“REACTIONS AGAINSNT THE NATURAL LAW THEORY”

A Project submitted in the complete fulfilment of the course

JURISPRUDENCE- I, 5th SEMESTER during the Academic Year 2020-
2021

SUBMITTED BY:

AISHA RAIS

Roll No. – 1912

B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. DR. MANORANJAN KUMAR

FACULTY OF JURISPRUDENCE- I

ACADEMIC SESSION- 2018-2023

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAYAYA NAGAR,

MEETHAPUR, PATNA-800001
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Project Report Entitled
“REACTIONS AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW THEORY” submitted at Chanakya
National Law University, Patna is an authentic record of my work carried out under the
supervision of Prof. Dr. Manoranjan Kumar. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any
other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

AISHA RAIS

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank my faculty of JURISPRUDENCE-I, Prof. Dr. Manoranjan Kumar
for providing me an opportunity to make my project on such an interesting topic which is also
a contemporary issue as for now.
Secondly, I would like to thank all my colleagues and friends for helping me out in arranging
of the accumulated collected study material.

Lastly, special thanks to my parents for guiding me in giving the final touch to this project and
helping me out throughout this project.

3
Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5

1. EVOLUTION OF NATURAL LAW THEORY................................................................ 8

2. THE BASIS OF CLASSICAL NATURAL LAW THEORY .......................................... 12

3. REACTIONS AGAINST NATURAL LAW THEORY ..................................................... 14

4. NATURAL LAW THEORIES IN 20TH CENTURY ....................................................... 17

5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS .......................................................................... 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 20

4
 INTRODUCTION
Natural law is a rather broad and a very misapplied term which has been misused by various

• schools of philosophy

• theology schools

• schools of history

• schools of science

• law schools across the globe.

Natural law is that the moral theory of jurisprudence and sometimes states that laws
should air the idea of ethics and morals. This law also states that law
should target what's ‘correct’. additionally, law was found by humans on their disposition of
reasoning and selecting between good and bad. Hence, it's said that this law plays a major role
in establishing moral and ethical standards. Natural law is a philosophy of law that focuses on
the laws of nature. Moreover, this school of jurisprudence represents the assumption that there
are laws common to any or all societies. this is often no matter whether or not they are written
down or can officially enact.

This school of thought tells us that law is both – rational and reasonable. Moreover, natural
law proposes that laws are more of a logical progression from morals. Therefore, actions that
are morally wrong are going to be against the law. But also, actions that are morally right can’t
truly and justly be against the law. Natural law exists no matter what laws are enacted.1

Prof. R W.M. Dias writes that natural law theory has a history reaching back centuries B.C. and
the vigour with which it flourishes is a tribute to its vitality. There is no one theory of natural law
and there are many versions of it. However, there is no other firmament of legal or political theory
which is so bejewelled with stars as that of natural law which scintillates with contributions from
all ages. The term natural law has been understood to mean a variety of things to different people

1
https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/jurisprudence/natural
law/#:~:text=Natural%20law%20is%20the%20moral,choosing%20between%20good%20and%20bad.(last
visited on 20th October, 2020).

5
at different times viz., ideals which guide legal development and administration, a basic moral
quality in law which prevents a total separation of the “is” from the “ought”, the method of
discovering perfect law, the content of perfect law deducible by reason and the conditions sine
quibus non for the existence of law. On account of these differences, it is not always possible to
classify a given writer as naturalist or positivist. There are wide differences among those who are
normally classed as naturalists or positivists. Natural law thinking in one form or another is
pervasive and is encountered in various contexts. Natural law theory has tried to meet the
paramount needs of successive age throughout history. It figures prominently in offering help
with two vital contemporary problems viz. the validity of the unjust law and the abuse of liberty.
The constant readiness of natural lawyers to meet challenge is a tribute to the springs of their
inspiration.2

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

1. To know about the origin and development of Natural Law theory.
2. To know about the different jurist and their reactions against Natural Law Theory.
3. Critical analysis of the stand of Natural Law in today’s time.

