SANCTION THEORY OF JURISPRUDENCE: SOLUTION TO COVID-19

-





In 1832, John Austin lectures were published under the title – “The Province of Jurisprudence determined”  where it denied  Law, properly so called, as a  command of sovereign backed by the sanction.    There are four basic elements of Austin theory of positive law- Sovereign, Command, Duty and sanction.  His theory is been criticized on various outcomes such as customs, judge made law, International law, command theory, relation of law and morals over-looked. 

In spite of the above mentioned criticism, the author would throw some light upon the sanction element and opined its linkage to the present pandemic situation in India and try to justify the said theory considering the casual behavior  of citizens. 

The Austin theory is largely criticized for the reason being that the sanction is not the only means to induce the obedience and law is obeyed because of its acceptance by the community. In furtherance of same, law is nothing but a will of the public and thus cannot be said as mere command of sovereign. Keeping this argument into consideration, there are few facet which need to be consider. Firstly, if law is reflection of will of people, then who would justify the ill-effects of one community of public over another community of people. This argument gets more balance in this covid-19 situation where Hon’ble Prime minister has requested the public to maintain Jantacurfew. It is nothing but a classic example to criticize the critics of sanction element. 

 The Hon’ble Prime minister has given public an occasion to express its will to govern itself in a particular day for a particular situation. The same stands followed by one community however at the same time the other community of the public couldn’t followed the general will of the public. This is exactly a situation where poses a question as who will justify the ill-effects of one community over another where the general will of public is not adhered. This, creates a need of sanction element to the public will. The sanction serve twin purposes, firstly a fear to comply and secondly to control the ill-effects created by contrary community of the Public.


Janta-curfew and lockdown could have ignored the ill-effect of contrary community if same was backed by the sanction element. Hence, in this manner, the john Austin theory of sanction justifies under present case the punishment as ,out of many,  solution and is a need to control the ill-effect created  by contrary community of public who believe themselves to be exception to the binding rule of will of public and therefore sanction is the only way to deal with this pandemic covid-19.


DISCLAIMER

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the Indian government. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world analytic products as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of any Indian government State. 


The author is a Practicing company secretary and founder of Budhiraja & co. Further, he is a Second Year Law student at faculty of law, University of Delhi and a Para Legal volunteer with Delhi State Legal Service authority and is an active Participant in Moot Court society of his college.
+919654055315
Csshubhambudhiraja1994@gmail.com
Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/shubham-budhiraja-555963a1/












Comments

  1. Kumar AbhishekMarch 23, 2020 at 10:23 PM

    Very apt Shubham. In a situation when medical sciences have hardly anything to offer for a rescue, social sanction and only a strict deterrent from the state can help. When people are not at all ready to understand the gravity of a situation which ultimately would lead to the trouble of whole community, they must be forced to follow those who understand it. Much time hasn't passed since the social contract theorists opined man as beast!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SHUBHAM BUDHIRAJAMarch 24, 2020 at 2:35 AM

      Thank you kumar abhishek for very kind reader of the observation cited.
      I second the opinion and observation framed and cited by youbin regard to this pandemic situation. Rights and Duties go hand in hand.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more