JURISPRUDENCE

Jurisprudence, the study of legal philosophy, often delves into the

intricate relationships between law, morality, ethics, and justice. While
these terms may seem interchangeable, they have distinct meanings
and implications within the legal context.

Law
Law is a system of rules and regulations enforced by a governing
authority.
It is designed to maintain order, protect rights, and regulate behaviour
within a society. Laws are typically derived from legislation, judicial
decisions, and customary practices. They are often enforced through
legal institutions, such as courts and law enforcement agencies.
Moral
Morality refers to a set of principles and beliefs about what is right and
wrong.
It is often grounded in cultural, religious, or philosophical values.
Morality is subjective and can vary across different societies and
individuals. While laws may be based on moral principles, they are not
always morally justified.
Ethics
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with questions of morality
and right and wrong. It is concerned with the principles and values that
guide human behaviour. Ethics can be both individual and societal, and
it often involves considerations of fairness, justice, and human well-
being.
Justice
Justice is a concept that involves fairness, impartiality, and the
equitable distribution of benefits and burdens.
It is often associated with the idea of "getting what one deserves."
Justice can be both procedural and substantive. Procedural justice
refers to the fairness of the legal process, while substantive justice
refers to the fairness of the outcome of the legal process.

LAW VS MORALITY
Law and Morality are two systems that govern the way humans behave.
Law is a body of rules and regulations that all people are mandatorily
obligated to adhere to. Morals, on the other hand, refer to general
principles or standards of behavior that define human conduct within
society but are not compulsory to be followed.

Law is a system of rules and regulations which are enforced by a

governing authority in order to regulate human behavior in society.
Laws are designed to maintain order, protect individual rights, and
promote the common good within a society.
Morality is a system of personal beliefs about right and wrong. It is
often influenced by cultural, religious, or philosophical values. Morality
is internalized and guides individual behavior, regardless of whether it
is legally mandated or prohibited.
1. Law is derived from an external source which means that it is
obtained through rules and regulations. Morality emerges from
internal sources, i.e. it comes from the individual mind of a
person.
 2. Law treats all people in the same manner and doesn’t change
from person to person but morality is a subjective concept.
3. Morality has influenced the creation of laws but morality existed
in society since even before legal implications were discussed.
4. Disobedience of the law leads to punishment but there are no
repercussions of doing anything morally wrong.
5. Laws lay down mandatory behaviour that is expected out of the
people who are governed under the said law. However, morality
does not lay down strict guidelines of how one should behave but
is a more personal concept.
Aspect Law Morality

A system of rules enforced A set of ethical principles or

Definition by institutions to regulate values that guide individual
behavior in society. or societal behavior.
Enforced by formal Enforced through personal
Enforcement institutions like courts, conscience, societal norms,
police, and government. and social pressure.
Created by legislative Derived from cultural,
Source bodies, courts, or governing religious, or philosophical
authorities. beliefs.
Focuses on external Governs internal attitudes,
behavior and societal order intentions, and ethical
Scope
(e.g., contracts, criminal choices, in addition to
law). behavior.

Violations result in Violations may lead to feelings

Sanctions penalties such as fines, of guilt, shame, or social
imprisonment, or disapproval, but no formal
 community service. punishment.
To maintain order, protect To promote ethical conduct,
Objective rights, and ensure justice goodness, and the well-being
within a structured society. of individuals and society.

A study of the relationship between law and morals can be made from
three angles:
1. Morals as the basis of law
2. Morals as the test of (positive) law
3. Morals as the end of law
Morals as basis of law:
 As observed earlier, in the early stages of the society no distinction
was made between law and morals. All the rules originated from the
common source, and the sanction behind them was the same
nature. Therefore, it could be said that law and morals have a
common origin but diverge in their development.
 Professor hart says that, “shared morality is essential to the
existence of an society and each society has their own morals”.
 As the law and morals have come from the common stock, many
rules are common to both. For example, to kill a man or to steal, are
acts against law and morals both. Law essentially involves certain
basic principles such as the principle of fairness and equality, and
these principles are derived from ethics and morals.
 In law making or legal interpretation, morals play a vital role in
perfecting the law.
Morals as test (positive) of law:
 The entire purpose of the existence of laws is to ensure justice in
society and do what is best for the welfare of all the people.
 Since the principle of justice is well under the ambit of
morality, many jurists are of the opinion that there must not be any
contradiction between law and morality.
 Any law which does not abide by moral standards should be
removed and whether a law is right or wrong can be evaluated based
on whether it is in consonance with moral values.

