Stay up-to-date via RSS!

Austin’s view on Law and Morality

In 19^th century Austin propounded his theory that law has nothing to do with morals. He defined law as the command of the sovereign. He further said it was law alone which is subject matter of Jurisprudence. Morals are not a subject matter of study for jurisprudence. According to him, Law means a body of rules that are intended to alter behaviour; morality means rules of conduct that are associated with certain distinctive psychological and social attributes. One can differentiate between law and morality on their cost of establishment, their way of enforcement and nature of Conduct.

Bentham View on Law and Morality

Bentham is best known as the man who founded the theory of utilitarianism. He didn’t practise as a lawyer but instead worked on reform of Legal system and on general theory of Law and Morality. Bentham was not strict as the Austin was. Bentham defined law and morality on the basis of that morality is an outcome lf law. It is a part of law.

According to this, Law and morality both have same centre in 2 circles. But the circumference of them differs to each other.

Salmond’s View on Law and Morality

According to him, Law is a body of principles recognised and applied by state in Administration of Justice. While morals are beliefs, values and principle that are set up by society or past of society determining what is right and wrong. Law and morals are both normative. They specify what must be done and what not.

Fuller’s View on Law and Morality

Fuller emphasised that law must meet certain formal requirement. To the extent that an institutional system of social control falls short of these requirement. Fuller stated we are inclined to recognise it as a system of law or to give it respect. Thus law has an internal morality that goes behind the social rules by which valid laws are made.

 INTRODUCTION

Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the reputation of another, he does so at his own risk, as in the case of an interference with the property. A man’s reputation is his property and if possible, more valuable than other property. Reputation is not what a man thinks of himself, reputation is what others think of him.

From very early times the law has sought to protect the individual in his reputation as in his person and property[1]. The mode of protecting reputation has varied in the laws of different times and countries. The ancient Hindu law punished the defamer but did not compensate the defamed. The Romans and the English laws have done both. Defamation is the wrong done by a person to another’s reputation by words, signs, or visible representations.

(more…)

According to Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines ‘coercion’ as:

“Coercion” is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.”[1]

Coercion is said to be there where the consent of a person has been caused either by:

(more…)

Free Consent Obtained by Fraud –

 An Introduction

 Defination :

 Intentional misrepresentation of facts, is called “fraud”.

 Assertion of facts without belief in truth

 In English law “ fraud” was defined in the well- known decision of the House of Lords in Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337.

 “Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made –Knowingly, or

Without belief in its truth, or

Recklessly careless whether it be true or false”

(more…)

According to Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act which deals with void marriages , any marriage solemnized after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage  Act (the Act) shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto (against the other party), be so declared by a decree of nullity if it c

ontravenes any one of the condition specified in clause (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5.

A void marriage is no-marriage. It is a marriage which does not exist from its beginning. It is called a marriage because two persons have undergone the ceremonies of marriage. Since they absolutely lack capacity to marry, they cannot, by just undergoing ceremonies, become husband and wife. For instance, if a brother and sister perform all the ceremonies of marriage, say, in 1956, and start living as man and wife, that will not make them husband and wife in the eyes of law.

(more…)