Tag: Jurisprudence

INTRODUCTION

‘Femina’, a Latin word for a woman, is the root of the English word “feminist.” But what exactly does feminism suggest? Due to individual people’s views, there are various responses to this question. The fundamental definition of feminism is a compilation of movements to determine, create, and protect equal rights for women in the fields of economy, education, politics, and other fields, as well as social rights for women with equal possibilities. An advocate of feminism may be a male, woman, or transgender person because it is a gender equality ideology. What is feminism jurisprudence, though, is a completely different subject that needs to be addressed.

Feminist jurisprudence, commonly referred to as feminist legal theory, is founded on the idea that the legal system has played a significant role in the historical subordination of women. Feminist legal theory has two objectives. First, feminist jurisprudence tries to explain how the law contributed to women’s past inferior status. Second, feminist legal theory is dedicated to enhancing the situation of women through a revision of the law and its treatment of gender.

THREE MAJOR SCHOOLS

Feminism promotes equal rights for both men and women. Feminist legal systems differ from one another. There are three major schools of feminist jurisprudence –

1. Traditional or Liberal Feminism

It says that women are just as reasonable as men. Hence, they should also be given equal opportunities to make choices.

2. Cultural Feminist

In this type of school of feminism, the main focus is on the variances between the two genders. The thinkers appreciate those variances and propound that Women place more value on interpersonal connections, whilst males place more value on legal and logical abstractions. Giving women’s moral voices of compassion and communal ideals equal recognition is the aim of this school.

3. Radical or Dominant Feminism

The main focus of this school is on inequality. They propounded that the men dominated the women’s class and this results in the situation of gender inequality. Radical feminists see gender as a matter of power. Radical feminists admonish us to reject conventional methods that use maleness as their point of reference. They contend that women’s differences from men must be taken into consideration while constructing sexual equality.

APPROACHES TO FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY OF LAW

1. The Liberal Equality Theory

Liberal feminism is a particular philosophy that deals with achieving equality between men and women and primarily emphasizes the ability of an individual to end discrimination against women. Liberal feminists want to empower people to follow their intuition and use their skills to make men and women equal in the eyes of the law and society. Their views on freedom are the main distinction between modern liberals and bygone liberal feminism.  To attain equality in democratic liberal countries, a contemporary liberal feminist maintains that women’s freedom and political autonomy must be promoted. A former liberal feminist, on the other hand, asserts that feminism’s political duty is limited to opposing laws that treat men and women differently, and that they have already succeeded in this objective. Despite this catfight, their ultimate goal is to unite women together so they may speak up and create enormous amounts of awareness.

The Sexual Difference Theory

Arguments for gender feminism are included in the theory of sexual difference. It makes the case that the causes of women’s mistreatment are intertwined with nature, psychology, and culture. It claims that there are many ways in which the cultural traits associated with femininity are superior and more potent than those associated with masculinity and that men and women should thus weave their reasoned webs.

2. The Dominance Theory

Dominance feminism is a philosophy held by feminists that reject the perspectives of difference feminism and equality feminism. The feminists who scream for equality want women to be given systematic equal access to all social, cultural, and legal male privileges. Feminists, on the other hand, promote gender diversity and call for women to get distinct legal and social protection in order to make up for historical injustices. The dominance theory, which contends that male social power is the outcome of well-documented disparity between men and women, in some respects supports feminists who fight for gender discrimination. Dominance feminism condemns men’s concerted efforts for women’s subordinate status in society. It asserts that men physically, sexually, and socially dominated women. They subjugated women socially by objectifying them, enforcing patriarchal rules on them, and denying them any legal rights. In terms of sexual harassment, they threatened to force them into sex, used catcalls, took advantage of them at work, and shaped them into simple sex objects. According to a Hindu shloka, “naari taran ki Adhikari”—which means that males should physically abuse women more—a woman is deserving of being beaten. The term “dominance feminism” is sometimes used to refer to Catharine A. MacKinnon.

3. The Anti-Essential Theory

 A cluster of fundamental qualities that are both sufficient and necessary for objects to be identical might be referred to as essentialism. To further comprehend essentialism, it includes two steps: the first is summarizing the things inside a single concept in order to distinguish between objects by taking into account their distinctive parts, and the second is classifying them as belonging to that concept. A loose definition of feminist essentialism is the belief that all women share certain psychological and biological characteristics, such as attractiveness, sympathy, fostering, and supportiveness, which are the origins of the idea that all women are fundamentally the same. According to essentialism, every woman has the same innate qualities. Simple opposition to this presumption is anti-essentialism. Anti-essentialists reject the idea that the definition of women should be based on fixed characteristics like genetics and psychology since doing so prevents women from changing and makes it harder for society to recognize them as individuals.

