CRITERION OF VALIDITY UNDER PURE THEORY OF LAW

INTRODUCTION Hans Kelsen has given the concept of pure theory of law. According to hi the theory of law must deal with law as it is actually laid down and not as it ought to be. As per him norm is the subjective meaning of ever act of will which is directed towards the behavior some other person. It is commanding, authorizing or permissive. The meaning derives its authority from some other higher norm. The theory of law must be distinguished from the law itself. Law consists of a mass of heterogeneous single, ordered pattern. Keelson evolved his theory out of a prefunded study of legal material actually available to him. According to him law should be uniform. It should be applicable to all times and places. He advocated general jurisprudence. He writes the theory of law must be free from ethics, politics, sociology etc. in other words it should be pure. The aim of legal theory is to reduce chaos and multiplicity to unity. Legal theory is science not violation. According to him, a dynamic system is one in which fresh norms are constantly being created on the authority of original, or basic norm which is named by him Grundnorm. According to him the distinction between legal oughts and other oughts is that the former is backed by force. As per Kelson ought is the subjective meaning of every act of will.

1-ACT its OBJECTIVE and SUBJETIVE MEANING: As per kelsen anything which is connected with law has two descriptions i.e. casual or physical and meaning. He says if you analyze body of fact interpreted as legal or somehow tied up with law, such as a parliamentary decision, an administrative act or judgment, two elements are distinguishable: one, an act or series of acts, happening at certain time and certain place, perceived by our senses: an external manifestation of human conduct and the second one would be the legal meaning of the act i.e. the meaning conferred upon the act by law. The legal meaning of an act, as an external fact is not immediately perceptible by the senses. Subjective meaning is the meaning attached to an act by a common man, whereas objective meaning is conferred by some higher norm. Subjective meaning may, but not necessarily coincide with the objective meaning, that is, the meaning the act has according to law. For example somebody make a deposition, stating in writing, what to happen to his belongings when he dies. The subjective meaning of this act is a a testament objectively, however, it is not, because some legal formalities were not observed.

2- Norm: The external fact whose objective meaning is legal or illegal act is always an event that can be perceived by our senses because it occurs in time and space and therefore a natural phenomena determined by casualty. However, this event as such an element of nature is not the object of legal cognition. What urns this event into a legal or illegal act is not its physical existence determined by law of casualty prevailing in nature, but the objective meaning resulting from its interpretation. The legal meaning of the act is derived from a norm whose content refers to the act; this norm confers legal meaning to the act, so that it may be interrelated according to the norm. It functions as a scheme of interpretation. By norm we mean something ought to be or ought to happen, epically that a human being ought to behave in a certain way. This is the meaning of certain acts directed towards the behavior of others. They are so directed if, they, according to their content, commands, authorizes or permits such behavior.