ANOUSHKA

1856
SEMESTER IV
JURISPRUDENCE II
Answer 1

UTILITARIANISM – JEREMY BENTHAM

Jeremy Bentham is considered a father figure of utilitarianism. According to him, some

things are fundamental and indisputable. One of such things is that humans are governed by
two sovereign masters - pleasure and pain. These two govern our actions at all times in
whatever decision we are making. This is the moral force behind Utilitarianism.
According to Bentham, actions which are morally right tend to produce the greatest possible
amount of pleasure and the least possible amount of pain, while actions which are morally
wrong tend to produce either a lesser amount of pleasure or a greater amount of pain than
other actions which could be performed.

Bentham believes that that is the ultimate reality of our existence and that it is correct for us
to enhance our pleasure and avoid pain. According to Bentham, when we are working as a
government, we must realise subjection to pain and pleasure. In life, we must recognize this
subjection of pain and pleasure, and for that, we have to make such policies that do this. This
is what utilitarianism is. At all times we are enhancing pleasure and diminishing pain.
According to Bentham, this is a morally correct principle.

Further, he advocates that when we are co-existing as a society, we should make such choices
that will increase the collective happiness of the society as a whole. This has to be included in
laws and policies that will increase general happiness. If we want to answer the question, of
whether a law or policy is just or unjust - have to check if it’s increasing the collective
happiness and pleasure of society.

A. Maximum Happiness for Maximum Number of People

However, there might be times when something that causes unhappiness in the current
moment may cause happiness in the long run and the government has to consider the latter
while making policies. For example, a metro construction will first cause inconvenience to
some people in the beginning while construction happens. But when it’s done more people
will be benefitted. It will be cheaper and more cost-effective. Thus, Bentham expects the state
to do the calculation and see that if pleasure outweighs pain or vice versa. It will be a

Page 1 of 18
complex calculation. If pleasure is more than the pain it must be done and if the pain is more
than the pleasure it must not be done. The state has to weigh where the greater happiness lies.

Another example is of the soldiers who take part in the armed forces, knowing that they'll
have to endure a lot of pain that is physical and mental. When the need arises, they are
willing to make the ultimate sacrifice of death. Bentham will say that in some sense it will
make them happy, and give them a sense of pride. The ultimate motive is happiness. Like
nonviolence, they are ready to suffer and endure pain. The pain here is only an intermediate
thing there, but the ultimate thing is the happiness they get from doing these acts.

Thus, the concept of Utilitarianism is that the law is not just a device; it serves a purpose. The
Utility or purpose is the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people. Bentham
maintains that the principle of utility is the only sufficient ground for deciding whether an
action is morally right or wrong.

B. Humans as Absolute Equal Beings

He also states that when we say that humans are subject to pleasure and pain and we do
things that enhance pleasure, we recognise this subjection. So, one cannot pass a moral
judgment on people who are in pursuit of their happiness. Humans are always doing things
that are the causes for the ultimate effect of happiness, so we cannot say that one activity is
better or superior than the other. For example - one person going to the temple and another
goes to the gym. According to Bentham no one can claim a higher ground because they do
something else. No single activity can outweigh the other, according to Bentham. Thus, the
message here is that Bentham’s formula treats humans as absolute equal beings i.e., no one is
superior or inferior.

UTILITARIANISM – JOHN STUART MILL

John Stuart Mill is another prominent propounder of Utilitarianism and his idea of the same
seeks to rectify the flaws in Bentham’s Utilitarianism.

A. Importance of Rights

According to Mill, ensuring the happiness of society in the long-run is the ultimate goal that
one should strive for. He says that this goal of achieving the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people depends upon protection of interests of people – protecting rights

Page 2 of 18
makes people happy in the long run. Since every person forms a part of minority in some
situation or another, Mill says that attempting to protect minority interests of all kinds is a
secured way of making most people happy in maximum situations in the long run.

