Q1.) What is Hohfeldian Analysis?

Hohfeld propounded eight fundamental conceptions that are: rights(claims), duties, privileges,
no-rights, powers, liabilities, immunities, and disabilities which he called “the lowest common
denominators of law” . the basic Jural relations were shown by use of these eight conceptions in
table of jural correlatives and jural opposites.”

Rights cannot exist in jural vacuum, the specific forms of rights has its jural correlatives namely:
claim-duty, liberty – no claim, power-liability, immunity-disability. Legal rights in strict sense
constitute the correlatives of legal duties. Hohfeld split up the concepts embodied in the
‘right’(in its wider sense) and to give them precise meanings of articulating a scheme of ‘jural
relations’ and ‘jural opposites’. The term jural signifies that which pertains to the law or rights.
The term “jural correlation” signify that two things that occur together. The term “jural
opposites” signify that no pair of opposites can co-exist in the same person.

Jural correlations includes (1) Right and No-right (2) Privilege and Duty (3) Power and
Disability and (4) Immunity and Liability while jural opposites includes (1) Right and Duty (2)
Privilege and No-right (3) Power and Liability and (4) Immunity and Disability.

While Hohfeld has defined the correlatives in terms of a bipartite relationship, the opposites have
been explained with reference to a single person.

The first table is referred to as static in nature, as opposed to the second table which is dynamic.
The difference between the two tables is caused by the concept of power, which can be defined
as some force which changes the legal position of an entity.

For instance, X has a right to write on the board. Due to this, some other person, say Y will have
the duty to honor the rights of X and not to interfere with them. In another instance, X may have
the privilege to write on the board. This implies that he does not have a duty of not writing on the
board.

In the aforementioned instances, the former was a relationship shown through correlative
concepts, while the latter was shown through opposite concepts of privilege and duty.

Q2.) WHERE DOES THE HOHFELDIAN TRIANGLE OF POSSIBILITIES FALL

There are many problems with Hohfeld’s analysis. First, while he claims to analyze fundamental
legal concepts, he does not attempt to define what it is that gives his conceptions their ‘legal
character’, nor does he have any concept of law. Secondly, there is no adequate clarification of
what legal relations really mean. There is no discussion of the role that legal concepts play.
Without any real examination of the question, Hohfeld seems to assume that the word ‘right’
denotes some entity. Thirdly, other concepts are also explained inadequately. For instance, power
is described in terms of control. But control itself is not further discussed.

Due to the confusion created by Hohfel’s analysis through square, it was suggested by several
jurists to use a triangle instead of a square, in order to represent the possibility theories by
Hohfeld. Three triangles were used to show 3 perspectives of law and the 3 stakeholders.

a. Conduct required by law (perspective of law)

c. Right (perspective of the person who right is supported or promoted)

The triangle helps eradicate the arbitrariness that was present in the quadrilateral figures.

Q3.) EXPLAIN RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 WITH REFERENCE TO

The citizens of a country are liable to show their obedience towards the government. This
obedience, in its most basic form, refers to adherence of the rules and regulations laid down by
the latter in exercise of its power. In return of this obedience, the citizens get the right (in the
form of ‘power’)to hold the government accountable and the latter becomes liable to provide the
public with the record of work that it has done. This is the true essence of the RTI Act, 2005
which can be easily explained through the Hohfeldian analysis.

Thus, in a nutshell, a citizen’s liability to abide by the rules and regulations laid down by the
government in exercise of its power gets transformed into the former’s power to hold the
government accountable and make it liable to provide the information sought after by the people
of the country.

However, in 2017, the Delhi High Court ruled out a judgement that removed the office of the
Attorney General of India from the ambit of the RTI Act, therefore, giving it a privilege or a
liberty. All the other offices that still remain under the scope of the act, however, have no claim.