SHIVAJIRAO S. JONDHALE COLLEGE

OF LAW & RESEARCH, ASANGAON
NAME: YASH PRAMOD GADE
ROLL NO: 13
SUBJECT NAME: JURISPUDENCE
PROFESSOR NAME: UJWALA GATADE
2ND YEAR LLB SEM 4

Assignment Topic:
 POSSESSION, THEORY OF PRECEDENT, NATURE & SCOPE
OF JURISPUDENCE
Meaning, Definition and Elements of Possession ||
Jurisprudence ||

           In this article, we are going to discuss the topic of Possession its meaning,
definition, and elements under Jurisprudence.

Introduction:-
                               Possession is very difficult to define in English Jurisprudence. But
it is a very important topic. Human life and society would become impossible without
the retention and consumption of material and non-material things. Food, clothes,
tools, etc. are essential items to use. We get hold over the first to claim possession. It
is not just acquisition of things but it is a continuing claim for use of the item. It may
be legal or illegal.
    It is a prima facie evidence of ownership and anyone desiring to disturb a possessor
must show a better title or a better possessory right.

Meaning of possession:-
  In Roman law possession was termed as a ‘Possessio’. The term possessio denoted
physical control over things. In legal terminology, there is no word more ambiguous
in its meaning than possession whether considered in relation to immovable property.
In law, possession means a fact or condition of a person having such control of
property that he may legally enjoy it to exclusion of others except against the true
owner or prior possessor.
                 It has been claimed by eminent jurists that the conception of possession is
very difficult to define and important in the range of legal theory.
               Possession originally expresses the simple notion of a physical capacity to
deal with the thing by as we like to the exclusion of everybody else.
                Possession, to begin with, meant only physical control over the thing. It was
only later that this fact started receiving recognition and protection by the laws from
various aspects.

Possession is of two types according to the Salmond:-

1. When the possession included a physical or actual relation with the object is called
possession in fact, And
2. When it got recognition by law it was termed as a possession in law,

For example, in English law, a servant is not deemed to be in possession of Master’s

goods while things are in his (Master’s) control. Thus, a servant under English law has
possession in fact. Possession in law is a legal relation. It implies a manifest intention
to exclude the world at large from interfering with the thing in question and to do so
on one’s own account and in one’s own name.

Definitions:-

Savigny definition:-
 Savigny defines possession as, “Intention coupled with the physical power to exclude
others from the use of material objects”.
His definition involves two essential elements:-

A. The animus domini, i.e., the intention to hold the goods; and

B. The corpus possession is, i.e., the physical control of such goods.

       Thus, according to Savigny the permanent loss of one element or the other
brought possession to an end. Savigny further observed that the essence of possession
is to be found in the physical power of exclusion. He says that the corpus possession
may be of two kinds, one related to the commencement of possession and the other
related to the retention of the possession. 

Criticism:-
  Savigny has used the expression of physical power to exclude others without adding
any qualification to it. He did not mention the fact that the exclusion is subject to one
exception, i.e., that possessor cannot exclude a person who has a better title over the
use of that particular material object.

Ihering:-
  Ihering, says — whenever a person looks like and owner in relation to a thing he has
possession unless possession is denied to him by rule of law based on convenience.
 Salmond:-
 Salmond divides possession into incorporeal and corporeal and define corporeal
possession as ‘the continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusion of others. Again, he
says — Possession is a de facto relation between a person and thing. It is not right.
Thus, for Salmond corporeal possession is a title of right but it is not a right itself.

Criticism:
Marked by has criticized Salmond’s definition and said that the Law treats possession
not merely as a physical condition but also as a right. He adds that the possession
confers on the possessor all the rights of the owner except as against the owner and
prior processor.

Elements of possession:-

There are two elements of possession:-

1.     Physical control or power over the object possessed; and

2.     The intention or will to exercise that power.

Corpus or physical control:-

1.     The possessor’s physical relation to the rest of the object;

2.     The relation of the possessor to the rest of the world.

 Corpus means that the existence of such physical contact of a person with thing as to
give rise to a reasonable assumption that the others will not interfere with it. There
may be an actual physical contact, (a coin in my hand or in my purse in the pocket) or
there may be the cases when there is no physical contact e.g., when a person takes out
the purse and drops by mistake coin in the gutter; he walks ahead without noticing the
loss– here the corpus remains with him until someone else picked it up.
                The second element of the corpus is that the possessor must have the ability
to exclude others. There is no hard and fast rule regarding the amount of power to
exclude others.

