top of page
  • Janaan Naseeb


Author: Janaan Naseeb


INTRODUCTION Law plays a crucial role in establishing a society that is fair and peaceful. Its rules and regulations help in regulating people within a community. The legal validity of a law determines the extent to which it is enforced. If laws are made for political agendas, then the goal of having a fair society may be unattainable. Therefore, legal validity is essential in any legal system. Justice, on the other hand, represents what is just and right. To ensure fairness, impartiality, reasonableness, and correctness, the principle of justice is a key concept of law. In this article, we will delve into the validity of law and the principle of justice. [i]We will discuss what makes a law valid, the criteria used by the legal system to determine the validity of laws, and how the principle of justice is maintained to ensure the core and soul of the law. VALIDITY OF LAW Legal rules do not have truth or falsity, but an affirmation of the validity of a specific legal norm could be valid or invalid. As a result, current jurisprudence scholars have developed a set of validity standards that may be applied to every legal norm It is argued that legal rules or norms, like ethical norms, do not pretend to instruct men how to do anything; instead, they seek totell men what they will have to do. Historically speaking, groups of words which have been referred to as law have been described to as "valid" or "valid law," while groups of words whereby the designation law was thus withheld have been referred to as "invalid" or "invalid law," "Not valid law"or "invalid law." Norms of law are disregarded. Even though laws and legislations can be claimed to be accurate or incorrect, comments about the validity of a particular standard can be true or false.[ii] However Contemporary legal philosophers who reject the natural-law have proposed validity requirements. The validityof every given norm in a static system is established by how much component of that norm can be rationally deduced from the substance of the system's basic norms.[iii] The due processes provision in the American law doesn't really mention fairnessas a requirement of validityof law. Rather, it establishes a moral requirement for judges to employ direct authority under the law. The norm of legal validity determines the implementation of laws, and it strengthens or inhibits the governing ruler's power to implementtheir own will by legal force. Three major legal validity principles are used in Western law. Plato responded to Socrates' death by denouncing theSophists, reinvigorating the moral and historical components of laws, and developing a natural law norm of legal validity grounded on fundamental justice principles. The moral aspect of law is emphasized in natural law philosophy. The historical character of law isemphasized by the historicist school of thought.The political characterof law is stressed by legal positivism.[iv] THE SOPHISTS The Sophists were roaming philosophers who challenged Greek norms in faith, ethics, and political conductin the 5th century B. C. E. They denied the presenceof supernatural code of conducts and fundamental moral standards, therefore denying Hesiod'smoral component. They denied Hesiod'shistorical component by dismissing custom as having any ethical authority. Strength was fair, and law only existed in thepolitical realm as the power. Plato responded to Socrates' death by denouncing the Sophists, reinvigorating the moral and historical components of laws, and developing a naturallaw norm of legal validitygrounded on fundamental justice principles. BLACKSTONE Statements on the English Common law of Sir William Blackstone are the fundamental description of common law philosophy. Blackstone establishes two differentlegal validity standards: one grounded on custom another on natural law. The traditional aspect of law functions as the basic foundation of human law, providing a validity norm grounded on custom. The ancient dimension also underlines custom's sovereignty over political authorities' will. The moral aspect of law offers natural law-basedvalidity criteria. Natural rights are established as constraints on the political leaders will by the moral component, and these rights are protectedby judicial oversight. Seven components make up the custom validitycriterion. "Custom should have been employed for years, secondly; the custom should be followed consistently. Thirdly, the custom should be observed in a peaceful manner. Fourth, customs has to be "fair" and avoid causing undue burdens. Fifth, the custom has to be certain, Sixth, adherence must be a legal requirement. Finally, customs must be followed consistently. The moral aspect of law establishes a norm of legal validity derived from natural law. Natural lawapplies everywhere, throughout all nations, everywhere at all periods. If human laws contradict with natural law, they are invalid, because valid human laws draw all of their power and validityfrom natural law. BENTHAM The moral and historical components of law are rejected by legal positivism as origins of law or criteria of legal validity. He contends that without the establishment of asovereign authority, no laws can exist, and therefore no rights could emerge before the establishment of a government. To summaries, the sovereign's will establishes its unique legal validity norms free frommorals, tradition, or legal autonomy. AUSTIN As the exclusive source of law and legal legitimacy, the Province of Jurisprudence Definedby Austin specifies law's political component. Austin's "command" theoryof law, like Bentham’s "imperative" theory, sets the political leader's desire itself as a norm of legal validity. Judges are encouraged to interpret the law. Judgesmust have the authority to establish new laws in order to repair lawmakers' incompetence and ineptitude. GUSTAV RADBRUCH: Gustav Radbruch uses legal past to support a validity criterion that invokes the moral aspect of law. Radbruch's notion is a legal validity norm that invokes the ethical component of law. German court system has employed these validity