Morals as end of law:

 As stated before, the end goal of enacting laws is to maintain a
society that is based on principles of justice, fairness, and equality.
 The entire purpose of having certain moral standards is also to
maintain some sort of order in the society which would lead to fewer
conflicts. This shows that more or less, the purpose of both these
phenomena is the same.
 It is believed by jurists that if the law is to stay involved in the lives of
people, then it cannot ignore morals. If there is a law that is against
moral standards, people may be hesitant to obey it which will create
further conflicts within the society.
 Morals have a great influence in law, quoted by hart in his concept of
law book.

LAW AND ETHICS

 A law can be defined as a set of rules and regulations that are used
for regulating human behaviour and administrating the justice in the
established society. Ethics refers to the basic values that an individual
should have as a member of society. These ethics are not codified or
uniform across the regions, as different communities might have
different values and ethics, which are then passed on from one
generation to the other through word of mouth.
 Uniformity: All the laws are made in the country to apply to all the
people. No other individual or entity is allowed to make the laws.
This helps in ensuring uniformity of rules in the country that are to
be followed by all. Ethics can’t be made applicable to the people of
an entire country. The main reason behind it is that different people
follow different customary practices that might be unique to their
own community or group. As a result, these practices might even be
conflicting at times.
 Religion: Religion have no role play in the formulation of laws. Most
ethical values are determined by society or any group on the basis of
religion. The religion being followed by a particular community
determines the ethics and traditions that it needs to follow
 Flexibility: Laws can be both flexible as well as rigid at the same
time. With the changing needs of society, the laws are required to be
changed to accommodate the new ideas and the vision of the
people. Ethics is far more rigid in comparison to laws because these
are followed by the people in a given community since time
immemorial and without any stoppages.
 Objectives: Law has various objectives such as administration of
justice, Ensuring peace and stability, Enhances social, political, and
economic development whereas The objective of ethics, on the
other hand, is to make people aware of the difference between right
and wrong so that they become good citizens and protect the moral
rights of others. These provide a template for people of the basic
conduct and nature they should have in society.
 Law is obligatory in nature but ethics are not obligatory in nature.
 For the breach of any law, a person could be penalized in the form of
some fine or punishments. No punishment or penalty could be
inflicted upon a person if he/she doesn’t follow the ethical standards
laid down in any society.
 The laws are legally enforceable by the state upon the citizens. Ethics
are not enforceable or binding on any person.
LAW AND JUSTICE:
 Law is an instrument of justice. The term law refers to rules and
regulations which are enforced by the governing authority to
regulate the human behaviour in the society. Justice is not a
universally recognised concept and is subject to interpretations.
Justice is representing equality and fairness, and applying laws and
regulations to all individuals without discrimination.
 Laws apply within one country and to all individual under the
government’s jurisdiction. Justice is the underlying principle upon
which all laws should be based. Yet, there is no implementation of
justice as such, but laws and norms can be implemented and
enforced in a just and fair way by judges, governments, lawyers and
international bodies.
 Courts of law are called as court of justice as justice should be
administrated based on the provisions of law.
There are 2 kinds of justice:
 Legal Justice is governed by the law of the State. Whereas, natural
justice relies on conscience rather than legal principles. Natural
justice rules are not written into law, but they are principles
inculcated in men's consciences.
 Natural justice simply refers to the process of making a reasonable
decision on a specific issue. Legal justice refers to the rule of law, not
the rule of any individual. It states two things: that all men are equal
before the law and that the law applies equally to all. It gives
everyone legal protection.