Mill is saying even if someone is in minority, that person’s right is important because
everyone will find themselves in minority in some context at some point of time. If you say
we’ll never protect minorities’ interests, then, over a long period of time, almost everybody
will suffer. On the other hand, if we agree that minorities’ interests must also be protected,
then so many people who find themselves in minority in different occasions will get
happiness. Hence, we are making greater number of people happier. If we are protecting
rights of minority people, then society will be happier in the long run.

B. Following “Procedure”

In the creation of the social contract, everyone is involved. So, there is equality. Letting
people know in advance how certain situations shall be dealt with is the procedure. That
procedure is known beforehand. Now, when the situation arises, when certain people commit
a crime, then if you bypass the procedure, then you are not applying the procedure on these
people while you are applying it on others. So, you are treating similarly placed people in
different manners.

In the Nirbhaya case, Court was following the procedure that is given to it by the society
itself. The procedure is pre-determined and is validated by the ultimate touchstone, i.e., the
Constitution. The Constitution is a reflection of the social-will. Court is not doing anything
arbitrary. The reason for following procedure according to John Stuart Mill is that the
procedure should be followed because following the procedure will make everybody happy in
the long run. However, what about those cases where society agrees to do something that will
make them happy but it still undermines human values, will it be justified because of their
happiness?

Suppose society agrees that there will be encounter in all future cases in rape followed by
murder. In many societies, people want extreme punishment. Is that just? According to John
Stuart Mill, it would be just according to Utilitarianism.

VERSIONS OF UTILITARIANISM

Page 3 of 18
Utilitarianism can be classified into two types - Act & Rule Utilitarianism. Both Act
Utilitarians and rule utilitarians agree that the overall aim in evaluating actions should be to
create the best results possible, however, they differ about how to do that.

A. Rule Utilitarianism

In rule utilitarianism, we elect a group of people who makes rules and the rules should
enhance the happiness of everyone. When you have an occasion to make choice, at that time
you don’t have to decide if either action would maximize happiness, you just have to follow
the rules. Thus, individual autonomy is taken away. The citizens just have to do the actions
with are conformity to rule since the rule is in conformity with the principle of utilitarianism.

ule utilitarians adopt a

two part view that
stresses the importance of
moral rules.
According to rule utilitarians,
a) a specific action is morally
justified if it conforms to a
justified
moral rule; and b) a moral rule
is justified if its inclusion into

Page 4 of 18
our moral code would create
more
utility than other possible rules
(or no rule at all). According to
this perspective, we should
judge
the morality of individual
actions by reference to
general moral rules, and
we should judge
particular moral rules by
seeing whether their
acceptance into our moral code
would produce more
well-being than other possible
rules
Rule Utilitarianism stresses on the importance of moral rules. According to this perspective,
we should judge the morality of individual actions by reference to general moral rules and we
Page 5 of 18
should judge the moral rules by seeing whether their acceptance into our moral code would
produce more well-being than other possible rules.

B. Act utilitarianism

Act utilitarians believe that whenever we are deciding what to do, we should perform the
action that will create the greatest net utility. In their view, the principle of utility-do
whatever will produce the best overall results-should be applied on a case-by-case basis. The
right action in any situation is the one that yields more utility (i.e., creates more well-being)
than other available actions.

In this, individual autonomy is preserved. Everyone will decide according to their own sense
what would enhance happiness. Everyone decides whether their action is in conformity with
the principle of utility. Then, everyone is autonomous. Everyone while acting decides what
will enhance happiness. In this, utilitarianism can’t work. Utilitarianism will collapse.

Suppose if society decides that even if you are a criminal, you should be given a fair trial. If
everyone’s right to the trial is protected, everyone would be happy in the long run. On one
occasion police catches a person who has done a heinous crime and there is no doubt about
the same. He decides that instead of arresting him, he does a fake encounter because if he is
arrested then eventually, he will be acquitted and this will not make people happy. However,
even from a utilitarian point of view, this is not okay. This is act utilitarianism. Arresting a
criminal and giving him a fair trial might create unhappiness at the moment but in the long
run, it will increase happiness otherwise many such cases may arise. It is beneficial for the
greater happiness of society in the long run.

