Libertatem Magazine

H.L.A.Hart’s Concept of Law – a Summary

Contents of this Page


Jurisprudence is a name that is given to a particular sort of examination of the law, an examination of a theoretical, general, and hypothetical nature which tries to expose the fundamental standards of law and overall sets of laws. The word ‘jurisprudence’ is derived from the Latin word ‘jurisprudentia’ which signifies ‘information on law’. ‘Juris’ signifies law and ‘prudentia’ signifies expertise or information. Consequently, jurisprudence implies information on the law and its application. Jurisprudence is the investigation of major lawful standards. Various law specialists have given various meanings of the term jurisprudence according to follows:-

  • According to Salmond, jurisprudence is the ‘Study of the primary standards of the common law’.
  • According to Austin, jurisprudence is the ‘Reasoning of positive law’, and so on Sir Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart (H.L.A.Hart) is a persuasive legitimate educator. Hart altered the techniques for jurisprudence and the way of thinking of law. He composed ‘The Concept of Law’ and made significant commitments to the political way of thinking. He is viewed as the main contemporary delegate of British positivism. From his book, it shows that he was a phonetic, scholar, lawyer, and legal adviser. As per Hart, the law is an arrangement of rules.

As per Hart: “Where there is law, the human direct non-discretionary or mandatory.” Thus thought of commitment is at the centre of a Rule. Rules of commitment are upheld by extraordinary prevailing difficulties since they are felt important to keep up the general public. To Hart, the idea of law is comparable to the overall set of laws. Hart referenced that rules of law fall into various intelligent classifications that have unmistakable legitimate and social capacities. He recognized essential standards from auxiliary guidelines or obligation forcing rules from power giving principle.

Types of rules 

As indicated by Hart, Rules of Obligation are discernable from different rules in that they are upheld by extraordinary prevalent difficulty since they are felt to be important to look after society. Our soul additionally forces a commitment.

Having said this he discussed two sorts of rules:

  1. Primary rules:

Primary Rules are those rules which force ‘obligation on a citizen like criminal laws, misdeed, and so on. Primary rules advise individuals to get things done, or not to get things done.

Primary rules are ‘obligation forcing rules. They force certain particular obligations on the residents of the state to act in a specific way, or they might be dependent upon certain legitimate approvals. Hart portrays Primary rules as “fundamental rules. They mention to the resident what one should or shouldn’t do under the law. They set down obligations. These rules are to do with actual issues.

  1. Secondary rules: 

Secondary rules are one which let individuals, by doing certain things. present new rules of the principal kind, or adjust them. They give individuals (private people or public bodies) the ability to present or change the main sort of rule. Secondary rules are not obligation forcing rules. They are what Hart calls power-presenting rules. Auxiliary rules are those rules which affirm powers like Contract, Marriage, Will, Delegated Legislation – the ability to make law.

In the Indian Constitution, Schedule VII gives a rundown to be specific State, Centre, and Concurrent List, which present the capacity to separate organs to make laws. There is a connection between these Primary and Secondary rules. There is a particular connection between these rules which rather deliberately contains a general set of laws and lawful requests. Secondary rules have been isolated into three types, these are as per the following,

  1. Rule of Adjudication 

It essentially addresses those rules, which give an immediate ability to arbitrate the matter in question, for example, Article 32, which enables the Supreme Court to give right writ: Article 131, 132, 134, 133 that enable the Supreme Court the first and Appellate purview. Article 323A and 323 B engage courts to mediate the issue in question. Each one of those articles in the Constitution is power presenting. They empower a court to choose a specific debate.

  1. Rule of Change 

Law-production power is to be joined by adjustment when a skilful authoritative body inferred its ability to make law ought to have the ability to change the law. This force is important to influence any sort of warning, for example, Article 368 offers the capacity to Parliament to change the Constitution and system thereof. In this way, it enables the revision of the Constitution. This force incorporates the ability to revoke and eliminate challenges. It is similarly relevant to designated enactment.

  1. Rules of Recognition

This standard is the most vital and essential guideline of Secondary rules. It is that standard that perceives different rules. The standard of Recognition is the basis of the presence and legitimacy of the standard of the overall set of laws.

Hart accepts that the standard of Recognition is the most significant. The standard of Recognition reveals to us how to distinguish a law in the advanced framework with different wellsprings of law like a composed constitution, administrative authorizations, and legal points of reference, the rules of Recognition can be very unpredictable and require a chain of command where a few kinds of rules overrule others Hart holds this out for the solution for vulnerability.

Kelsen likewise discussed Recognition, for example, legitimacy and presence of standards are perceived by the fundamental structure. Here we can see the comparability between Hart and Kelsen on the point or rule of acknowledgement and Ground standard. In any case, Kelsen’s fundamental standard is Sui Generis, which needs to satisfy the trial of least adequacy; yet in Hart’s Rule of Recognition to an overall set of laws, to adequately enable, it needs to give two least tests or to satisfy two conditions on the foundation of which an overall set of laws could successfully be implemented.

Critique by professor Dworkin 

Prof. Hart considered a general set of laws a framework Prof. Hart on this point. Dworkin brought up that the general set of laws doesn’t involve just rules, it comprises standards too. So to call the overall set of laws of rules isn’t legitimate. Here and there those standards are a higher priority than those rules, for example, Rule of Natural Justice, which is expounded in Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India. The legal executive emphatically fuses the Principle of Natural Justice. So what Dworkin says is significant. If rules and standards collide, the rule gets power with abrogating impact overruled. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author