There is no uniform or single definition of 'Law'; nobody can define what Law is in a watertight compartment because Law is undefinable.

Law constantly changes from place to place, time to time, and society to society. What may have been law in the past may not be valid in the present. The present legal structure may not survive in the future. Law cannot be static, rigid, or constant. In fact, it is flexible; it changes according to society, time, and place. Thus, it is very difficult to define Law, but it is also necessary because until you define the law, people/subjects cannot follow it. It must have some shape; otherwise, its implementation is very difficult.

In ancient times, people related law to religion, morality, and ethics. In the historical school, this type of law is known as Divine law, i.e., the law gifted by God to men. Natural law is also part of this law, where Law is understood in the context of nature.

The Naturalist and Divine Law thinkers defined it as follows: If a man does not obey the laws of nature or the laws of religion, which are based on the theory of good and bad, then he will be sinful.

Austin Theory of Law:

For the first time, in 1832 A.D., an English jurist attempted to define the word 'Law' apart from ethics and morality. His name was John Austin. Sir Austin stated that Law is the command of a politically superior authority to inferiors, which the latter are bound to follow.1

According to him, in every society, there are some men who are politically superior and some who are inferiors or subjects of the former. He called the politically superior authority the sovereign because no one can command them, but they can command everyone who is their subject. The latter are bound to follow their commands.

Austin said that every command of the sovereign is backed by a sanction that compels inferiors to obey.

He identified three elements of law:

1. Command
2. Sovereign
3. Sanction

According to him, commands are formal instructions given by political superiors to inferiors for obedience; they are not mere informal wishes or words of the sovereign. "see footnote [1]" Austin stated that not just anyone's commands can be considered law; only the commands of a sovereign (politically superior authority) to inferiors qualify as law. Furthermore, all commands of the sovereign are backed by sanctions. If subjects do not obey them, they can be compelled through punishment, damages, injunctions, etc.

Austin's theory of law is known as positivist law.

Austin divided law into two parts:

• General law
• Particular law

General law refers to the sovereign's general command to all subjects, which he called positive law. Particular command refers to the sovereign's command directed at specific subjects.

A Legislative Approach:

Austin views law from the perspective of the legislature, as it is known in today's society. When he stated that law is the command of politically superior authorities, he referred to individuals who hold superior positions in political society. As we know, in today's society, legislatures are the ones who make laws for everyone because they have the power to do so. Thus, Austin focuses on the parliament's superiority. This might be because, in the U.K., the parliament is sovereign and supreme, as it is rightly said that "the U.K. parliament can do everything except make a man a woman and vice-versa."

Salmond's Definition of Law:

The next significant definition of law was given by Salmond. In the year 1920 A.D., Salmond defined the law as:

"Law is the set of rules or principles established by the state for implementation in the administration of justice."⁴

Salmond stated that something can only become law when it is ruled as such by a court of justice. Unless and until a court rules on a matter, it cannot be considered law. Thus, law consists of rules and principles established by the state for effective implementation in the administration of justice. Salmond also emphasised that the court's ruling provides the final authority on whether a particular statute qualifies as law or is merely a legislative instruction. Only a court of law has the power to define and validate what constitutes law. According to Salmond, one of the main objectives of law is justice, which is achieved through the implementation of law before the courts of justice.

A Judicial Approach:

Salmond understood law in terms of precedents. As we know, higher court rulings from past judgments become binding law for subordinate courts in the present and future. Salmond viewed law from the perspective of the courts of justice. Even in today's times, while the power to make laws is granted to the legislature, courts retain the power of judicial review, which allows them to determine the validity of laws. If a court declares any law invalid, it becomes void ab initio. Conclusion:
Thus, both Austin and Salmond attempted to define law from different perspectives. Austin viewed law from the perspective of the legislature, while Salmond viewed it from the perspective of the judiciary. However, both definitions represent opposite ends of the spectrum.

The real definition, in fact, lies somewhere in between. A more balanced definition could be:
"Law is a set of rules created by society through representatives appointed by society, aiming to provide justice, protect liberty and rights, and maximise happiness in a peaceful society. Courts, in turn, act as guarantors of these liberties, rights, happiness, and peace, with the power to invalidate any rule or principle that does not align with this guarantee."

End-Notes:

1. John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 1995) 120
2. John Austin, Lectures on Jurisprudence (5th edn, John Murray 1885) 210
3. Albert Venn Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edn, Macmillan 1959) 75
4. John Salmond, Jurisprudence (10th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 1947) 37