English Language Questions for CLAT | QB Set 12

Legal cases are considered “hard” cases when they involve highly controversial issues that legal professionals disagree on. The debate around “hard” cases typically focuses on whether the law is complete or whether some cases are legally indeterminate, meaning that they cannot be resolved purely based on existing law.

H.L.A. Hart, in *The Concept of Law*, offers a foundational theory about the nature of legal rules and how they apply to hard cases. According to Hart, legal rules are formulated using “open-textured” language, meaning they have a “core” of clear, settled meaning and a “penumbra” or periphery where their meaning is less certain. For example, an ordinance prohibiting vehicles in a park clearly applies to cars and motorcycles (the “core” meaning), but whether it applies to bicycles (the “penumbra”) is less clear. Hart argues that such cases, which fall in the penumbra, are legally indeterminate because the law itself does not provide a definitive answer. As a result, courts must rely on nonlegal grounds, such as moral or political considerations, and exercise judicial discretion to create new legal interpretations rather than apply existing law.

Ronald Dworkin challenges Hart’s view, arguing that the law is more comprehensive than Hart suggests. Dworkin contends that the law includes not only explicit legal rules but also legal principles, which do not need prior official recognition or enactment to have legal status. According to Dworkin, legal rules apply in an all-or-nothing fashion, while legal principles serve as the rationale behind applying legal rules. He believes that because legal principles exist alongside rules, legal indeterminacy does not necessarily arise from the open texture of legal rules. In Dworkin’s view, courts do not need to exercise discretion as often as Hart suggests because legal principles can guide decisions in hard cases.

However, simply arguing that legal principles exist does not entirely refute Hart’s theory. Hart’s point about the open texture of general terms applies to both legal rules and principles. General terms used in legal principles can also be vague, leading to uncertainty in how they should be applied. It would be unreasonable to assume that wherever a legal rule is unclear, there is always a legal principle with a clear meaning to resolve the issue. Many of the most challenging and controversial cases will likely occur in the penumbra of both legal rules and principles, supporting Hart’s claim that some cases will inevitably require judicial discretion due to legal indeterminacy.

1. What does H.L.A. Hart mean by “open-textured” language in legal rules?
a) Language that is clear and has no ambiguity.
b) Language that includes both a clear core meaning and an uncertain penumbra.
c) Language that is vague and completely indeterminate.
d) Language that allows for judicial discretion in all cases.

2. According to Hart, what happens when a case falls within the “penumbra” of a legal rule?
a) The case can be resolved purely based on existing legal principles.
b) The law provides a definitive answer to the case.
c) The case is legally indeterminate, requiring courts to use nonlegal grounds to resolve it.
d) The case is ignored by courts because of its indeterminacy.

3. How does Ronald Dworkin’s view of the law differ from Hart’s?
a) Dworkin believes legal rules are always vague, while Hart argues they are clear.
b) Dworkin agrees with Hart that all legal cases require judicial discretion.
c) Dworkin suggests that judicial discretion is necessary in most cases, unlike Hart.
d) Dworkin argues that the law includes both legal rules and legal principles, while Hart focuses only on rules.

4. What is one criticism of Dworkin’s argument presented in the passage?
a) Legal principles are just as vague and open-textured as legal rules.
b) Legal principles cannot exist without explicit legal rules.
c) Dworkin underestimates the importance of judicial discretion in hard cases.
d) Legal rules are more comprehensive than legal principles.

5. Based on the passage, how do Hart and Dworkin view the role of judicial discretion in hard cases?
a) Both believe that judicial discretion is unnecessary in hard cases.
b) Hart believes judicial discretion is often necessary, while Dworkin believes it is rarely needed.
c) Dworkin believes judicial discretion is always necessary, while Hart disagrees.
d) Hart believes judicial discretion should be avoided at all costs, while Dworkin supports it.