HYPOTHESIS:

1. The researcher presumes that Natural Law has revived in the recent times and acquired
a place in deciding the ratio of the judgements.
2. The researcher presumes that Natural Justice is based on Natural Law.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The method of this research work is Doctrinal in nature

2
Mahajan V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory., p 688.

6
SOURCES:
Primary Sources: Observations, Questionnaire, Government documents, Internet
communications on email, blogs, newsgroup.

Secondary Sources: Reference books, Commentaries and treatises, Works of interpretation,

Textbooks, Abstracts.

LIMITATIONS OF STUDY: The researcher will confine the research to the city of Patna,
Bihar. Due to the constraints, the researcher will include library work.

SCOPE: To understand the ideals of the Preamble.

7
 1. EVOLUTION OF NATURAL LAW THEORY
ANCIENT TIMES

Greece : Greek thinkers laid the basis of natural law and developed its essential features.
Heraclitus laid the basis of natural law. He found it in the rhythm of events. This he termed,
destiny order and reason of the world. If there is anything universally valid, it is that which is
valid by nature for all men without distinction of people and time. What nature determines is
justly authorized. Nature is something external, outside man. It is the order of things which
embodies reason.3

Socrates: Socrates reflected upon the element which was the decisive factor in the culture of
his time. He defined virtue, the fundamental ethical conception, as insight, in turn, as
knowledge of the good, the concept of good with no universal content. One of the dictates of
natural law is that authority and positive law should be obeyed. However, he did not argue
blind adherence to positive law. That should be subjected to the critical evaluation in the light
of man’s insight.4

Plato: Plato laid the foundations for much of subsequent speculation of natural law themes.
According to him, Gods gave to all men in equal measure a sense of justice and of ethical
reverence so that in the struggle of life they may be able to form permanent unions for mutual
preservation. He founded the nature of practical life in primary ethical feelings which impel
men to union in society and in the State. In the ideal State of Plato, each individual is given
that role for which he is best fitted by reason of his capacities. His Republic is a constructive
attempt to discover the basis of justice. The administration of justice is given to the
philosophers’ kings whose education and wisdom is such that there is no necessity to link them
up with a higher law.5

Aristotle: In his Logic, Aristotle sees the world as a totality comprising the whole of nature.
Man is a part of nature in a two-fold sense. He is capable of forming his will in accordance
with the insight of his reason. Reason orders his faculties in such a way that he can fulfil his
true nature. When man lives according to reason, he lives “naturally”. Thus, the law of nature
becomes identified with a moral duty.6

3
Mahajan V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory., p 689.
4
Mahajan V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory., p 690.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.

8
Stoics: To the Stoics, the postulates of reason are of universal force. They are binding on all
men everywhere. Men are endowed with reason, irrespective of nationality and race.7

Rome: The theory of Stoics exercised great influence upon the Roman jurists and some of
them paid high tribute to “natural law”. In the Roman System, the theory of natural law did
not remain confined to theoretical discussions only. The Romans used natural law to transform
their narrow and rigid system into a cosmopolitan one.

Cicero: Cicero wrote that law is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which commands
what ought to be done and forbids the opposite. This reason when firmly fixed and fully
developed in the human mind is law. Cicero not only held fast to the though of a moral world
order which determines with universal validity the relation of rational beings to each other,
but also thought of the subjective aspect of the question in consonance with his theory that this
command of reason is innate in all human beings equally and has grown with their instinct of
self-preservation.

THE MIDDLE AGES

Throughout the Middle Ages, the theology of the Catholic Church set the tone and pattern of
all speculative thought. Two vital principles animated medieval thought and those were unity
and supremacy of law. Unity was derived from the God whereas supremacy was not merely
man made but was conceived as a part of the unity of the universe. Catholic philosophers and
theologians of the Middle Ages gave a new theory of natural. Their views were logical and
systematic. St. Thomas Aquinas was regarded as the pioneer of this theory. Aquinas identified
4 types of laws:

• Eternal law or Lex Aeterna8: Aquinas said that eternal law is the plan of the government
of the Chief Governor of the entire Universe. It is the divine will or divine reason which
control the movement and actions of everybody of the universe and everything without
exception is subject to control. Aquinas uses the sun to explain the impossibility of
knowing the eternal law.
• Natural law or Lex Naturalis9: Humans and their reason, both are a part of the divine
reason that controls everything. By applying reasoning and rationality, human can have

7
Mahajan V.D., Jurisprudence and the Legal Theory., p 691.
8
https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/lex-aeterna/. (last visited on 20th October, 2020).
9
https://brewminate.com/lex-naturalis-a-history-of-natural-law-philosophy/. (last visited on 20th October, 2020).