Animus or intention:-
 Animus means an intention to hold possession again all others except the true owner.
That is to say, the animus is the conscious of the intention of an individual to exclude
the others from the control of an object. The mental element in the possession may
conceivably be manifested in the following ways:-
First, the person holding the property need not be the owner and may exercise animus
to exclude others on behalf of the owners.
Secondly, animus to exclude others need not be in the interest of the processor or on
his own behalf.
Thirdly, animus to exclude others need not be specific.
Fourthly, the animus to exclude others need not be based on the legally enforceable
claim. It may be the result of a wrongful act.
Fifthly, the animus to exclude others need not be absolute. A person possesses a piece
of land notwithstanding the fact that some other person or even the public at large
possesses a right of way over it.
Sixthly, the animus to exclude others must be wide enough to include the actual thing
considered. 

THEORY OF PRECEDENT
Declaratory  Theory

This theory was propounded by  Sir Mathew Hale  as early as I 1713 when he
said: “…the decision of courts of justice… does not make a law properly so-called, for that
only the king and parliament can do; yet they have a great weight and authority in
expounding, declaring, and publishing what the law of this kingdom is.”
However, it was Blackstone who formally enunciated this theory. According to
him: “A judge is sworn to determine, not according to his own judgment, but according to
the known laws and customs of the land, not delegated to pronounce a new law but to
maintain and explain the old one  jus decree et nonjus dare.”
This means that the judges can only declare the law, and never make or give new
law. The staunchest supporters of this Blackstonian doctrine were the judges
themselves For example, Lord Esher MR said; “…there  is in fact no such things as 
judge-made law, for the judges  do not make the law, though they frequently  have to 
apply existing  law to circumstances  as to which it has  previously been  authoritative laid
down such law is applicable.”

This Blackstonian doctrine uncompromisingly asserts that the function of judge is

jus decree et non jus dare, i.e., to discover in the existing rules of the law the
particular principle that govern the facts of individual cases. Judges are, therefore,
only ‘law finders’ rather than law makers.
Criticism of the Theory
This classical theory of Blackstone has been subjected to severe criticism by
eminent jurists. The great law reformer Jeremy Benthan said that the statement that
judges only declare the law is ‘ a wilful falsehood having for its subject the stealing of
legislative power by and for hands which could not or durst not openly claim it’.
His discipline john Austin also has assailed it as a ‘childish  fiction employed by our
judges that  judiciary or common law is not made by them, but it is a miraculous
something made by nobody, existing, I suppose from eternity and merely declared from
time to time by the judges.’
Several other eminent jurists like Munro Smith and Holmes also consider that this
orthodox theory cannot be taken seriously.

Judges as Lawmakers Theory

The second theory of precedent is that judges make law. Law made by a judge is as
real and effective as any statute. A number of jurists have supported this view.

Prominent among them is Prof. Dicey who says; “As all lawyers are aware, a large part
and, as many would add, the best part of the law of England is judge made law – that is to
say, consists of rule to be collected from the judgements of the courts.
This portion of the law has not been created by acts of parliament and is not recorded in
the statute boo. It is the work of the courts it is recorded in the reports, and it is, in short,
the fruit of judicial legislation.”
An American jurist Prof. gray has however taken an extreme view contending that
judges alone are makers of law. He says, ‘Whoever hath an absolute authority to
interpret any written, it is he who is truly the law giver to all intents and purposes and not
the person who first wrote or spoken them,’ and he concludes, A fortiori whoever hath
an absolute authority not only to interpret the law but to say what the law is truly
the lawgiver.’

Limitation of the theory

Although this theory proclaims that the judges make law, it is to be admitted that
they do not enjoy an unrestricted power of laying down abstract principle of law.
There are certain well-defined limitations on the power of judicial legislation. For
instance;

(i) The judges has no power to ignore or override the provision of a statute. he is
duty bound to enforce the statutory provisions ,leaving  to the legislature to deal
with any  unpleasant consequences not foreseen at the time of passing the act.
(ii) An authoritative precedent limits the law making power of the judge.

(iii) The judicial legislation is restricted to the facts of the case placed before the
judges, which is the outcome of an accidental course of litigation.