4. The Post-Modern Theory

Other feminist views are unique from postmodern feminism. It starts with the assumption that contemporary feminists have overlooked acknowledging differences within each gender because they are too preoccupied with the distinctions between men and women. Furthermore, it contends that gender was created through talks based on perception, which we eventually absorbed as time went on. In addition to this, postmodern feminists assert that the main reason why there are different forms of patriarchy is because of the social traits of women. The intersectionality hypothesis, which aims to look at how social, biological, and cultural classes simultaneously interact with one another, was used to frame these opinions.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

When it comes to equality, our constitution has given us certain rights and clauses that preserve the environment of positivist equality. When read in conjunction with Article 12, Articles 14 and 15¹ represent the ideas of our constitution’s authors and further protect women against gender discrimination. According to the reading of Article 14 given the gender equality perspective, all people, including women, have an equal right to protection under the law throughout the Indian subcontinent. Men and women should be treated equally under the law and by the country under similar situations.

However, Article 15² shields women from all forms of prejudice. Clause 3 of Article 15 grants the State the authority to create any additional provisions for women and children in order to maintain the idea of equal protection of the law in situations where the same treatment would have been accorded but was not. This clause is recognized in light of the historical social and economic disadvantages faced by Indian women, which resulted in their reduced participation in the nation’s socio-economic activities on an equal basis. The main motivation for the provision is to give women a voice, end their socioeconomic disadvantage, and unquestionably empower them.

In the decision-making process, democracy unquestionably gives everyone an equal chance. Since they make up over half of the population and are free citizens, women are theoretically capable of resolving their disputes through democratic channels. However, they are ineffective participants in the democratic game because of socioeconomic factors and cultural norms. A pro-woman and anti-subordination interpretation of the Constitution and legislation must be adopted, and this provision was further developed in light of positive discrimination, given the drawbacks of the democratic process and the dangers of parliamentary majoritarianism.

The court discussed the need for regulations to stop the dominance analysis techniques that are present in our patriarchal society in the case of Bodhisattwa Gautama v. Subhra Chakraborty.³ A woman, in our country, unfortunately, belongs to a class or group that is in a disadvantageous position due to several social barriers and impediments and has, as a result, been the target of tyranny at the hands of men. The court held that certain laws help to ameliorate the position of women in society and that they are also very constitutionally valid as they come under the legitimate heading of positive discrimination, which is fundamental to our country’s founding principles.

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

Gender equality is likewise included in Articles 39(a)⁴ and 39(d)⁵ of the Directive principle of state policy. While the second article advocates equal compensation for equal work for men and women, the first article discusses the equal right of men and women to an adequate means of subsistence. Maintaining a balance between individualism and socialism is the basic tenet of the Directive principle of state policy. To address the issue of women in the postmodernist era, the DPSP has taken all necessary steps.

Due to their long-sightedness, the framers were able to consider the challenges that women would have faced as society’s patterns changed. To further bolster this claim, Article 51(a)⁶ discusses a clause that forbids actions that are disrespectful to women’s dignity. The idea that the constitution has disregarded the position of women is unavoidable when looking at the statutes collectively. Our constitution’s drafters undoubtedly made an effort to include as many clauses as possible that, if absent, would have led to discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Men and women have always been seen as separate from one another as well as having different social statuses and levels of authority. Through some clever contrasts, such as behavioral traits, women have been purposefully portrayed as the antithesis of men. For example, men are assumed to be competitive, rational, aggressive, intelligent, political, and dominant leaders, while women are assumed to be fragile, emotional, domestic, caretaker, and underlings. Every political and economic organization, from educational to religious institutions, to beauty standards and relationships, has consistently followed some variation of these presumptions. Sadly, the law is not an exception. As a result, cultures recognized the need for feminist jurisprudence, and in order to reach this goal, feminists stepped up, questioned male-insight laws or practices, provided examples of illegitimate patriarchy, and provided guidance on how to build “equality” for women globally.

---

CITATIONS

¹ The Constitution of India 1950, Art 12.

² The Constitution of India, Art 15.

³ (1996) 1 SCC 490.

⁴ The Constitution of India 1950, Art 39(a).

⁵ The Constitution of India, Art 39(d).

⁶ The Constitution of India, Art. 51(a).

This article is written by Prerna Pahwa, a student at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi.

This article has been written by Yash Dodani, a first-year student at NALSAR University of Law. He has tried to explain the similarities and differences between Law, Justice and Morality.