SOURCES OF LAW
Sources of law means the origin from which rules of human conduct
come into existence and derive legal force or binding characters. It also
refers to the sovereign or the state from which the law derives its force
or validity.
The rules of human code of conduct or the sources of law is being
derived from the Primary and secondary sources.
Primary sources which include:
Customs
Statues or legislation
Judical precedents or decisions
Personal laws

Customs:
 Customs are obligatory in nature and can be defined as unwritten
rules or practices that are widely followed by people for long period
of time. During ancient times people were governed by customs.
Later these customs were adopted by other major social institutions
 During Hindu marriage ceremony, couple is supposed to take seven
round of holy fire. This is a well established custom and this
customary practice of seven rounds was codified in section 7 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
 All customs cannot be recognised as a law. Customs must be
practicing for a long period of time, it need to be reasonable in
nature and doesn’t violate the morality or established norms and
values of the society. In addition to it, custom must not be opposite
to prevailing legislation. There are several cases where customs are
abrogated by law (e.g. Child marriage, dowry, etc.).
Analytical school of Jurisprudence:
Introduction:
The study of jurisprudence encompasses various schools of thought
that seek to understand the nature, purpose, and characteristics of law.
One prominent school in this field is the Analytical School of
Jurisprudence.
Analytical school is known by different names, it is known as positive
school because the jurist of this school is concerned neither with the
past nor with the future of law but with law as it exists. This school was
dominant in England and is popularly known as English school. Its
founder was John Austin and hence it is also called Austinian school.

Purpose of Analytical school:

Analytical school – What law is, not on the law ought to be
The main objective of the Analytical School of Jurisprudence is to
examine and understand the law which is currently existing in its
present form. Rather than engaging in hypothetical or normative
discussions about how the law should be, the Analytical School did not
rely on the concept of ‘law ought to be’ instead considered the concept
of ‘law as its is’ existing. They also considered that law contains no
relation with moral principles.
In this school of thought, law is seen as the direction given by the
Sovereign authority. It seeks to define the relationship between law
and the state, as well as analyse the authority and power structures
that shape legal systems.

Features of Analytical school:

This school of thought differentiates between law and justice,
considering them as distinct concepts. It focuses on the analysis of legal
rules and their application, rather than the pursuit of justice.
The Analytical School opposes natural law theories that rely on
rationalization, nature, God, and emphasize ethical and moral
considerations. It seeks to provide an alternative perspective that
focuses solely on the factual aspects of the law.
The Analytical School argues that law has no inherent moral aspect. It
asserts that the law should be studied and understood based on its
factual characteristics and without considering moral or ethical
principles.
According to the Analytical School, law is founded on the authority and
power of those who enact and enforce it. It views law as a product of
human will and the actions of sovereign authorities.
The Analytical School of Jurisprudence seeks to differentiate between
how the law currently exists and how it should be. It focuses on
analysing positive law, which refers to the laws that are actually
enforced and recognized by the government and legal authorities.

Principles of the Analytical School

Law as a Product of Human Will: Analytical Jurists assert that law is a
product of human will, meaning it is created by someone or some
authority. They believe that law is not derived from any inherent moral
or natural principles.
Command, Sanction, and Sovereign Authority: According to Analytical
Jurists, every law must consist of three elements: sovereign authority
command and sanction. A law represents a command by a sovereign
authority, directing individuals to do or refrain from specific actions,
with the threat of punishment for non-compliance.
Focus on Positive Law: The Analytical School concentrates on positive
law, which refers to the laws that are actually enforced and recognized
by the government and legal authorities. It emphasizes studying the
factual aspects of the law, rather than speculative or normative
theories.
Separation of Law and Morality: The Analytical School argues that law
should be separate from moral principles. It disregards moral
considerations in the analysis and interpretation of law, focusing solely
on positive law as it exists.

The chief exponents of the positivist or analytical school in england are

Jermy bentham, austin, hla hart, salmond, holland.