Whenever there is conflict, and whenever the people feel that the rules don’t make you
happy, the correct step is to change the government. However, as long as the government is
there and they are making rules in conformity with the principle of utility, you must follow
the rules. If in spite of your choice, the majority decides to choose the same government, then
it means that the government is working for the general happiness of the society.

Answer 2

JOHN LOCKE & LIBERALISM

Page 6 of 18
John Locke was a major proponent of liberalism and he propounded a contractarian theory -
viewing society as a contract among humans - to express his conception of what a just society
is and how it should be structured. To understand the concept of “inalienable rights” it is
pertinent to understand his theory in detail.

A. Humans are Creation of God

The origin point of his theory is the belief that human beings are the creation of God and the
life that human beings have is a kind of gift that gods have given to us. Thus, he established
that human beings are a property of God. This defines the scope of liberalism from his point
of view.

The implication of this is that since the life that humans have is given to them by God, so
when God wishes he gives it and takes it away. Thus, life is under the ownership of God. The
relationship with humans and life is not of an owner and property, but that of custodian of life
i.e., humans are not the owners but the custodians of life.

B. Idea of “Property”

Further, he states that humans have the capacity to work, however, in nature things are in
abundance and the same is to be seen as a common property. When humans mix labour with
the material, it belongs to that person and it becomes the extension of the person. For
example, if a person cuts a tree and makes a table with the wood, then here his labour is
mixed with the tree and the resultant is a table. The object with which he mixes his labour
becomes his own property by right. So, this gives rise to the idea of property. Thus, Locke
believes that life is given by God and by using labour property is created.

C. Liberty

John Locke believed that one has the liberty to do whatever one wants to do - another way of
stating the same is freedom from the interference of others. The rationale behind the same is
that since life is given by God, this life cannot be interfered by others. People are living
together and here everyone is living by themselves thus no one can interfere with another’s
life and you cannot interfere with your own life. This is because people are duty bound to
preserve our own lives and others lives, as we are only the custodians. So, this is the liberty
from interference. The idea being that you cannot interfere with something that is not your
own.

Page 7 of 18
 INALIENABLE RIGHTS

Thus, these sets of right, namely – right to life, liberty and property are called inalienable
rights. This is because you cannot alienate something that does not belong to you. Thus, you
cannot commit suicide, and cannot allow another person to kill you or cannot kill another
person. You also cannot become a slave, by virtue of which another person can kill you. This
is because you cannot offer your life to someone since you don’t own your life. These are not
consent based transaction since they are not the owners in the first place.

According to Locke, the life, liberty and property is in existence before the state is in
existence. So, these rights exist in the state of nature as well which is the is the pre-contract
stage. Therefore, they are natural rights. Thus, these rights are in existence even before the
social contract is in existence. Natural rights are rights of life, liberty and property and the
nature of these rights are inalienable. From this idea, the Locke develops the idea of a
contract and government.

However, in the state of nature, there is a problem of protection of rights. This is because due
to an absence of a system, rights might be violated and once they are violated there is no
punishment mechanism. The state of nature is distinguished from the civil society by the
absence in it of a common organ for the interpretation and execution of law of nature. Hence
in the state of nature every individual is the interpreter and executor of law of nature. There is
also no system of differentiation of judge and executioner. The person committing the crime
might be giving the punishment as well.

Variety in interpretation leads to chaos and confusion and consequent insecurity of life and
property. Hence it is necessary to replace the state of nature into civil society in which there
would be a known law accepted by all and applied by an impartial and authoritative judge
whose decision would be enforced by the state. Thus, Lockean state was created by entering
into contract by the men in the state of nature.