(iv) Only the ratio decidendi, and not the obiter dicta, has a binding force and
authority of law.

It is thus clear that within certain limit judges have the power of profoundly
influencing the development of law. Even if they do not ‘make’ the law in the usual
sense of promulgating at will the rules of human conduct, it must be acknowledged
that they develop the law by contributing several original precedents.

HIERARCHY OF COURTS

For the operation of the doctrine of precedent, a settled hierarchy of courts is

imperative, because the basic rule of precedent is that a court is bound by the
decisions of all superior courts. In India, as we know, the Supreme Court is the
highest court of law in civil, and constitutional matters.

There are high courts at the state level and civil and criminal courts below the high
court. Article 141 of the Constitution states that the law declared by the Supreme
Court of India shall be binding on all courts in India.
The question whether the  Supreme Court is bound by its own decision under art
141 was raised in Bengal Immunity Co Ltd v State of Bihar. In that case it was held
that although the words, ‘all courts in India’ appear to be wide enough to include
the Supreme Court.
As a result, the Supreme Court is not bound and is free to reconsider its previous
decisions in appropriate cases. This position was reiterated in Sajjan Singh v State of
Rajasthan wherein it was held that the Constitution does not place any restrictions
on the powers of Supreme Court to review its earlier decisions or even to depart
from them.
The court made it clear that the doctrine of stare decisis should not permitted to
perpetuate erroneous decisions to the detriment of the general welfare. The court
recognised the need for exercising restraint in overruling previous decisions stating
that the power must be exercised only when consideration of a substantial and
compelling make it necessary to do it.
When there is conflict between the two decisions of the Supreme Court, the
decision of the larger Bench prevails over that of the smaller Bench. This principle is
true that in the case of high courts also.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF

PRECEDENTS

Advantages

* There is certainty in the law. By looking at existing precedents it is possible to

forecast what a decision will be and a person can plan accordingly.

* There is uniformity in the law. Similar cases will be treated in the same way. This
is important to give the system a sense of justice and to make the system
acceptable to the public.

* Judicial precedent is flexible. There are a number of ways to avoid precedents and
this enables the system to change and to adapt to new situations.

* Judicial precedent is practical in nature. It is based on real facts, unlike legislation.

* Judicial precedent is detailed. There is a wealth of cases to which to refer.

Disadvantge

* Difficulties can arise in deciding what the ratio decidendi is, particularly if there
are a number of reasons.

* There may be a considerable waiting period for a case to come to court for a
point to be decided.

* Cases can easily be distinguished on their facts to avoid following an inconvenient

precedent.

* There is far too much case law and it is too complex.

EXCEPTIONS TO BINDING PRECEDENT

If two judges Bench find a judgement of a three judges Bench to be so incorrect
that it cannot be followed in any circumstances, keeping view of judicial discipline
and propriety, the proper course is to refer the matter before it to another Bench of
three judges.

Pradip Chandra Parija v/s Pramod Chandra Patnaik AIR 2002 SC 296 ;(2002) 1 SCC 1. It
is impermissible for a High Court to overrule the decision of the Apex Court on the
ground that the Supreme Court laid down legal position without considering any
other point.
High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court
even though the point sought before the High Court. Suganthi Suresh Kumar v/s
Jagdeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420.
When a court differs from the decision of a co-ordinate bench of a Single Judge of
High Court, the decision should be referred to Larger Bench. Ayyaswami
Gounder and others v. Munnuswamy Gounder and others, AIR 1984 SC 1789: 1984(4)
SCC 376.
If a division bench of a High Court differs from the view expressed by another
division bench of the same court, it is appropriate that the matter is referred to a
larger bench.

Rajesh Kumar Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 1995 SC 1421: 1995(2)
SCC 129; Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra
and others, AIR 1991 SC 1893; 1989(3) SCC 396. Union of India and others v. Godfrey
Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806; 1985(4) SCC 369.
Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of two Judges cannot over rule the
decision of a Bench of two Judges as it would be an inappropriate.

Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1985 SC 231; 1985(1)
SCC 275. When there is a conflict of opinion that is when there is disagreement by
one single judge with the decision of another single Judge it is appropriate that the
appropriate course is to refer the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative
decision.
Shridhar son of Ram Dular v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others, AIR 1990 SC 307; 1990
Supp. SCC 157. One Full Bench decision cannot over rule another Full Bench
Decision delivered by Judges of equal strength. Shyamaraju Hegde v. U. Venkatesha
Bhat and others, AIR 1987 SC 2323: 1987 Supp. SCC 321.

