Overview of Legal Realism and Realist School of Jurisprudence in India

I. Introduction

Reproductive Jurisprudence interpreted by Laski reads as to be the sight of law, it helps law to get the perception of the environment it has originated from. It connects law to the soul of time, and the more abundant the jurisprudence is of a particular area and system, the closer law will be fulfilling the need of its time.³

There is no ideal definition for the term ‘legal realism ‘but, it is referred to as a theory that is derived from exiting public policy and social interest. Further the theory also suggests that when a judgment is being passed public policy and social interest are taken into consideration with utmost importance as other theoretical rules.

The laws that descend from the Realist School of Jurisprudence have primarily emerged from the decision making of Judges. Great scholars observe legal realism as a movement which cannot be categorized into a different school of jurisprudence, as it is basically a part of sociological approach. Legal realism is a development in suspected of law or an idea of law, dismisses the thought of characteristic law since it doesn't trust in unchanging standards of equity, it likewise dismisses basic models of the law on the grounds that for the pragmatists, the importance of lawful terms doesn't originate from the lawmaker yet from a perception of law in real life.

The Realists dodge closed minded plans and focus on the choices given by the courts. These choices depend on formal law, yet additionally on the human factor in the appointed authority and the legal counselor. For the pragmatists, law is just an official activity furthermore, consequently, the powers which impact an appointed authority in arriving at a choice including pay off and debasement are inside the field of study.⁴

II. Legal realism in indian context

The legal philosophy of realistic school has not been accepted in sub-continent for obvious reason that the texture of Indian social life is different from that of the American life-style. The recent trends in the public interest litigation which Professor Upendra Baxi prefers to call as social action litigation’ have however, widened the scope of judicial activism to a great extent but the judges have to formulate their decision within the limit of constitutional frame of the law by using their interpretative skills. This in other words, means that the judges in India cannot ignore the existing legislative statutes and enactment. They have to confine their judicial activism within the limit of statutory law; Besides, the doctrine of precedent which has no place in the realist philosophy, plays a significant role in Indian judicial system in as much as precedents provide guidance to the presiding judge about the existing position of the law in question. They are however, free to overrule the previous decision of law in question. They are, however, free overrule the previous decision on the ground of inconsistency, incompatibility, vagueness, change of condition, etc. Assigning reasons for their deviation from earlier ruling. Thus the Indian legal system in India The constitution of India itself provides ample scope for the judges to take into consideration the hard realities of socio-economic and culture life of the Indian people while dispensing social and economic justice to them.

In short, it might be repeated that however Indian law portion not officially buy in to the pragmatist's legitimate way of thinking, it does lay incredible weight on the useful part of the law and relates law to the real factors of public activity. Once more, it will not acknowledge the pragmatists see that judge – made law is the main genuine law and different laws are useless, and yet it doesn't completely ignore the function of judges and the legal counselors in molding the law. Subsequently it is right to state that the Indian overall set of laws has created on the example of sociological statute as manifested by the post-freedom financial enactment however it considers precept of authenticity outsider to Indian culture which has an alternate way of life and social milieu. Without a doubt, the Indian appointed authorities do have the freedom of deciphering law in its logical and social setting keeping in the view the social, monetary, political, social, recorded and geological variety of Indian culture. The intensity of audit and the precept of overruling its previous choice has empowered the high court to effectuate the financial substance of protected order through the cycle of legal understanding and utilization of its inborn forces. Subsequently on account of summit court in Bengal Immunity case over governed its previous choice in Dwarkadas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving co. also, saw that ' the court will undoubtedly comply with the constitution instead of any choice of the court, if the choice is appeared to have been mixed up'. Defending its stand, the court additionally saw that where an established choice influences the lives and property of public and where the court finds that its prior choice is plainly off-base and damaging to the public intrigue, it ought not spare a moment to over guideline, the same. In India, the range of a quarter century or so of legal activism shows two discernable ages.⁵

III. Necessity of legal realism

Legal realism in India is indispensable so any enactment cannot be passed skipping the theory of legal realism.