Jeremy Bentham:
Jeremy Bentham is recognized as one of the key advocates of the
Analytical School of Jurisprudence. His legal philosophy focuses on
concepts such as sovereignty, command, and utility.
He recognised the contrast between what society desired and what
was logically necessary. Bentham also acknowledged the concept of
divided and partial sovereignty while discussing the legal limitations
that sovereign authorities might encounter. Unlike Austin, Bentham’s
theory placed less emphasis on sanctions. He believed that a
sovereign’s decree would constitute a law, even if supported solely by
religious or moral consequences.
Bentham also critiqued the common law system, which was often seen
as the exclusive realm of legal professionals like lawyers and judges,
who used complex and technical language to obscure the law from the
understanding of ordinary citizens. This, in Bentham’s view,
perpetuated a myth. He believed that lawyers were experts in “artificial
reason,” a concept originally proposed by Coke.
He preferred to divide jurisprudence into ‘expository’ and ‘censorial’
jurisprudence. Expository or analytical jurisprudence is concerned with
law, it is without any regard to its moral or immoral character. On the
other hand censorial jurisprudence is concerned with ‘science of
legislation’ that is what the law ought to be.
Bentham's theory of law is closely associated with utilitarianism, which
emphasizes the promotion of the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people. He defined utility as the tendency of something to
prevent pain or procure pleasure.
According to Bentham, legislation should aim to provide sustenance,
generate abundance, ensure equality, and preserve security. However,
his hedonistic doctrine, which evaluates laws based on pleasure and
pain, has faced criticism, with some arguing that pleasure and suffering
alone cannot be the ultimate measure of a law's suitability.
While he supported the idea of laissez-faire in economics (minimal
government intervention in economic activities), he advocated for
utilitarianism, which meant that the primary purpose of legislation
should be to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number
of people.
Bentham in his book ‘limits of jurisprudence defined’ said that its duty
of state to provide maximum happiness and maximum liberty. In other
words he means to test every laws and keep a check whether they are
providing maximum happiness and liberty, leading to principle of utility
i.e. ‘Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number of People’.
Bentham had defined law with the help of two important aspects such
as;
Law is “Happiness is the Greatest Good”: According to Bentham, the
laws framed must promote pleasure and decrease any kind of pain to
human beings.
Law is the command of the sovereign: The concept of sovereignty came
into existence by Bentham before Austin would compose it. Bentham
says the law is the command given by the sovereign.

Bentham’s Philosophy of Individualism

The legal philosophy of Bentham is called “Individualism” because he
was an individualist and propounded that the law is to be made for the
emancipation of the individuals and restraining on their freedom.

Principle Of Utility
According to him the consequences of good and evil are respectively
‘pleasure’ and ‘pain. In simple words, the basic thing which come under
principle of utility i.e. pleasure and pain. Principle of utility recognizes
the role of pleasure and pain as human life.
Pleasure = ‘everything that is good’
Pain = ‘everything that is bad or evil’.
Therefore, keeping the consequences of good and bad in human life
the principle approves or dis-approves action on the basis of pleasure
and pain. He believed that happiness of social order is to be
understood in the objective sense and it broadly includes satisfaction of
certain needs, such as need to be fed, clothed, housed etc. According
to him, happiness changes its significance in the same way as the
meaning also undergoes changes with the changes in societal norms.
Laissez Faire
He believed that, we must remove the hurdles between human beings
and freedom. Because when every individual will enjoy his freedom, he
himself will start about his own welfare. In other words he meant ‘let
the men free’ leading to minimum interference of the state in
economic activities of individuals.

Criticism:
His theory ignores balancing the interest of the individual with the
community’s interest.
His principle of utilitarianism says about pain and pleasure are the final
and ultimate test of the adequacy of law but they cannot be defined as
the final test.
His theory was in the form of Laissez-Faire policy which harms the
individuals in the society majorly on poor section people.
Sole importance given on pleasure which is quantified is not a proper
decision.
SOURCES OF LAW:
There are various sources from which we derive law. Several jurists and
scholars have attempted to classify the sources of law.
John Salmond, a legal scholar renowned for his ideologies on law in the
field of jurisprudence, classified the sources of law into mainly two
categories,i.e.,
Material sources
Formal sources.

Material sources are sources of law are those sources from which the
law gets its content or matter, but there is no validity. There are two
types of material sources which are legal sources and historical sources.
Formal sources are source of law are the instruments through which
the state manifests its will. In general, statutes and judicial precedents
are the modern formal sources of law. Law derives its force, authority,
and validity from its formal sources.

Material sources
There are two types of material sources which are legal sources and
historical sources.
Historical sources
Historical sources are sources that influence the development of law
without giving effect to its validity or authority. These sources influence
legal rules indirectly. The difference between legal and historical
sources is that all laws have a historical source but they may or may not
have a legal source. Decisions given by foreign courts serve as an
example for this kind of source.
Legal sources are the instruments or organs of the state used to create
new legal rules. They are authoritative in nature and followed by courts
of law. These are the sources or instruments that permit newer legal
principles to be created.
According to Salmond, in English law legal sources of English law can be
further classified into five categories-
Legislation,
Precedent,
Customs
Conventional law.
Professional opinions

Legislation:
Legislation refers to law making process in which which are rules or
laws enacted by the legislative organ of the government. It is one of the
most important sources of law in jurisprudence. The word legislation is
derived from the words legis and latum, where legis means law
and latum means making.
According to salmond, legislation is the declaration of legal rules by a
competent authority, hence legislative has law making power. It is the
from of written law having force authority.
According to john austin, there can be no law without a legislative
enactment, legislation can also be called as enacted law or statute law.
According to Salmond, legislation can be classified into two types-
Supreme and Subordinate.
Supreme legislation
Legislation enacted by a supreme or sovereign law-making body is said
to be Supreme legislation. The body must be powerful to the extent
that the rules or laws enacted by it cannot be changed or modified by
another body. Indian Parliament cannot be said to be a sovereign law-
making body as the laws passed by the parliament can be challenged in
the courts. The British Parliament, on the other hand, can be said to be
a sovereign law-making body since the law passed by it cannot be
challenged in any court.

Subordinate legislation
Legislation enacted by a subordinate law-making body is said to be
subordinate legislation. The subordinate body must have derived its
law-making authority from a sovereign law-making body. It is subject to
the control of the supreme legislative body.
The following are the different kinds of subordinate legislation:
Executive legislation: This is a form of subordinate legislation where the
executive is granted or conferred certain law-making powers in order to
carry out the functions of the legislature.
Colonial legislation: Many territories across the globe were colonised
by Britain and such territories were called colonies. The legislation
passed by the legislature of such colonies was subject to the control of
the British Parliament.
Judicial legislation: Courts also have a role in enacting laws that aid in
regulating the internal affairs and functioning of courts.
Municipal legislation: Municipal authorities also possess the law-
making power as they enact bye-laws.
Autonomous legislation: Another kind of legislation is autonomous
legislation, which is concerned with bodies like universities,
corporations, clubs, etc.
Delegated legislation: Sometimes legislative powers may be delegated
to certain bodies by the parliament through principal legislation. A
principal act may create subsidiary legislation that can make laws as
provided in the principal legislation.
(1) Colonial Legislation – Colonial Legislation is the outcome of colony
or colonies.

(2) Executive Legislation – These powers are expressly delegated to the

executive by the parliament.

(3) Judicial Legislation – The Superior courts especially Supreme Court

and High Courts of the State have the power of Making rules for the
regulation of their own procedure.

(4) Municipal Legislation – Municipal authorities are empowered and

entrusted with the power of establishing special laws for the Districts
under their Control.

(5) Autonomous Legislation – These are the bodies of Private Persons,

they make rules for the regulation and functioning of their offices.

Precedent:
Precedents refer to the decisions given by courts in different cases. It is
also known as case laws or judicial decision or judicial precedents. A
judicial decision has a legal principle where the subordinate court has
to necessarily follow it. Once a court has delivered a judgement on a
particular case, the courts subordinate to it, must abide by the
precedent while deciding on similar cases with similar facts.

Some of the most influential judicial precedents in India are the

following:
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala (1973): This case is
what introduced the concept of the basic structure doctrine in
India, protecting the fundamental features of the Indian
Constitution from being removed.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. the Union of India (1978): The court
held Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 as void since it
violated Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Indra Sawhney v. the Union of India (1992): This judgement set a
ceiling of 50% for reservation of backward classes. It also held that
the criteria of classifying groups as backward classes cannot be
limited to economic backwardness.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis

Judicial Precedents is another one of the most important legal sources

of law.

Judicial Precedent is based on the doctrine ‘stare decisis’, it simply

means adhering and relying on earlier decisions made by the courts;
i.e., for instance if high court decides on a particular case and a similar
situation comes to the lower court, the lower court will treat the case
alike and pass the judgement same as done by the high court. This is
because the high court has set a precedent for the lower court and the
lower courts are bound to follow it.

The decisions of the lower bench can always be overruled by the higher
bench by giving valid reasons. In Union of India Vs K.S. Subramanium[3]
- AIR 1976 SC 2435- In this case when there was an inconsistency in the
decision between the benches of the same court, the decision of the
larger bench was followed.