The three terms, viz, law, justice and morality are used interchangeably in terms of a common man. However, in legal terms, these terms are used differently. Although they have a similarity but they have differences too. We will try to understand the similarity and the differences. But let us first try to understand the meaning of all these terms separately to get more clarity in the parts where I will try to locate the similarity and the differences.

Law

What is Law?

Now when everyone will try to find the definition of the term Law, we will face a lot of problem to find a concrete definition. Law is that vast area where the definition is next to impossible to be accepted by the universe as a single definition. Law can be anything from the written statutes to the unwritten rules that govern the behaviour of the society from the ancient times. However, the Jurists have tried to find a working definition of the Law by taking something as a base. And that thing can be ‘nature’, ‘source’, ‘effects’ etc.

The society plays a major role in shaping of the law. Laws can’t be made against the will of the society. If any law is made against the society, the society will resist the law and will try to disobey it. The laws are made by the society, and the law govern the society in the sense that the law tells the society what they should do and should not do as a part of society. The society also acts as a part of the law, mostly in the unwritten manner. There are various things which we should do according to the rules of society, and if we don’t do so, the society will look down to us. For example – respecting the elders is an unwritten rule, which is not told by any law but told to us by the society. 

Law is a social science which runs by the society. The law of any state cannot be rigid. It is because of the social changes by the time. There can be one offence at a particular time or place, but after some time, may it be a no offence? If the law is so rigid that it can’t accommodate itself with the changing society, that law is bad. If the law is so changing, there can’t be any concrete definition of the law. Hence the law can’t be defined by a single definition. To define law the analysis of various legal concepts against various disciplines like sociology, political science, history, psychology, economics is needed to be done with the element of logic and practicality, to meet the ends of justice.

Justice

The justice is a very age-old concept in the society. It can be done through law or without the law. When I say without the law, it means that justice can be administered without a law. The justice can be administered under the general principles of giving justice which are independent of the law. Every person is expected to live peacefully. Without the justice an orderly society is unthinkable. These lines were said by Salmond. Justice come up with rights, duties and equity which then after takes the shape of laws.

The justice ensures that there is a uniformity in the interpretation of the law [if any] and in absence, do justice to the innocent party in whatever way feels suitable. it expects everyone to be Impartial and just to others as well.

Justice in the Modern society

The modern law concept of justice is called as ‘Justice according to Law’. It implies that justice can be given without law as well. As various prominent authors have called it as ‘Rule of Law’. It also means that no one is above law. Law is the supreme rule in the modern society.

Civil Justice

The civil justice system involves the protection of rights in the first place and not the punishment. Just to give some sort of compensation, the court orders to give some amount of damages to the innocent parties. This ensures that they will refrain from committing the same wrong again.

Criminal Justice

The main aim of the criminal justice is to punish the offender. The crime is so harsh that if the offender is just asked to compensate the innocent party, it will not ensure that people will not commit the crime again and again.

There are various types of theories of punishment which were/are used by the courts in administrating justice and to reduce the crime.
1.Deterrent Theory
2.Preventive Theory
3.Reformative theory
4.Retributive theory
These are the punishments which are used to punish the offender
(For details on theories, visit my article on Theories of Punishment)

Morality

In the ancient time, there was no distinction between Law Justice and morality. In Hindu law, there were Smritis and Vedas. The Greeks in the name of ‘natural rights’ formulated a theoretical moral foundation of law. The Romans recognized moral laws based on ‘natural law’.  In middle age, churches came in power and Christian morals were considered as the basis of law.
The morals are nothing but established rules when the human life was made. It means that morals are the basic human rights. It also means that those abstract rights which are in the public interest.

The law derives its authorities from the supreme state and not the established morals. When the church was removed from the power, it was said that law and morals are different. Austin said in the 19th century that the law and morality are two different terms and the law has nothing to do with morality. But he being too positivist, forgot that there is a relation in the law and morals. But at the same time, they are not the same.

The Distinction between Law and Morals

Morals are not laws, but are an end in themselves. It is followed by the people because it helps in improving the character of an individual. After all, they are good to follow. There are acts which are morally correct but are wrong as per the law and vice versa. Morals are universal and are not affected by the state. Morals are more related to the individuals and not the group per se. Roscoe Pound said “ As to the application of moral principles and legal principles respectively, it is said that moral principles are of individual and relative application; they must be applied regarding circumstances and individuals, whereas legal rules are of general and absolute application”

S.No.	Law	Morals
1	Tries to make society an Ideal one, but is dynamic	Is an end in itself.
2	Related to the society and to make it ideal.	Related to regulate individuals.
3	The conduct is looked and punished.	They look into the motive to do act, that motive could be correct morally.
4	They are followed because the law is backed by sanctions.	They are followed just because it’s good for the individuals to follow.
5	State is responsible to enforce it.	Individuals are left upon to decide if they want to follow or not.