Law is communicated all in all terms and in application and the assignment of determination of law to various cases is finished by the court for example law is applied to a reality circumstance by the Court.

Every law has a plan or reason behind it. Generally, this purpose is for the financial turn of events, yet the legislature needs to check itself under the most elevated law for example the constitution of India and it is the Supreme court which checks whether a specific enactment is ultra vires the Constitution, regardless of whether the expectation behind it was excellent and bonafide.

Open Texture – The words and expressions utilized in each enactment are adaptable in nature so as to meet different circumstances. The motivation behind the composed law is to make it exact and precise, which is an inconceivable assignment to accomplish in view of the deficiency of human language to pass on the idea and goal. Hart stated, "the open surface in law leaves scope for understanding which is given full play by the adjudicators to their distrust" for example Vulgarity isn't characterized in the Indian corrective code, yet discipline for disgusting acts is accessible under area 292 and segment 294 of the IjC. Along these lines, here the courts themselves characterized whether the demonstration of charged added up to indecency dependent on their point of view.⁶

IV. Principles of legal realism under jurisprudence

According to the pragmatist, no one but courts can make the laws as the law set somewhere near the parliament remains in paper and it's just the courts that implement these laws by deciphering it, according to the Socioeconomic perspective on the adjudicator, when the authority of the law is tested in the courts.

Jerome Frank and Cardazo both the legal jurist utilized comparable words to characterize laws made by the assembly and obviously they are quietly alluding to the intensity of legal audit as any standard made by the parliament which wrongly anticipated by the would just be a standard and can't be known as a PRINCIPLE OF LAW. Consequently, dependability of law is the jurisprudential premise of pragmatist law.

Then again systematic positivism of Austin, characterizes law regarding order of the sovereign and recognizes positive law from positive profound quality so as to accomplish Socio Economic goals of a Socialist or government assistance state. One of the ideal case of this authoritative authority could be England, where parliament is both constituent and lawmaking body. Consequently, assurance of law is the jurisprudential premise of positivism. The pragmatist conviction is that each judge has an alternate point of view of how he sees an issue. His own, proficient foundation and his social or financial likes or abhorrence’s structure affecting boundaries in his dynamic that is the reason the current constitution is more tangled and broad than the one by the constituent gathering. For example The Supreme court has perceived the arrangements by the lawmaking body under article 14 of the Indian constitution, however on account of R.C. Cooper v. UOI3 (Bank Nationalization case), the S.C. held that the administration had failed in class enactment which isn't allowed by article 14. On account of preventive detainment, the S.C said if any law vanquishes the appointed authority made sacred necessities of proviso (3) to (7) of Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, it will be announced void, however in 1973 in the S.N Sarkar v. Territory of West Bengal, it gave an alternate translation of Article 22(7). This shows even the decisions are faultless. That is the reason in U.K., U.S.A. and India, the most elevated courts are not limited by their past choices.

Positions of Realistic Schools of Jurisprudence in India

Legal positivism owes an enormous obligation to American authenticity that is infrequently recognized. American authenticity shocked legitimate positivism out of its smugness by addressing broadly held suppositions about the idea of rules. It ought to be recalled that Holmes uncovered the shortcomings of the order hypothesis of law some time before Hart. Authenticity provoked lawful positivists like Hart and Raz to reexamine about lawful positivism as a composition and consequently constrained them to separate themselves from 'formalism' to reevaluate the idea of lawful language and legal watchfulness. It might even be consistent with state that Holmes made Hart conceivable.⁷

Nonetheless, the pragmatist school of statute isn't liberated from analysis, additional time it has been censured as follows:

• The meaning of the term 'court' itself isn't settled. There are semi legal bodies like managerial councils which might possibly fall inside the meaning of Court contingent upon the setting in which they are referenced.
• A resolution turns into the law when it is passed; it doesn't need to hang tight for the acknowledgment by the courts prior to getting qualified for be called law. A resolution is perceived by courts as the law; they are not law just by prudence of legal acknowledgment.
• It is just a small amount of law that goes to the appointed authority for translation. It can't be said that the law on which translation is never welcomed isn't law.
• In an authoritarian state where courts are not at freedom to decipher law given by the ruler, law articulated by the pragmatists can't exist.
• The hypothesis of lawful authenticity is a result of disarray as between-what has been said in enactment as such clearly, and how the enactment is to be deciphered as such by the Court of law. The capacity of judges is restricted to understanding of a rule or a legal arrangement where a rule or a legal arrangement is available to more than one understanding. Judges are to embrace a translation which really speaks to the goal of the law making body.

Most definitely, the Indian Jurisprudence doesn't buy in to the pragmatist reasoning in the genuine feeling of the term as it lays more accentuation on the useful part of law and relates the equivalent to the real factors of public activity of the individuals of India-as the Constitution of India offers extension to the adjudicators to mull over the financial also, social existence of individuals, while arbitrating upon the cases.

There have been cases whereby arbitration has been finished by the Supreme Court of India, carefully dependent on realities of the case, for example, on account of Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta [C.A. Nos. 6332-6333 of 2009; Settled on 01-07-2013 (SC) by P.Sathasivam and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.], for this situation the SC held that the party looking for separate must be guiltless of fault. For this situation, the spouse in fact endured mind harm after her cesarean activity. The spouse had remained un-cognizant for at some point in the wake of having conveyed the child. The spouse at first expanded full monetary help by looking for meeting of pros in fields where in the spouse required help. Be that as it may, accordingly, the spouse avoided broadening enthusiastic or moral backing to her. He recorded a separation appeal on the ground of remorselessness yet neglected to build up that her conduct was unpredictable, forceful or strange, or that he was dependent upon remorselessness because of such conduct. The spouse had endured cerebrum harm prompting intellectual insufficiencies, yet regardless of the said inadequacies, her working memory has gotten back to 'close to ordinary' after treatment. The spouse offered to pay to wife for looking for separate however the wife didn't agree to the severance of marital ties. The SC held that the issue close by ought to be declared by asking whether the Spouse would have acknowledged such a supplication of acknowledgment of remuneration if the wife had documented the separation appeal that her significant other had endured mind harm. The court held that on an inversion of jobs, the spouse, with no issue of his own, couldn't ever have acknowledged as, the disintegration of marital ties.

Likewise, in Santram v. Rajinder Lal [1979 SC (1) RCJ 13: 1979 SCR (1) 900], Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer held that in social government assistance enactments, (for example, the lease control enactments), it is current realities and the conditions of the case that structure the law. Respects to social equity revered in our Constitution must be added something extra to all our enactments established by the Parliament and deciphered by the Judiciary.

Additionally researchers have been of the conclusion that the Indian way to deal with social equity depends on the 'Contingent Social Rights Model', which thus is a model of mediation where the court doesn't zero in on the personality of measures attempted by the State however actually just researches their usage, on the grounds that there is no legal audit on the previous inquiry, the directly being referred to gets restrictive upon State activity.⁸

In India makes a decision about have broad legal attentiveness, however they are not all-powerful in the matter of definition of laws. The rules, points of reference and the standard of equity value and great heart are irreplaceable piece of Indian Judicial System. However, Indian Jurisprudence will not acknowledge that judge-made law is the main genuine law, it anyway acknowledges the significant function of judges and legal advisors in the definition of laws. The intensity of legal survey also, regulation of overruling has empowered the Supreme Court to effectuate financial substance of Constitutional command.⁹ Likewise, the precept of point of reference which is not welcome in the pragmatist school assumes a significant part in the Indian legal framework.

Judicial establishments in India have a sacrosanct function to play now no longer handiest for resolving inter se disputes however additionally to behave as a balancing mechanism among the conflicting pulls and pressures working in a society. Courts of regulation are merchandise of the Constitution and the instrumentalities for gratifying the beliefs of the State enshrined therein. Their characteristic is to manage justice in line with the regulation and in doing so, they need to reply to the hopes and aspirations of the humans due to the fact the humans of this country, in no unsure phrases have dedicated themselves to stable justice- social, financial and political- except equality and dignity to all. Realisation that these days is taking on the floor in India is that- the judges are beneath Neath a obligation to workout discretion as to their strength of innovation to keep the sensitive stability as among the legal guidelines so enacted with the aid of using the Parliament & the State Legislatures and the spirit of constitutional superiority, due to the fact the first rate generalities of the Constitution have content material and significance that change from age to age. Also the assignment is to make India- a land of settled government, a land of simply and antique renown, wherein freedom slowly broadens down from precedent to precedent.

V. Legal realism and indian judicial system

R.W.M had popularly said in one of his thoughts which will arrest Indian Jurists-

“In a country like Britain which has remained comparatively stable, it has been easy to preserve the philosophy of analytical positivism in which the science of law is abstracted from social, moral and other value-considerations. But when tensions begin to convulse the very surface of national life, Jurists, let alone judges are compelled to make conscious decisions as to which way to steer if shipwreck is to be avoided.”

The principle requirement for the subsistence of a democracy is the doctrine of seperation of power because it ensures the no authority is vested with absolute or unlimited power. This is the reason why democratic countries are divided amongst various organs which are responsible for performing various functions concerning governance. Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers are the three most essential powers to govern the State. When all these powers are vested in one authority, the risk of despotism exists.

The advent of legal realism in our country can be observed from the kaleidoscope of the esteemed position the Supreme Court has earned over the years in India, amidst the clear failure of the other two branches the legislative and executive. In this context, State of Uttar Pradesh vs Jeet S Bisht ¹⁰ is a very pertinent case.

It is a well-known fact that India is a democratic state having a written constitution. Democracy is “a government for the people, by the people and of the people”. Similarly, it is also a fact that in a democratic state having a written constitution, the written Constitution is considered supreme and not the Parliament. So far as India is concerned, our Constitution expresses the will of the people of the country and it is them who have given the Constitution the status of the fundamental law of the land.

For a democratic state which is coupled with the rule of law it is important that Judiciary as the third wing should be independent together with activist and robust as well, because in India the Apex Court is regarded to be the custodian of the Indian Constitution and the Constitution being the fundamental law governing the country is a living document-propounding law which is organic, dynamic and forever changing. Hence, the Supreme Court is endowed with the task of being pragmatic yet wilful, progressive yet rational so as to take into account the current necessities with a futuristic approach but also within the safety valves set forth by the Constitution of India. The evident rise of legal realism in India in the form of Judicial Activism or Judicial Creativity is to be witnessed in the light of the fact that the Constitution is a living document and the judiciary must protect it both in matter and in spirit. This was highly acknowledged by S.H Kapadia J. in the case of M. Nagraj vs Union of India¹¹.

Legal Realism from the Indian point of view can be seen through the eye of the power of Judicial Review vested in the Apex Court by the Constitution. But it is important for us to carve out the difference between judicial activism(power of judicial review in practice) and judicial over-activism(also known as judicial adventurism).The primary task of judiciary is to uphold the excellence of the Constitution of India and the same also demands for exercise of judicial restraint as and when necessary for striking the correct balance between legislature, executive and judiciary. Judicial Activism is not an aberration but an indispendable part of the Constitution. It is essential that the Courts do not mix up judicial activism with judicial excessivism and judicial populism in the spirit of realism.