criteria, identified as "Radbruch's Formula." In the pursuit of justice, when the gap among both justice and statutory law became "unbearable," the law is declared void ab initio. According to "Radbruch's Formula," these statutes are void from the start since they are not true laws. Validity norms are the most commonly used approach through which communities refuse to acknowledge unfair leaders immunity from prosecution. The norm of legal validity determines the ruler's power to implement his will by legal compulsion, and it controls the implementation of legislation. HART Merely two criteria must be fulfilled for a legal system to be valid. First and foremost, individuals and firms must adhere to the basic laws of responsibility. It is sufficient for folks to approach primary rules from the outside. Secondly, as a "public norm of official behavior," public authorities must embrace the norm of recognition, which specifies the conditions for legal validity. It is a bare minimum need that officials consider secondary rules from an internal perspective. Hart's legal validity test only applies to the political component of law. The legitimacy of legislation is based on the political authorities' will through the establishment of a law of recognition. The judicial system's validity is also determined by the political authorities' desire. The acceptance of the basic point of view by the political leaders seems to be the essential requirement for a functioning legalsystem. Hart's legal validity criterion ignores the historic component. For instance, Hart ignores two of the real historical dimension's and customary limitations on the political leader's decision. Rather, Hart's political rulers govern the norm of legal validity, giving them influence over through the law. Hart's legal validity is unaffected by permission. Hart also ignores the moral aspect of law in his legal validity criteria. Hart believes that laws that are "morally iniquitous" are legal. PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE Justice is the basic attribute of social organizations, just as truthfulness is the fundamental asset of philosophical systems. A concept must be altered; similarly, laws and organizations, regardless of how efficient, must be altered if they arefactually incorrect. Justice-assured rights are not vulnerable to political wrangling. A collection of principles is needed to choose between the many social systemsthat decide allocation of benefits, as well as to underpina consensus on the appropriate distribution proportions. These constitute the principles of social justice: they describe the fair allocation of the rewards and responsibilities of social partnership and give a manner of allocating rights and duties in society's basic organizations.[v] A well social organisation's core charter could be thought of as a public vision of justice. Existing civilizations are rarely well-ordered in this regard, because what is equitable and unfair is frequently contested. Men are divided on which is the best. The fundamental conditions of their cooperation should be defined by principles. Principles explain which similarities and distinctions among people are significant in deciding rights and duties, as well as the proper sharing of benefits. [vi] WHY PRINCIPLEOF JUSTICE BECOMES IMPORTANT? Every well organised community must prioritise justice. The notions of fair conduct and "fair play" must regulateall types of commerce and engagement in a community, according to the principlesof justice . They act as guides for enforcing the law. Each one of the justice concepts, predictably, could be utilized in a range of situations. Conflict over what is just might take the form of disagreement over whether principle of justice must be implemented in a certain scenario and exactly this principle must be carriedout. Communities that directly utilize justice principles, on the contrary side, seem to be better durable, and their members feel happy and safe. In the basic condition, beneath the curtain of cluelessness, independent, equitable, ethical, and reasonable humans would rationally decide whether to embrace the principles of justice as fairness, hence the principles are founded, according to John Rawls. Rawls' view of justice as fairness is a subjective one; while some people may embrace it, it is difficult for it to be embracedby all people in the real world.[vii] CONCLUSION The concept of legal validity would show that any law's genuine validity is constantly based upon law's inherent fundamental moral justification. For understand why, we must separate the three meanings of the term "valid." Certain laws seem valid since they ought to be followed. Most laws are lawful since they are assertedto be enforced by a specific legal framework. And certain laws are validmorally in the meaning that they couldbe deemed legalvalid. Rawls advancesand extends the principles of justice by stating that everyone has an equal opportunity to the greatest comprehensive complete network of identical basic freedoms possible with a comparable structure of liberty for all. Disparities in socioeconomic factors are to be organized for the ultimate value of the working poor, in accordance with the reasonable savings concept, and linked to posts and professions accessible to all with equality.

REFERENCES [i] Fali S. Nariman, Are Impediments to Free Expression in The Interest of Justice, 4 CIJL Yearbook, (1995). [ii] H.M SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 723 (Law and Justice Publishing Co, 4th ed. 2021). [iii] Mortimer N.S. Sellers, The Actual Validity of Law University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law, 1992 available at: [iv] HENRY CAMPELL BLACK, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (West Publishing Co, 4th ed. 1968). [v] Jawaharlal Nehru, Discovery of India (London, 1956), 369-370 [vi] K.V. Punnaiah , The Constitutional History of India (Allahabad, 1938) 10. [vii] Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (1973), Transnational Relations and World Politics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

52 views0 comments


bottom of page