Relation between Law and Morals

There are indeed a lot of differences between the law and the morals, but it does not mean that there is no sort of similarity. They are very closely related to each other. The type of law will determine how important the morals are to that particular law.

• Morals are used to make the laws.
• Morals are used to test the positive laws.
• Morals as the end of the law.

Starting point of law

The law and morals have the same origin but have different developments throughout the time. There were common things between law and morality. The sanctions which were charged due to breaking of the law or the morals were the same. But after some time, the state thought that some things should have more sanctions and confided things, and this came out to be ‘law’.

The ruled which were for the ‘good’ of humanity but the state could not ensure its observance were left as they were. These are called ‘moral’. Thus, it could be said that law and morals have a common origin, but diverge in their development. Many rules are common to both of them such as NOT killing a person, NOT stealing. 

Queen v/s Dudley and Stephen’s Case: 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)

This is a very leading case in the English Law. This case features the need/necessity to commit an act to save the life of shipments. The facts are very interesting and the reasoning of the court is equally good. The defendants, in this case, were travelling in a ship to reach a particular purpose. However, in the middle of the journey, there was a thunder broke out and they were stuck in the sea. They stuck in so long that they ate their whole food and there was nothing left for them after some time. It was so worse that they were trying to however live somehow. But after some time, there was nothing at all left. With them, there was a boy of about 17 years old. That boy was sick and the other members of the ship thought that he is young and sick and might die anytime. And then they killed him and ate his flash. When they reached the destination, the police arrested him and charged for murder. The defendants took the defence of necessity.

The court held that the person can’t take the life of another to save his own life and was considered as morals. But the court decreased the punishment from death to life imprisonment.

Mr X v/s Hospital Z (1998) 8 SCC 296

Another interesting case on the front of morals, where the court again brought the similarity between the morals and the law. The facts were that a person had HIV+ he was about to marry a girl. But the hospital authorities gave the information of him being HIV+ to the girl whom he was about to marry. The boy filed a case against the hospital authorities and claimed that they should not have revealed the information without the consent of the boy. The hospital authorities claimed that they have done this on the moral grounds and hence they should not be held liable.

The court here held that the hospital authorities were not liable because the right of Ms A to be informed about the safety of her life will override the right of Mr X’s to privacy. The court said that in the public interest, there cannot be upheld of individual rights as it will be against the morals and not always law should be considered. The following lines were said.

“As a human being, Ms. ‘Y’ must also enjoy, as she is entitled to, all the Human Rights available to any other human being. This is apart from, and, in addition to, the Fundamental Rights available to her under Article 21, which, as we have seen, guarantees “Right to Life” to every citizen of this country. This right would positively include the right to be told that a person, with whom she was proposed to be married, was the victim of a deadly disease, which was sexually communicable. Since “Right to Life” includes right to lead a healthy life to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime condition, the respondents, by their disclosure that the appellant was HIV (+), cannot be said to have, in any way, either violated the rule of confidentiality or the right of privacy. Moreover, where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, as in the instant case, namely, the appellant’s right to privacy as part of right to life and Ms. ‘Y’s right to lead a healthy life which is her Fundamental Right under Article 21, the RIGHT which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court, for the reason that moral considerations cannot be kept at bay and the judges are not expected to sit as mute structures of clay, in the Hall, known as Court Room, but have to be sensitive, “in the sense that they must keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day”

Morals as a test of positive law

Morals can be used to check if the law is being more positive or not. If the law will not consider morals, it is very positive. But it is not that the positive laws will not be binding, laws are made to be binding on the people. In those laws where strict liability will be read, we can’t say that it will consider morals in determining the cases. Morals are used to test the extent to which laws are positive.

Conclusion

Hence the law justice and morals have a difference but at the same time are related to each other. Morals have often been considered the end of the law. Many jurists have defined law based on ‘Justice’. Thus, there is a relationship between law justice and morality. Most jurists say that the end of the law is to secure ‘justice. Justice has more or less been defined in the terms of ‘morals’. Thus, the law is used to give an idea of both morals and justice.

In modern terms, there is a lot of difference between the law and the morals, justice being the base of law. 

Latest Posts

• CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEATH PENALTY
• CPJ Law Journal: Submit by 31st May
• Constituents of Law of Tort
• ADMISSIBILITY OF ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES