[Answered] In light of John Austin positive theory of law, discuss how Law in its essential nature differs from moral and religious principles.

John Austin propounded a positive theory of law. Positivism in legal theory means that a law is a legal rule and if passed according to prescribed procedure, law is valid irrespective of its content. In other words, as long as an elected legislature (in modern democracy) debates and passes the law, everyone must follow it. According to him Law differs from moral and religious principles and should be followed once law is enacted.

Austin theory main features are:

1. Law is a command from a sovereign (legislature or king or ruler). The sovereign is the person or body whom others habitually obey, and who does not obey others.
2. The people are in the habit of obeying a ruler.
3. Law is reinforced by sanction or punishment. Put simply, laws are orders backed by threats.
4. A law, therefore, is the expressed wish of the sovereign and can be distinguished from other commands.

The significance of the above theory lies in its exclusion of moral or normative elements from the conception of law. People speak about law as a duty or obligation placed on citizens. But Austin’s positive view of law fails to explain some parts of law.

How law differs from moral and religious beliefs?

1. Law is essentially a set of rules and principles created and enforced by the state whereas morals and religion are a set values and principles and behaviour standards which are enforced and created by society.
2. Law regulates and controls the external human conduct. It is not concerned with inner motives.
3. Legal rules are being created by the legislative institution of parliament whereas the moral and religious beliefs evolve with time and through society and are the standards which society in general accepts and promotes.
4. Some laws mirror the majority of society’s moral view, for example, dowry is wrong but the triple talaq is seen by some people as morally wrong and society is divided.
5. The existence of unjust laws (such as those enforcing slavery) proves that morality and law are not identical and do not coincide.
6. Laws govern conduct at least partly through fear of punishment. Morality and religious beliefs, when it is internalised governs conduct without compulsion. The virtuous person does the appropriate thing because it is the fine or noble thing to do.

How moral and religious beliefs influence and are part of laws?

1. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral ideas of the people. But good laws sometimes serve to rouse the moral conscience of the people and create and maintain such conditions as may encourage the growth of morality.
2. The existence of laws that serve to defend basic values such as laws against murder, rape, fraud, bribery, etc. prove that the law can work together with moral beliefs.
3. Law and morality are intimately related to each other. Laws are generally based on the moral principles of society. Both regulate the conduct of the individual in society.
4. In ancient India, the term Dharma connoted both law and morality. Law, it is pointed out, is not merely the command of the sovereign, it represents the idea of right or wrong based on the prevalent morality of the people.
5. Obedience to law depends upon the active support of the moral sentiments of the people. Laws which are not supported by the moral conscience of the people are liable to become dead letters.

Laws are generally based on the moral principles of a particular society. Both law and morality imply human freedom. Law and Morals act and react upon and mould each other. Both try to achieve public welfare and right conduct.