Answer 3

INTRODUCTION TO KANT

Immanuel Kant seeks to determine the meaning of justice on the grounds of another disputed
notion, morality, in his highly praised book "Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals." His

Page 8 of 18
work is a reaction to the Benthamite idea of utility, which states that the greatest happiness
for the greatest number of people should be the goal. Kant states that basing the idea of
morality on happiness is absolutely wrong. On the surface, many things make us happy but
they might not be morally correct, thus morality and happiness might not always be linked
together.   

FREE CHOICE & HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES

Kant explains that when we are making choices, we are making these choices according to
our own inclinations and these inclinations are not of our own choosing. For example, if you
have a choice between a vanilla, chocolate or strawberry ice cream and you choose a
chocolate one, you do so because making that choice makes you happy. The reason behind
these choices, he states, is that we live in a “sensible realm” – a world of senses. Further, in
this physical world our senses are attracted to certain things like smells, sounds etc and that is
the reason for us making those choices i.e., one is drawn to certain things more than other
things. These inclinations influence our decision-making process, and thus the choices we
make are not free but heterological. Kant terms these choices as “hypothetical imperatives.

Due to our inclination, when we are choosing something, our choices are not free choices, it’s
not real freedom. According to Kant, our choices are heteronomous and not autonomous in
nature and there is no moral worth in these choices. So, in the sensible realm we are
controlled by our inclinations, they are inherent and given by nature. Thus, Hypothetic
Imperatives are those principles that we chose for ourselves and thus, we cannot claim them
to be universal. Since we chose for ourselves and they are heteronomous choices, and there is
no moral worth in them. Kant presents a solution to this problem of “free choice” by bringing
up Categorical Imperatives.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES & MORAL WORTH

From Kantian perspective, human beings have the potential to be autonomous. In addition to
this, Kant claims that humans also possess the potential to live in “intelligible realm” In this
intelligible world, we are capable of freedom, we are not controlled by our senses and there
are no inclinations. In absence of all inclinations, we do not do things with a particular goal in
mind, say, that of enhancing happiness. Thus, choices that are made in this realm are truly
free in nature and would be the same for all due to the absence of any differences in opinion.

Page 9 of 18
Kant explains that in the Intelligible realm, two things are important, firstly, everyone is same
and free in the sense that they are not controlled by their senses, so the choices made are free.
Secondly, since everyone is capable of being free in the intelligible realm and everyone is
same, so the natural consequence is that everyone will make the same choice.

In the intelligible realm we are autonomous and the choices made are called categorical
imperatives. Thus, the principles chosen in the intelligible realm are categorical principles
since they are the same for everyone. Since every one choosing them - they all are duty
bound to abide by them. They are duty bound to abide by what they have chosen for
themselves. Kant further elaborates that when we follow these categorical principles, then our
actions have moral worth in them. So humans make decision in the intelligible realm and then
they come to the sensible realm and here they are duty bound to follow the decisions made
since they made them freely, and then the actions have moral worth.

He refused the utilitarian thought on linking morality with happiness as Kant believed that
whatever we do to satisfy our senses has no moral worth in it since it is not free. He says that
humans have rationality and there is reason in humans. Using this, they inhabit the intelligible
realm, and here they are not governed by senses. They chose principles in a free state and
therefore have a duty to follow them. So, the idea of duty is linked to freedom, and when we
follow the duty there is a moral worth in our actions.