Meaning, Scope and Nature of Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence comes from the Latin word ‘jurisprudential’ meaning “knowledge of
Law”.   Bentham and Austin had provided the earliest description of this term. Since
then, the spectrum of jurisprudence has grown in many areas and now it covers the
whole gamut of law, not just positive laws. It’s the study of the basic principles of
law. The judiciary’s versatility in interpreting the law to support the State’s social
welfare ends has also led to a major expansion of the jurisprudence.
Jurisprudence binds laws to other fields, such as psychology, politics, economics etc.
The scale of that always varies. It is not derived from any legislative act or state
assembly. Lord Tennyson calls it the “topic of Lawless Law”. Related principles
such as the roots of law, the need for law, the importance of law are discussed by
related lawyers. This analysis of legal principles is called Jurisprudence.
Introduction
Jurisprudence allows us to grasp the more abstract nature of the law. Jurisprudence is
an important part of the law that is based on different hypotheses and
interpretations. Jurisprudence speaks of the relationship between the law, culture,
man, nature and other social sciences.
Jurisprudence denotes a logical and analytical study of the law. The term
Jurisprudence originated from the Latin word “Juris” and “prudentia”, which can be
divided into two sections, and that is the jurisprudence that originated from the word
“jus”, meaning “law”, and the word “prudential”, meaning “prudence”, forethought,
or discretion.
Jurisprudence can also be referred to as a legal philosophy. Jurisprudence offers us an
outline and a much deeper understanding of the law and the role the law plays in
society. It deals with legal logic, bodies of law and legal frameworks.
The subject matter of Jurisprudence holds much importance in the vast field of
Law.
Importance of Jurisprudence:-
1. Fundamental significance is of utmost importance under the field of the
study of jurisprudence. Jurisprudence consists primarily of analysis and the
process for building and clarifying the fundamental principles of law.
Jurisprudence is not about making the new rules; rather, it focuses on current
rules in the structure and jurisprudence, and its ideas will help lawyers
develop a different, much better procedure and rules while practicing.
2. Jurisprudence can support students too. In students life it has its own
scholastic value. Jurisprudence not only focuses on primary laws but also
addresses the social impact of those laws. Jurisprudence incorporates both
theoretical and logical study of legal principles.
3. Jurisprudence frequently reflects on the law and its importance for society.
There is discussion of justice and the articulation of law. It deals with the
fundamental principles of the in the eye of law. It helps a person understand
the thoughts of law and its divisions.
 4. Jurisprudence is the grammar of law, too. It helps a person understand the
language and the legal grammar. Compared with ordinary language, legal
language and grammar are somewhat different, so Jurisprudence teaches a
lawyer’s mind so that he can use proper legal terminology and phrases.
5. Jurisprudence provides interpretation rules and, as a result, helps judges and
lawyers understand the importance of laws passed by lawmakers.
6. Jurisprudence and its relationship with other social sciences provide students
with a broad spectrum of understanding how law can be related and linked to
other disciplines.
7. Jurisprudence teaches people that the answer to a legal problem is not hidden
in the past or awaiting in the future, rather than hidden around them in the
fundamentals of legal studies in the answer to a legal issue.
8. Jurisprudence also discusses political and legal rights, and how the system
can strive to balance them.