Key principles of judicial precedent Consistency, Hierarchy, Bound by

their own decisions

In India, subordinate courts needed to follow the precedents of higher

courts, and high courts are bound by their own precedents. But when it
comes to High Courts, the decision of one High Court is not binding on
the other High Courts. Their decisions are binding on the subordinate
courts. In cases where there are conflicts between decisions of court
with the same authority, the latest decision is to be followed. As per
Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court’s decisions
are binding on all the courts across the country. However, the Supreme
Court’s decisions are not binding on itself. In subsequent cases where
there are sufficient reasons to deviate from the earlier decision, the
Supreme Court can do so.

Types of precedents
Authoritative and Persuasive
Authoritative precedents are those precedents that should be followed
by subordinate courts whether they approve of it or not. They create
direct and definite rules of law. They fall into the category of legal
sources of law.
Persuasive precedents on the other hand, in which the judges have no
binding obligation to follow it. Persuasive precedents can be followed
as per the discretion of the judge. But they can the judgement as
important and taken into considering while approaching final decision.
The decision of one high court is not necessarily to be followed by the
other high court where they can take them as important and references
while final approaching the final one.
Authoritative precedents can be classified into the following two types:
Absolute authoritative
An absolutely authoritative precedent is binding on subordinate courts
in an absolute manner and it cannot be disobeyed even if it is wrong.
Conditional authoritative
A conditionally authoritative precedent is binding on other judges but it
can be disregarded in certain special circumstances as long as the judge
shows the reason for doing so.
Original precedent:
Original precedent is made when is no any previous judgement on
point of law. In simple words, law making by the judges is known as
orginal judgement. The role of judges is creative, particulary when law
is unwritten. According to the various circumstances, the judges frame
new rules and regulations. It is the duty of the judge to make law.
Eg: Vishaka vs state of rajasthan
Declaratory precedent:
According to Salmond, a declaratory precedent is a precedent that
when judges declares an already existing law in a judgement. It is a
application of law. It is not the duty of the judges to make laws only
legislature is empowered to enact laws. But the judge discover the
existing law on a particular point and declare it.

Custom:
Custom is one of the oldest sources of law and they form the basis of
the English common law system . A custom refers to a habitual or usual
practice that has taken on legal force due to long-continued uniformity
of acts. Custom emerges from the repeated behaviors of people in
society over an extended period. When a specific pattern of conduct
becomes widely accepted within a community, it can evolve into a
binding custom or rule. Courts recognize valid customs as authoritative
rules of law.

Essentials of Valid Custom

In order to enforce a valid, there are some essentials and grounds
which will qualify as a valid custom and therefore could be recognized
by judiciary and legislature. The grounds of valid custom as follows.
1. Immemorial Antiquity: A valid custom must be ancient and its
origin must be obscure and uncertain. English courts presume
customs dating from 1189 or earlier to be immemorial. [29]
Although Indian courts do not insist on a fixed period, the custom
cannot be of recent origin. [30]
2. Reasonableness: The custom must be fair, certain, and
reasonable. [31] Courts deny validity to customs that are
uncertain, obsolete or manifestly absurd. [32] However,
reasonableness is presumed unless the party challenging the
custom proves otherwise. [33]
3. Certainty: A custom must be precise, definite, and unambiguous.
An uncertain, vague or fluctuating practice cannot constitute a
legally binding custom. [34]
4. Consistency: A valid custom must be consistent with statutes.
Customs cannot modify or nullify statutory laws. [35]
5. Continuity: The custom must have been peaceably and freely
practiced without interruption. Temporary disregard does not
destroy a custom but discontinuance of the right extinguishes it.
[36]
 6. Moral Acceptability: An immoral custom is not enforceable.
Practices like ritual prostitution, though ancient, are void for being
repugnant to morality.
7. Obligatory Observance: The custom must be regarded as
obligatory. Optional practices do not qualify as binding customs.
[38]
8. Conformity with Public Policy: A custom opposing public policy
lacks validity.