9
 a notion and decipher a portion of that divine reason by participating in it in their short
span of life. By observing “what is”, the human derives what “ought to be done”.
• Divine Law or Lex Divina10: the imperfections of natural laws were supplemented and
aided by revelations of divine nature called divine laws. There were revelations made
by God, which were listened to/received by one particular source who then further
promulgated the same to the mankind. These revelations were basically rules regarding
what one ought to do and what one ought to do.
• Man-Made Law or Lex Humane11: Man- Made laws are laws established by custom or
by the legislative acts of the state. Aquinas opines that the laws made by humans are
based on their own arbitrary reasons and since it is with this reason that natural law has
been derived from eternal law. Therefore, man made laws are derived from the natural
law itself.

Aquinas has separated natural laws from divine laws. He has paved a path for a more
secularistic pursuit of natural law. The rationality he has talked about is common to all humans,
irrespective of state, race, colour, etc. in doing this, he has prepared a ground for the next era
that of the classical era of natural law philosophy.

THE CLASSICAL ERA12

A natural question that could arise here, would be as to how the classical natural law theory is
different from the philosophers in existence prior to it. It is different in the following ways_

• Prior to the Protestants movement, the law was separated into four kinds by Aquinas,
in which he had created a distinction between natural and divine laws. This distinction
was completed and further intensified during the Protestants movement. The Classical
Natural Law Theory was grounded altogether on secular perceptions.
• Earlier jurists including Aquinas were all concerned with general precepts of being
good and expecting good. There were no new postulates in natural law. During the
classical era, the existing precepts were concretized and new postulates were
discovered to expand the heroics of natural law theory.

10
https://ratemyserver.net/index.php?page=skill_db&skid=76. (last visited on 20th October, 2020).
11
https://brawmanite.com/lex-humane-a-history-of-natural-law-philosophy/. (last visited on 20th October,2020).
12
Mahajan V.D.., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory., p 695. (last visited on 20th October, 2020).

10
 • Prior to the classical era, the entire focus was on discovering natural laws with the
order of divine reasoning. The older philosophy was entirely duty based. The classical
era brought a new down into the world of law by shifting the emphasis from divine
reasoning to order of natural rights. It was this principle of natural law that became
one of the key ingredients of the guiding principles of the US constitution. The ideals
of liberty, quality, fraternity and separation of powers propounded by Hobbes, Locke,
Rousseau and Montesquieu respectively became the cornerstones of the constitution
of the USA.
• And lastly, unlike previous jurists who focused on the theology of law, social
contractarians emphasized and based their work on “observation” and “inferences”.
According to Grotius, natural law is based on the nature of man and his inward need
of living society. Grotius called human nature as the grandmother, natural law the
parent and positive law child. Human nature impels us to desire a society. From this
nature of human intellect which desires a peaceful society, are deduced the principles
of natural law, which are quite independent of divine command. Natural law is
immutable and cannot be changed by God himself.13

13
Ibid.

11
 2. THE BASIS OF CLASSICAL NATURAL LAW THEORY
The erstwhile Roman Empire had disintegrated into smaller states. With this, two contrasting
ideas were fast gaining power. While on one hand, individualism was emerging, which
challenged and rejected all existing ideas, on the other hand, there was a notion that every state
has to become omnipotent to protect its sovereignty and integrity and it must crush any kind
of growing individualism. The entire classical era was about balancing these two contradicting
ideas. Basing on their own perceptions, some philosophers have favored individualism and
some have banked their work on state sovereignty. There were thus divided opinions.

Hugo Grotius: He is regarded as one of the father of Law of Nations i.e., International Law,
and a prominent author of Natural Law theory. This theory was based upon the empirical
nature of man. He said that man is intrinsically social and thus men come together to form a
society to reside together in. this is from where the social contract theory originates. Further,
as per the earlier natural law theory, the basic precept ought to be followed was to do good
and not to do bad. Grotius made significant additions by putting forth precepts like “possess
what is only yours”, “the wrong must be punished”, “restore what is not yours to the rightful
owner”, “a promise made must be fulfilled”.14

Thomas Hobbes: Thomas Hobbes, however, perceives differently about mankind. According
to him, man is malicious, selfish and extremely brutal in nature. In the absence of institutions
like state, law and police, every man is a wolf to every other man. In such a situation, everyone
is at constant war with everyone else. The constant war makes the fear of death loom large
over everyone, because, given the right opportunity, even the weakest can cause the death of
the strongest. Hence, even in the state of extreme malice, brutality, selfishness and war, there
are three things which are always true about man-15

a. he has a dream fear of death

b. he desires to lead a compendious life

c. he is ready to give efforts to achieve such compendious life.

14
https://opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/chapter/2-9-social-contract-
theory/#:~:text=Social%20contract%20theory%20is%20another,and%20why%20society%20needs%20them.&
text=Hobbes%20described%20a%20society%20without,any%20responsibility%20to%20their%20community.
(last visited on 20th October, 2020).
15
Mahajan V.D.., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory., p 700.

12
John Locke: John Locke, however chose to highlight on what men surrender to the repository
of powers and privileges. He opined that people that people entering into the social contract
and surrendering what they have, actually surrender everything barring the inalienable things
given to them by nature i.e., life, liberty, quality and property and thus is done on the
consideration that the natural things they have to be protected. He says that since the state
possesses so much of powers, it could become a threat for the people. Hence, he comes up
with the idea of separation of executive powers from the influence of legislative powers.16

Montesquieu: Montesquieu intensified the concept of separation of powers. He came up with

the doctrine of checks and balances in which the organs of the state check and balance the
powers of each other. He also advocated for the protection of natural rights. This later on was
incorporated in national politics worldwide.

Rousseau: Rousseau was a Swiss National from Geneva. He gave a different notion about who
was being surrendered to. He said men surrendered to no ruler but to an agent of themselves,
in a community where by surrendering no one loses or gains anything, and the act of
surrendering is by the general will of all. The natural law theory related to protection of life,
liberty, equality and property gradually gained importance and culminated into his writings,
which to a great extent, influenced the ideals of French Revolution.17

It was at this point of time that the Natural Law Theory was at its height and John Locke’s
ideas were gaining importance as everyone supported the idea of granting of inalienable rights
to people. Subsequently, Montesquieu’s idea of separation of powers, doctrine of checks and
balances and judicial review were acknowledging and appreciated to a large extent. The
concept of life, liberty, quality and property as inalienable rights because a guidelight for
drafters of Constitutions of different nation. We thus owe our fundamental rights to the
Classical era of Natural Law Theory and its propagators.

16
Mahajan V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory., p 702.
17
Supra note 14.

13
 3. REACTIONS AGAINST NATURAL LAW THEORY
Critics point out that Rousseau’s doctrine of the general will is too abstract and narrow to be
found in the practical world. The general will be neither too general nor will. It can be
determined only by a majority vote and not otherwise. The doctrine of general will may lead
to State absolutism18. In the name of the general will, the worse kind of tyranny may be
practiced. The doctrine of general will is based on the idea of common interests which are
difficult to define. Even the worst of tyrants can justify their actions on the ground of common
good.

Dr. Friedmann points out that the most immediate and far reaching influence of Rousseau’s
doctrine was on the makers of the French Revolution who took up his theory of popular
sovereignty to justify revolution without end or measure. His doctrines of liberty and equality,
added to those of law, exercised a strong influence upon the formative era of American
independence and the rights of man. Rousseau glorified the collective will as the embodiment
of what is good and reasonable and this line of thought was developed by Fichte and Hegel to
a dangerous climax.

The natural law theory did not survive the 18th century.19 One reason was that an individualistic
conception of society put forward by the rationalism of the 18th century gave way to a
collective conception stimulated by the rising tide of nationalism. Another reason was that the
stupendous growth of natural science gave strength and emphasis to empirical methods against
deductive methods. Still another reason was that the new and increasingly complex European
society demanded a comparative and sociological approach to the problems of society and not
an abstract one.

It is maintained that Montesquieu and Hume destroyed the foundations of natural law.
Although Montesquieu superficially adhered to the doctrine of the law of nature, he maintained
that law must be influenced by environment and conditions such as climate, soil, religion,
custom, commerce etc. It was with this idea that Montesquieu embarked upon his comparative
study of law and governments. His approach undermined the doctrine of natural law.20

18
Mahanjan V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory., p 707.
19
Mahanjan V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory., p 709.
20
Mahanjan V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory., p 710.

14
David Hume(1711-1776) destroyed the theoretical basis of natural law. The theory of natural
law was based upon a conception of reason as a faculty inherent norm of conduct. Hume
showed that reason as understood in the systems of natural law was based on confusion.

According to Hume, values are not inherent in nature, nor is justice. Reason can only work out
the means that will lead to specified results. Hume was in favour of the firm and inflexible
application of rules although those should be widely designed and changed with the
circumstances. On these lines, Hume attacked the prevailing conceptions of natural law. He
challenged the conception of a perfect, complete and discoverable system. If there had been
such a thing, there would not have been many divergent interpretations and the necessity of
positive law.

At the dawn of the 19th century, there was a reaction against excessive individualism fostered
by later natural law theories which resulted in the French revolution. There grew up aa
collectivist outlook on life and natural law theories declined.21

Reactions against the natural law theory came from other side as well. The teachings of
historians and sociologist put stress on environment. Historians investigations exploded many
assumptions. Researchers into the early history of society exposed the mythical nature of the
natural law theory. The unit in early society was not the individual but the family or clan. The
natural law theory had ascribed the validity of law to a contract but normally it was found to
be the opposite. Even as a hypothesis to account for the present state of affairs, the natural law
theory fell short.

The a priori methods of natural law philosophers were not accepted to those who were brought
up in the pragmatic spirit of science. The postulates of natural law were subjected to critical
examination and their basis were found to be false or the results of false inferences. It was
found that there were no foundations for the sweeping assertion that man must always seek
society or that man is always selfish. it became evident that the complex problems of the 19th
century required a realistic and practical approach and not that of natural law which was based
on abstract pre conceptions. In the new climate of opinion, the prevailing natural law theories
could not survive and their place taken by analytical and historical positivism.

21
Ibid.

15
Reactions from propounded jurists:22

Bentham: Bentham regarded natural law as nothing but a phrase. He mercilessly criticized the
idea of natural rights and described them as “simple nonsense; natural and imprescriptible
rights, rhetorical nonsense, nonsense upon stilts.” About the principle of equality, he wrote:
“absolute equality is absolutely impossible. Absolute liberty is directly repugnant in the
existence of every kind of government”. Bentham criticized Blackstone for basing political
obligation upon an original social contract. His view was that there was no such a thing as a
social contract in the past and even if there was such a contract in the past, that could not bind
the present generation.

Austin: John Austin (1790-1859) rejected natural law on the ground that it was ambiguous and
misleading. According to him, the science of jurisprudence is concerned with positive law by
which he meant a science of laws. Austin was opposed to the concept of natural rights of
individuals against the State. His view was that all rights were created and regulated by the
State. The State continues to exist on account of its utility to the people.

Although the 19th century was hostile to natural law theories, the natural law tradition was
continued on the continent, but with decreasing force and without essential new contributions
by Ahrens, Krause and others. Lorimer restated the orthodox natural law theory as determining
the ultimate objects of positive law and elaborated a catalogue of rights revealed by nature.

22
Mahanjan V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory., p 711.

16
 4. NATURAL LAW THEORIES IN 20TH CENTURY

Karl Magnus Bergbohm was one in every of the primary proponents of law in 20th century.
He died in 1927. Carrying forward his work, first we want to tell apart between law from the
doctrines of construct. they're very different from each other, and latter are manifold.
Yet they're linked by the persistence of a similar problem, that of the existence of a law not
produced by man or, more modestly, of the presence in positive law of some strictly legal
elements not posited by man.23

Natural law theory in 20th century can occur as a deontological conception of law, i.e., it can
say the way positive law must be. From this view, it's been separated and distinguished from
other deontological conceptions of law by the way it identifies the factors of the legal ought.
Natural Law theory also can be present as a theory of law, that is, it can describe law because
it is. Being present as this, it distinguishes from other theories by the way it defines the concept
of law. it's only during this second sense that construct theory can properly be situated within
the sphere of the knowledge of law then will be compared with, and may compete with, other
theories of law, and particularly with legal positivism.