IDENTIFICATION OF CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES

Kant has prescribed a two-step criterion to determine choices that can be classified as
categorical imperatives. These criterions do not have an individual existence i.e., they must
not be read in isolation. A categorical imperative must satisfy both the criterions.

a. Universalize your Maxim – In order to determine whether a maxim should

necessarily be universalized– if an individual is doing something, he needs to ask
himself “would I like it if everybody does this thing?” In this situation, a categorical
imperative can only be chosen if people do not act in a selfish manner by putting their
interests ahead of everybody’s interests. For instance, if you decide to cheat, you need
to ask yourself “how would I feel if everybody cheats?” In case the answer to the
question is negative, the same cannot be universalized.

b. Treat Persons as Ends – This means that every human is a carrier of humanity. So,
when you are dealing with another person you have to deal in manner that you are

Page 10 of 18
 respecting the humanity in that person, and the Kantian standard is so high that you
must also treat yourself as an end, which means that you cannot treat others and
yourself also as means. You cannot use others as a means to make yourself happy or
your life better. For example, the CEO of Apple has stated that apple thrives on never
sharing the data or the information of their customers. However, Apple might be
advertising this in the hopes of adding more customers and gaining more business. If
the motive is to gain or retain business then this is an immoral action. If your motive
is to pay tribute to humanity then there is a moral worth in that action. 

Answer 4

INTRODUCTION

Communitarianism is based upon the belief that a person's social identity and personality are
largely moulded by community relationships, with a smaller degree of development being
placed on individualism. When we are talking about communitarianism - it is about how
some scholars are unhappy with libertarianism and the scope of rights under that. Dworkin,
Rawls, Kant, etc are liberals. They have presented their own versions of a just society. There
are different outer limits, for example, Locke is conservative but Nozick is extreme.
However, the common thing is that justice is where rights are important. Communitarianism
is largely a reaction to the same.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST LIBERAL CONCEPTION OF JUSTICE

The following are the main objections against liberal conception of justice:

A. Libertarian theories are transcendental in nature.

Kant also calls it transcendental idealism. In this the author arrives at some idea of justice,
then they apply that idea / principle however, they do not have any formula or scale to
measure the consequences of this application. Rawls arrived the concept of natural rights and
that we are owned by God. Locke's fundamental conviction is that life, liberty and property
cannot be taken away. But once those principles are adopted what happens in reality, they do
not talk about it. Locke talks about neutral judges, a legislature to represent the will of the
people. So, this is adopted and there is an independent judiciary etc. However, if the final

Page 11 of 18
recipient is reviewing justice or not, we will not know. Like the delay amounts to injustice,
the harassments in the court amounts to the same. This is transcendental in nature. They do
not care about the consequences that take place. Libertarians are only worried about the
system - It’s like saying that if your means are good then the end is also good, or if the means
are fair the end is also fair. Thus, communitarians disagree with the idea of only caring about
the fair procedure.

B. They consider humans with abstract entitles without communal ties

When Rawls is arriving at the principles of justice he is thinking of man as an abstract entity
and that he knows nothing. Communitarians are saying that there is a mortal depth from the
attachment and ties we have with people and when these are done away with justice is not
there. However, according to Rawls, behind the veil of ignorance, this rational entity does not
have a concept of moral depth. However, the communitarians say demanding for a justice
society is without moral depth is objectionable.

C. Humans are out there to promote self-interest.

When you detach yourself from your body, parents, family, education etc. all the things that
create multiple layers, what is left is always promoting self-interest since you are no longer
attached to anyone around you. You are no longer a son, a daughter, a Hindu, a Muslim etc.
so you are no one now, since you are all alone. Further, all isolated individuals are out there
to promote self-interest. Communitarians believe that this is a wrong vision of who we are,
since we are never alone. So, this a wrong understanding who demands justice, since this
person has ties. However, according to libertarians, a rational personality does not have a
moral depth since all connections are broken – something the communitarians disagree with.

D. The self stands prior to, independent of, and above the community.

This person is all alone and out there to protect their interest they will not worry about what
the community wants. What it wants is the most important thing for this entity. They will not
consider what is a good way of life for the community etc. so this person stands prior to the
group, isolated, independent, and above everyone else. The picture painted is that you are
alone and everyone is an adversity and your interest should supersede everyone's interest.