VI. Failures of indian judiciary and legal realism

The Realist approach reveals the pragmatic approach which had its origin in America¹². Pragmatism was being regarded as the new name for some traditional ways of thinking and jurists denied to accept law as an abstract notion and tried to base it on proven facts and actions. In a realist sense, the jurists are inspired to focus more upon what the Courts would do rather than drawing abstract logical deductions from general rules and on the inarticulate ideological premises which underlies a legal system.

In India, the realistic sense judicial creativity can take encouraging forms but within the limits set forth by the Indian Constitution. So legal realism actually comes to a very pseudo sense because the Courts do not have unlimited discretion. The Constitution happens to be the principle law of the land and must be abided by in every step as it expresses the will of the people which is considered to be the root of democratic governance. So, Courts are free to act as a realist in India, provided they respect the spirit of the Constitution, because it is a necessary thought for the Courts to act with enthusiasm as legal progressivism depends upon the clarity and wisdom of the thoughts along with the conviction of the higher echelons of Judiciary.

Judiciary is the bedrock and handmaid of the democracy. If the people lose faith in the justice imparted by the Court of law then it would lead to the crumbling down of the entire democracy. With regard to India, progressive judicial activism, as against regressive judicial activism found its most favourable period during the post emergency era, the Court took action into wider access to justice exploring and innovating more affirmative procedures, and moulding dynamic remedies so that till-starred, disabled masses could move the Courts directly or through a NGO proxy, hence seeking relief to a whole lot of affected people.

In the case of All India Judges Association vs Union of India¹³ the Apex Court was of the opinion that “the conduct of every judicial officer should be above reproach. He should be conscitious, studious, thorough, courteous, patient, just, punctual, impartial, fearless of public clamour, regardless of public praise and indifferent to private, political or partisan influences, he should administer justice according to law and deal with his appointment as a public trust; he should not allow other affairs or his private interests to interfere with the prompt and proper performance of his judicial duties nor should he administer office for the purpose of advancing his personal ambitions or increasing his popularity”. If the Judicial Wing of the State experiences corruption, there will be enough means to deprive the Country of its Constitutional spirit and which emphasizes on the establishment of a egalitarian society and welfare state.

VII. Conclusion

The Indian judiciary is considered to be the custodian of the Indian Constitution. A significant change in the judicial attitude was observed in the late 1970s and the whole decade of 1980s.The landmark judgement of Keshavananda Bharti case¹⁴ had conclusively established that judicial supremacy related to constitutional interpretations hence allowing it to be a decisive and innovative role in evolving a new constitutional jurisprudence in the light of changing political and socio economic dimensions. Eventually through the cases of Bandhu Mukti Morcha (1984) and S P Gupta (1982) the Supreme Court stopped resorting to the doctrine of locus standi and decided to move away from conventional notions of standings. With the arrival of the Public Interest Litigation, the Supreme Court assumed epistolary jurisdiction. A PIL doctrine meant that any member of the public can move the Courts of law on behalf of the person or class of person who owing to their disadvantageous position have been unable to do so. Over the period of time, there has been a realisation in the judicial mainstream of India that imparting justice requires more than mere laws, the process in which justice attained is a fair one. This includes firstly an independent and impartial judicial system, secondly a independent and competent legal profession and thirdly procedural justice which is an essential element of a just legal system. This makes access to legal advice, assistance, representation and the guarantee of a fair trial absolutely necessary.

So, it can be concluded that Indian Jurisprudence cannot be strait-jacketed within the rigid brackets of Legal Realism and Legal Positivism. It must be realised that the all-public power is a sacred trust and must be subject to accountability and its process in this democracy can be corrected and of constructive criticism. Judges should be treated as a priestly class who cannot be questioned and is only answerable to the Almighty. In today’s date, the system suffers from no theoretical dilemma but a continuous single problem which is how to adapt to the ever changing conditions, the rigid principles of rule of law within the permissible mandate of the sacred constitutional scheme.

*****