In the first sense law theory belongs to the sphere of ethics or politics. More precisely to the
sphere of the moral or political criticism of positive law, and in theory it's compatible with
legal positivism. Nevertheless, within the history of legal thought it's not the least bit easy to
tell apart the 2 meanings of concept theory, partly because a deontological conception of law
often presupposes an idea of law already fraught with elements of concept.
Therefore, the foremost typical and controversial meaning of conception theory is that the one
linked to its claim to be a theory of law.

Natural Law should be addressing the subsequent contentions:

• That law must be described in light of its practical sense, that is, it must be described
as a reason for action.
• That the contents of law cannot be determined.

23
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-1479-3_29. (last visited on 20th October, 2020).

17
 • That legal theory implies value judgements with a content.
• That law and morality are necessarily connected; and
• That the construct incorporates a legal character.

In the 20th century, one should adopt the broadest possible meaning of the law theory.
For law to take care of its salience, it cannot just recognize that positive law in its origin and
its utilisation isn't self-sufficient, having to resort to external elements (of an ethical, social, or
economic nature). Nor even can it just observe that legal systems, as cultural expressions, are
steeped in positive morality. Rather, the stronger claim to be made is that factors not ascribable
to human will play a normative role and are already marked by their own legality, whether or
not they still must be taken through a process of politicization.

In India the constitution gives certain fundamental rights like right to life, right to equality etc,
all these rights are also based on the principles of natural law, not only this the principle of
natural justice is also based on the principles of natural law.24 In the end it could be said that
natural school of law has made a great contribution to the legal jurisprudence of the world
including India.25

24
https://blog.ipleaders.in/natural-school-of-law/.(last visited on 20th October, 2020).
25
https://blog.ipleaders.in/natural-school-of-law/. (last visited on 20th October, 2020).

18
 5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
Towards the end of the 19th century, there was a revival of natural law theories due to the
reactions against legal theories. It gave rise to natural justice. In recent years, the ideas of
natural justice became more and more important and are relied upon by the Supreme Court
and different High Courts. In A.K. Krapak v. Union of India, the SC observed that the aim
of the principles of natural justice is to secure justice or to place it negatively, to
forestall miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law
validly made. they are doing not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. Till recently, it
absolutely was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by
the law under which it functioned to act judicially, there was no room for the applying of the
foundations of natural justice.

The rules of natural justice aren't embodied rules. Particular rule of natural justice should apply
to a given case must depend to a good extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the
framework of the law under which the inquiry is held and therefore the constitution of the
tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is created before
a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened, the court has got to decide
whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision of the facts of the
case. within the case pending before Supreme Court, the choice were put aside on the
bottom that they violated the principles of natural justice mutually of the members of the
choice Board was himself fascinated by that selection.26

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the SC observed that natural justice may be a great
humanizing principle intended to take a position law with fairness and to secure justice. Over
the years, it's grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action.
The soul of natural justice is “fair play in action” and it's received widest recognition
throughout the democratic world. The SC held that even the procedure laid down by law must
be right, just and fair. it's prone to be put aside on the bottom that it's not reasonable.27

26
AIR 1970 SC 150.
27
AIR 1978 SC 597.

19
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS REFFRED

• BUCKLAND, W.W., SOME REFLECTIONS ON JURISPRUDENCE,

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1945.
• D’ENTREVE, A.P., NATURAL LAW, HUTCHINSON’S
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 1951.
• FRIEDMANN, W., LEGAL THEORY, STEVE AND SONS LTD.,
LONDON, 1950.
• DIAS, R W. M., JURISPRUDENCE, BUTTERWORTHS, LONDON,
1976.
• HALL, J. FOUNDATIONS OF JURISPRUDENCE, THE BOBBS
MERRILL CO. INC.., 1973.

WEBSITE REFFERED

• www.wikipedia.com
• www.springer.com
• www.toppr.com
• www.tandfoline.com
• www.blogpleaders.in
• www.lawcorner.in
• www.brwminate.com

20