Nature of Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence analyses conceptions of law. It also seeks to figure out what the basic
concepts of law are. It not only analyses the already defined laws but also analyses
and sets the foundation for new rules. It is the product of Jurists ‘and Philosophers’
thought. They have the right to view, analyze and comment about the legal system. As
such, it can be viewed as an analytical exercise that does not have immediate practical
application. It sets the tone for legislative change.
Jurisprudence binds laws to other fields, such as psychology, politics, economics etc.
The scale constantly shifts. It is not derived from any legislative act or state
assembly. Lord Tennyson calls it, Lawless subject of law. Various concepts like
Origin of law, need of the law, the utility of the law are studied by various Jurists.
This study of concepts of law is called Jurisprudence.
Jurisprudence offers answers to multidimensional legal questions. It helps in overall
growth of society. It enhances the capacity of the lawyer to justify rational reasoning.
It blesses or hastens a lawyer’s skill with a sense of philosophy, ethics and morality
which helps them move forward in their discipline. There are also occasions when
there are loopholes in the rules; Judges choose the path of Jurisprudence at those
periods. Jurisprudence is the theoretical foundation of the law, and without it; it is
not possible to enforce the law in effect.
Schools of Jurisprudence
1) Analytical or Imperative School (Positivism)
The analytical school is constructive ‘in its approach to social legal issues. It focuses
on things as they are and not what they should be. The positivists’ main concern is the
statute, which is currently considered positum, and not the ideal Law. Legislation,
judicial precedents and common law are the most relevant legal sources.
Analytical school’s motto is “Ubi civitas ibI lex” i.e. “where there is State, there
will be no anarchy”; State is a necessary evil.
The main proponents of this school are: Bentham, Holland, Austin, Salmond, etc:
a) Bentham’s concept of Law:-
Bentham (1748-1832), the founder of Positivism, should be considered the father of
analytical positivism, and not Austin, as is generally assumed (Austin owes much to
Bentham, in fact). He was a codified law (Legislation) fighter. The purpose of
Bentham’s work was to ensure the indispensable implementation of a civil code.
Bentham differentiated expository jurisprudence from censorial
jurisprudence (i.e., what the law should be). His definition of law is imperative, i.e.
law is the assembly of signs, statements of will conceived or embraced in a state by a
sovereign.
According to him, the role of law must be to achieve these ends, i.e. providing food,
creating wealth, fostering equality, and preserving security. Bentham’s philosophy of
hedonism or pain and satisfaction principle has been questioned on the basis that
suffering and pain alone cannot be the only measure of the law’s adequacy.
b) Austinian Concept of Law:
John Austin (1790-1859) was a professor at the University of London. He applied
empirical method: Law should be carefully examined and evaluated, and the
underlying theory should be discovered and his area of analysis limited only to
the Positive Law (Jus positivism).
Law, so-called simply and strictly law, set by political superiors to inferiors. Thus, the
school he founded is called by different names, logical, positivistic and analytical
positivism. Austin is believed to be the founder of English jurisprudence.
Austin defined law as a rule set for an intelligent being’s guidance by an intelligent
being having power over him. According to him, so-called proper law includes: law of
God, laws of man and rules of positive nature.
According to him every rule, properly named, must have three elements, command,
sanction and sovereign elements. According to him, law is a sovereign’s
order, which mandates his subjects to do or refrain from such actions. If the order
is not obeyed, an implicit threat of a punishment occurs.
c) Hart’s Concept of Law:
Professor Hart (1907) can be regarded as the leading representative of British
positivism in the present day. He wrote an important book “The Law’s Definition”,
questioning the theory of Austin. According to Hart, Law consists of laws that are
broad-based and non-optional in nature, but at the same time appropriate for
formalization, regulation and adjudication. He said law is a set of social rules that
acquire the character of legal laws (laws arising from social pressure). Law is a set of
laws which can be publicly ascertained. In Hart’s opinion, law is analogous to a legal
structure.
According to Hart, there are two types of rules where the primary rule establishes
norms of conduct or imposes duties (i.e. international law), while the secondary rule is
the rule under which the primary rules may be created, added, omitted or changed.
The secondary rules are public or private (e.g. Laws, Constitution) rules which impart
power. From these the rules of recognition are derived and provide authoritative
criteria for the identification of primary rules of obligation.
2) Philosophical school or Natural law school
The school of philosophy or ethics is concerned primarily with the relationship of
law to certain principles the law is intended to achieve. It seeks to examine the
reason for which it has passed a specific law. It has no historical or analytical
substance to it. This school’s most notable jurists are Grotius (1583-
1645), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), and Hegel (1770-1831).These jurists do not
recognize law either as a ruler’s arbitrary order, or as the development of historical
necessity. The law is for them the product of human reason and its aim is to uplift and
ennoble human personality.
3) Historical School
Law so closely touches real life that seeing the action of laws in their social setting is
only normal. The Functional Approach to Law (Historical and Sociological
Schools) emphasizes actual social circumstances as giving rise to law and legal
structures, and is concerned not with the person but with the associated man. The
historical school arose as a response to legal theories promoted by logical positivists
(as they failed to meet people’s needs) and the thinkers of natural law. This school’s
motto is “Ubi societas ibi lex”, that is to say, “where there is culture, there is law.”
4) Sociological School
Auguste Comte was the first to use the term sociology, and is considered the father
of sociology research by some jurists. The approach used by Comte may be
called scientific positivism. He pleads for applying scientific method to sociological
research. Society is like an organism and if it is driven by scientific principles it will
advance.
Herbert Spencer introduced the organic theory of society in a scientific analysis.
He applied sociology to the evolutionary pattern of society.
Duguit was influenced by Durkhiem who took inspiration from Comte himself.
Durkhiem’s key argument, on which Duguit focused himself, was that he made a
distinction between two kinds of men’s needs in society.
1. There are certain individual needs that are addressed by mutual assistance and
2. The needs of individuals are varied and met by the exchange of services.
Therefore the most critical aspect of social stability is the division of labor. He called
it Unity with society. This social cohesion grows through the creation of free
individual activities.
5) Realist School
Sociological Jurisprudence in America formed an extreme wing under the realist
school name. They are concerned with researching the law as it operates and functions
which means examining the social forces that make a law on the one hand and the
social consequences on the other. Instead of abstracting logical deductions from
general rules and the inarticulate conceptual premises underlying a legal system, they
focus more on what the courts can do.
American Realism is not a jurisprudence school but a thinking pedagogy.

