication No: MY350624207264-20-0523