Classification of Custom:
Customs can be mainly classified into four types which are as follows.
Legal Customs
A custom which is based on rules of law is known as legal custom. A
legal custom acquires the force of law. Its legal authority is absolute.
They are upheld by the courts in their judicial pronouncements.
Local Custom
A local custom is that which is practised in some characterized locality,
that is, to an area, town or then again a zone. Some of the time, certain
groups or families take their customs with them wherever they go.
They also are called local customs. Consequently, in India local customs
might be separated into two classes; Land local custom‘ and individual
local custom. These customs are law just for a specific locality, sects or
family.
General Customs
A custom which is followed by all the members of society is called
general custom. The application of such custom is general and applies
to public in general.
Conventional Customs
A custom which is based on a agreement between two or more parties
to regulate their mutual parties is called as conventional custom.

Professional opinion:
Professional opinion is an important source of law which has 4 types,
they are:
Obiter dictum
The statement of law, made in the legal profession forms the basis of
legal principles. This statement can be unnecessary or irrelevant to the
case, those unnecessary statement laid down the rule is called as obiter
dictum
Opinion of jury consultant
In Rome, the opinion of jury consultant are the question raised by the
students of law formed the basis for creation of new law.
Opinion of legal profession
Judges, lawyers, professors their opinion have greater value in the
establishment of effective legal system.
Opinion of writers of text books
The opinion of writers of text books had quality influenced in the
formation of legal principles

Conventional law as source of law:

Conventional laws are made by way of treaties, agreements, etc., and
these are harmonized by the United Nations. Countries who are
members of the United Nations have to accept such rules or norms laid
down by the organization, and abide by such statutes or rules and also
such members also have to frame laws in conformity with such rules.
And hence International conventions have an important role in framing
new laws or making amendments to existing laws.

Rule of law
“No men is above the law”
“State is governed, not by the ruler or the nominated representatives
of the people but by the law”
The expression “Rule of Law” is derived from the French phrase ‘le
principe de legalite’ meaning the principle of legality.
The rule of Law is one of the basic and general principles of the
constitution. Every person in land, no matter how powerful or high in
status he may be, law will always be above them.
Prof Wade expressed- “The rule of law requires that the government
should be subject to the law rather than the law subject to the
government”
The doctrine of rule of law has been described as supremacy of the law.
This means that where there is rule of law no person can be said to be
above the law, even the functions and actions of the executive organ of
the state shall be within the ambit of the law.
The aim of rule of law like other constitutional principles is the uplifting
of freedom and fundamental rights of the people. The rule of law has
propounded to make sure that the executive doesn’t use law of the
land or country to oppress or curtail freedom of individuals

History:
The origin of his doctrine was attributed to Sir Edward Coke. He
introduced for the first time that, ‘King is under God and the Law.’
Dicey, as he is known to be the main exponent of the concept of rule of
law. Dicey, in his book Law and Constitution in the year 1885 further
developed this concept given by Coke.

According to Dicey’s theory, rule of law has three pillars based on the
concept that “a government should be based on principles of law and
not of men”, these are-
Supremacy of Law;
Equality before the Law; and
Predominance of Legal spirit.
1. Supremacy of law
As per the first principle,
Every man should be governed by law.
a man should only be punished for the distinct breach of law, and not
for anything else. The person cannot be punished by the government
merely by its own fiat but only according to the established law.
According to Dicey, English men were ruled by the law and the law
alone, it means that the law rules over all people including the persons
administering the law.
rule of law refers to the lacking of arbitrariness or wide discretionary
power.
Further, Dicey asserted that discretion has no place where there is
supremacy of law. According to him discretion is a link to arbitrariness
and discretionary authority on the part of the government which
violates the legal freedom of the people.
 2. Equality before Law
The second important pillar of Dicey’s concept of Rule of Law is Equality
before Law. In other words, every man irrespective of his rank or
position is subject to the ordinary law and jurisdiction of the ordinary
court and not to any special court. According to him special law and
special courts is a threat to the principles of equality.

3. Predominance of the legal spirit

The third pillar of Dicey’s concept of Rule of Law is predominance of
legal spirit.
According to Dicey, for the prevalence of the rule of law there should
be an enforcing authority and that authority he found in the courts.
He believed that the courts are the enforcer of the rule of law and
hence it should be free from impartiality and external influence.
Independence of the judiciary is therefore an important pillar for the
existence of rule of law.