LEGAL METHODS ASSIGNMENT

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

KARTIK THOLIA ANIRUDDH PANICKER

B.A.L.LB FACULTY OF LAW

1st SEMESTER LEGAL METHODS

Q1. What is the hohfeldian analysis?

Q2. Where does the analysis fall short?

Q3. Right to Information act with hohfeldian approach?

Ans 1. Hohfeldian analysis is a basic concept which enhances us a conceptual understanding of

the basic legal concepts. His analysis of rights is linked by means of consequence and negation,
and not in the concept of right.

.He provides a conceptual understanding of rights. Hohfeld's table presents a distinction between
different legal relationships. He explained how these concepts logically related to one another
through Correlatives and Opposites. He defined these eight basic jural relations to clarify legal
thinking and understanding, Hohfeld divided the eight into pairs which cannot exist together
(opposites), and those which must exist together (correlatives).

Hohfeld's opposites concept enumerates that one must have either one or the other opposite, not
both. For example, someone must either have a right that others act in a certain manner or no
right. “One can only have either a right to equality or no right to equality but not both”.
Similarly, one must have either a privilege to do certain acts or a duty not to do so. A privilege to
do something is to be conceived as the negation of a duty not to do it and a privilege not do
something as the negation of a duty to do it as they are opposites in juridical terms. “If I have a
liberty to write on the board, it doesn’t mean that I have a duty to not to write on the board”.

Hohfeld’s correlatives concept says that there exists interest on the opposing side of legal
relationships. A power is the capacity to create or change a legal relationship. If someone has a
power, it exists with respect to someone else who has a liability. For example, when someone
makes an offer of a contract, that gives the offeree the power to create a contract by accepting the
offer or declining it. If the power to create the contract is exercised, then both parties have rights
and duties with respect to each other and are liable for the same. Courts have power, only if any
party exercises their power to commence a lawsuit. Similarly, if someone has an immunity, it
exists with respect to someone else who has a disability. Sovereigns are immune because courts
lack power over them, in which case courts are said to have a disability with respect to
sovereigns.

JURAL OPPOSITES:

RIGHT PRIVELEGE POWER IMMUNITY

NO RIGHT DUTY DISABILITY LIABILITY

JURAL COORELATIVES:
 RIGHT PRIVELEGE POWER IMMUNITY

DUTY NO RGHT LIABILITY DISABILITY

Ans 2. The flaw in the Hohfeld’s analysis is that the same conclusion can be reached through
two ways. For example, having a privilege does not make it clear that you had duty to perform
something or no duty to perform something.

When hohfeld explains something with the negation of other he doesn’t resolve some
ambiguities. It explains privilege as the absence of a claim by other person and also defines
privilege as negationof duty. So according to Hohfeld there is no positive privilege. Another
challenge to the scheme is that the hohfeldian scheme is based on the opposition of squares in
which some component does not have independent existence of itself meaning here that one
information may not clearly explain the presence of one or the negation of other.

The fallacy of the hohfeldian scheme can be corrected by representing this scheme in triangle of
possibilities. In the triangle of possibilities, the dependent part of the square of opposition are
combined to form an independent component, the other components represent the idea of liberty
and freedom. This has 3 perspectives of: -

i. What is required by law in form of conduct is divided into, ‘no conduct required by law’,
‘conduct required by law’& ‘no requirement by law for conduct or no conduct’.
ii. From the perspective of the person whose action is to be advanced is divided into a duty
to do, a duty not to do and no requirement of a duty to do or not to do.
iii. From the perspective of a person having interest is divided into entitlement by conduct,
no entitlement by conduct and no requirement of an entitlement or not.

Ans 3. The RTI Act, 2005, can be explained by the Hohfeldian analysis. As the citizens now
have a right to demand any piece of information from the concerned government department, the
government has a corresponding duty to give them access to the same within 30 days. There can
also be no claim on this right. As there exists a liberty for the citizens to access the information,
there doesn’t exist a duty to not to access the information by the citizens.

The state under RTI is liable and empowered to release the concerned pieces of information in
response to the exercise of the citizens power to ask for the information. Therefore, as the state
has the liability, it does not have the immunity to not to release the information. As the citizens
have the power to demand the information, they are not disabled to not ask for the information.