Scope of Jurisprudence
The scope of Jurisprudence has been aptly put forth by Karl Lwellyn to be ‘as bigger
as law and bigger’. The scope of Jurisprudence has been dealt with in the following
sub-heads:
Living Law Concept & Social Engineering
In addition to the study of formal law or paper law it aims at the practical study of
law. Ehrlich’s definition of Living Law linked law to the actual existence of
society and thus promoted the empirical study of law within the context of society.
The significance in India of Living Law becomes imperative because there is a large
gap between formal legislation and norms which are prevalent in culture. An
example of the difference between practicalities in society and formal laws can be laid
down in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, where further changes were made to the
laws to make the offence punishable with stringent Punishments but the mischief in
the society is not curtailed.
Vast Spectrum
The spectrum of jurisprudence is not limited to one or only a few legal frameworks
being studied. It concerns a comparative review of various legal systems proposing
codification and institutional changes by legislation. The nineteenth century was
characterized by a general trend towards codification. In the field of law reform,
jurisprudence should be an innovative study by concentrating attention on those parts
of law that do not serve the purpose for which they were built.
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Jurisprudence
The spectrum of jurisprudence does not restrict itself to understanding and applying
those principles. It includes also the laws that are nevertheless not strictly enforceable,
central in the country’s governance. Recent writings on policy perspectives have led
to the conclusion that DPSP is identical to Raj Dharma, the basic principles of
governance contemplated in the conventional Indian culture[1]. In Minerva Mills v.
Union of India[2], it was held that: in other words, the Indian Constitution is built on
the cornerstone of equilibrium between Part III and Part IV. It should also be noted
that the Indian principle of ‘rights’ often includes a ‘duty’ aspect. So, even if the
DPSP are unenforceable, they are fundamental in the governance of the country
and the State is bound by them.
The jurisprudence also includes the fields of gender and compensatory justice
(LGBT)
The marginal and underprivileged individuals of the society including LGBTQ
community are given opportunity to raise their issue in honorable courts by filling a
Public Interest Litigation to support their cause.
Conclusion
Thus in this Article, a difference has been made between Jurisprudence and the law
that we usually practice. Jurisprudence helps lawyers and magistrates discover
the true sense of law. We came across different legal theories and how they were
influencing society and the law. Jurisprudence is a major part of the law and
cannot be isolated from it.
There are different types of jurisprudence that are used for the entire study of the law.
There is no law school which is in itself complete. Different schools of law offer
different methods of law analysis that exposes one another to give a better theory of
law that can be implemented in different circumstances. Analytical school focused on
the law as it is, and disregards the moral nature of the law. In the Classical School of
Law, the interpretation of law as an instrument of social regulation was lacking.
There are different methods for law study, but their object is the same as
understanding the fundamental concepts of law and legal study.
Since then, and now, the reach of jurisprudence has broadened. Now it includes the
whole spectrum of rules, and not just good laws. The judiciary’s versatility in
interpreting the law to support the State’s social welfare ends has also led to
unprecedented expansion of the field of jurisprudence.