E. Self needs protection from community

Page 12 of 18
There is a talk of rights since rights is an interest that needs to be protected since you are all
alone. In the libertarian version rights are the most important things, and not the content of
the rights. Dworkin says that rights are trumps - since they outweigh all other considerations,
that may be family, society, general morality, etc. Therefore, they say that rights are to do
things even against the rights of others. The picture is that you do not have family, society
etc. there is total detachment and that everyone is out there to harm you so you have to
protect your rights. And when someone challenges this, rights have to be protected since your
existence is in threat. When you feel that you are attached with the group so a slight denial
will not make you feel that your rights are in jeopardy. But libertarians are saying that if these
are slightly denied or isolated, they will feel threated that their existence is threatened. They
also say that there cannot be any moral limitation on rights. Since this will come from outside
like family, society etc. so this group will say that this right has to be limited to an extent and
when this happens a liberal will say that this is how you are violating myself. So, the self says
that there should be no moral limit to rights.

F. Rights cannot be curtailed.

Everyone can have equal number of rights so the right bearing individuals and any
cooperation among the members of such community can only be voluntary cooperation. The
consent in libertarianism is contractual based - everyone is a standalone entity having no
natural ties. Let’s assume that the libertarians are right, that there is no limits on rights -
walzer would ask that if that is the case - that we have only contractual relationships. And if
there are wars, in any given war the responsibility to defend a national will not only be on the
citizens of that nation.

G. The principles of justice are 'single criterial'

Sen and whalzer say that justice for one sphere is not the same for justice for other. Family,
politics, business, education etc. are all multiple spheres of life. However, libertarians arrive
at a justice that is single criterial that is irrespective of all the spheres. So due to the different
spheres there cannot be a single criterial. Walser says that there is justice for all the different
spheres of life, that is, justice for education, justice for family, justice for politics, etc. so the
answer to the question what is justice has to differ from sphere to sphere.

H. That justice is procedural

Page 13 of 18
For Sen, Justice will be realized if it looked at from the idea of the end recipient of justice. He
gives the idea of niti v. nyaya - he gives the example from Bhagavat Gita. When Krishna and
arjun are in dialogue with each other, he is asking arjun to kill these people to establish a just
society. But Arjun says that in the process he is killing so many innocent people. He will
have to kill his brothers, uncle and many soldiers who just happen to be on the other side. So,
in the process of establishing a just society he is creating injustice. Sen says that Krishna is
talking about neeti, and this is that transcendental institutional justice, and arjun is talking
about nyaya and it is the consequence of the institution. Sen a system will be useless if
everyone is not taken care of. Sen says that justice has to be understood in a real and realistic
scenario, where the libertarians are not. So, communitarians would want to put limits on
rights to protect the community.

Answer 6

ADVERSE POSSESSION

Adverse possession refers to the uninterrupted and uncontested actual possession of a

property for a statutory period hostile to the rights and interests of the true owner of such
property. In simple words, if one party, who is not the owner of the property in question,
actually possesses and enjoys it, adverse to the rights of the second party, who is the true
owner for a prescribed period of time, he shall become the actual owner of the property in the
eyes of law. The reason behind this was that land is valuable and it will give you something.
Therefore, land should not be kept without title and someone should be using the land, so if
the true owner is not using then someone else should use it. Land is also the reason for the
state to collect taxes since they impose taxes on your usage.  

In order to explain this concept better, let’s take an example. A person ‘Y’, who is not an
owner of the land or property, keeps possession of it adverse to the rights of the true owner
‘X’. Now, if Y is successful in keeping the possession of the property for a statutory period of
time without being interrupted and contested by X, he will become the new owner of that
land/property.

There have been various objections to adverse possession, deeming it as a unjust enrichment
and legalised theft.

REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED

Page 14 of 18
For the concept of adverse possession to become operational, certain requirements must be
satisfied. It is pertinent to note that these requirements are very strict since adverse possession
is a serious notion. These are as follows:

(a) Possession should be actual – One who claims the plea of adverse possession,
i.e., the new owner of the property, must establish that there is actual possession. In
this context, the expression “actual possession” signifies that some form of alteration
has been made with the state of the property. This alteration shall be noticeable. For
instance, adjacent to A’s house is a land, whose owner does not live there. A parks his
car on the land, and continues doing so for years. However, this would not amount to
adverse possession since no alteration, such as construction on land is being made in
the property as such.

(b) Possession should be open – Adverse possession should be such that a reasonable
man should be able to notice it. Conversely, the possession should not be clandestine.
The idea behind this is that the real owner of the property should come to know about
such possession. Thus, silently trespassing somebody’s house, sleeping through the
night and leaving in the morning without anybody noticing would not result in
satisfaction of this requirement.

(c) Possession should be hostile to the interests of the true owner –there should not
be concurrent use of the property in question. Rather, the possession of the property
should be averse to the interests of the true owner and shall have the effect of
excluding him from the property itself, for the occurrence of adverse possession.

(d) Absence of violence – This means the absence of any attempts from the real
owner to bar the person claiming possession of property either through court
proceedings or physical compulsion.

(e) Absence of permission – One of the central requirements for satisfaction of

adverse possession is the absence of permission from the true owner to possess the
property in question i.e., the claimant’s initial entry must be in the absence of consent
from the true owner.

(f) Statutory Time Period – The claimant shall possess the property for at least 12
years contrary to the rights of the true owner in order to raise a please of adverse
possession. For claim on government property, the time period is 30 years.

Page 15 of 18
 (g) Continuity – Intermittent adverse possession should not be present. The claimant
must possess the property without any break for the statutory time period.

MERITS AND DEMERITS

A. MERITS

i. A land is supposed to be used. In case of non-usage, it is a waste of space. In

situations where adverse possession becomes operational, the true owner fails in
using his own land for a substantial period of time. He directly contributes to such
failure. In such a case it is better that the property is being used by someone rather
than the true owner not using it at all. Land is a precious resource that requires
adequate attention. If the owner fails in giving it its due importance, it is better
that the same can be provided by someone else. Thus, essentially, land should be
used efficiently.

ii. It is a settled proposition that law aids the vigilant, and not the sleeping ones. This
means that a sleeping litigant has no remedy. The concept of adverse possession
plays a vital role in spreading this notion of law – if the true owner does not
bother about the property in question despite someone possessing it without his
consent, why should law bother about his rights on such property.

iii. Further, the legal principle of adverse possession promotes the gaining of
knowledge regarding the regulations of an unused property for those who show
interest in a particular property and want to become the legal owner of the same.

iv. It is a settled fact that full ownership of the property, inclusive of the right to
possess that property, aids the owner in managing the property effectively, since
the property becomes free from any and every obstacle, in the form of other
people claiming interests on the property, etc.

B. DEMERITS

Page 16 of 18
i. Adverse possession has the effect of legalizing theft. This is because the legal
principle essentially gives a seal of approval to unethical acts of trespass and
illegal possession of property, and equate the value of such owners with true
owners who are honest and credible in their possession. Thus, the principle has the
effect of rewarding wrongful acts, thereby promoting notions of dishonesty by
legitimizing possession through trespass and compelling the erstwhile owner to
lose his possession on account of mere inaction.

ii. This demerit flows from the previous one. Adverse possession results in unjust
enrichment of the claimant, who dishonestly takes possession of a property
belonging to someone else, without the consent of the owner, through morally and
lawfully wrong activities.

iii. Although the requirements that shall be satisfied in order to claim adverse
possession are meant to be strict owing to the nature of the concept, a lot of
uncertainty subsists. This is because terms appearing in these requirements have
not been defined in certain ways. The effect of this is that different jurisdictions
deal with these notions differently, leading to a lot of confusion and subjectivity in
the application of the concept. These terms are open, continuous, hostile,
exclusive and actual

Page 17 of 18