JURISPRUDENCE

LEGAL RIGHTS

Concept And Characteristics Of Legal Rights

In jurisprudence, the concept of legal rights pertains to the fundamental and foundational
principles that govern individuals' entitlements and freedoms within a legal system. It
explores the nature, origin, and philosophical underpinnings of rights recognized and
protected by the law. Jurisprudence delves into the nature of legal rights, examining
whether they are natural rights, moral rights, or legal rights. Natural rights are often
considered inherent and universal, while legal rights are specific entitlements recognized
and enforced by a particular legal system. Jurisprudence explores the sources and
justifications of legal rights. It questions whether rights are derived from a social contract,
moral principles, legal positivism, or other philosophical foundations. It examines how
legal rights are enforced and the mechanisms through which individuals can seek redress
when their rights are violated. This includes the role of the judiciary, legislative bodies, and
executive authorities. Jurisprudence acknowledges that legal rights are not static and may
be amended or adapted through legislative changes, judicial decisions, or constitutional
reforms to reflect changing societal values and needs.

Legal rights, as discussed in jurisprudence, possess several key characteristics that help
define their nature and significance within the legal framework:

1. Normative Quality: Legal rights are normative in nature. They are rooted in a
society's legal norms, which are established through legislation, case law, and
customary practices. These norms dictate what individuals are entitled to and how
they should be treated within a legal system.
2. Enforceability: One of the defining characteristics of legal rights is their
enforceability. Individuals have the ability to seek remedies through the legal
system when their legal rights are violated. Courts and other legal authorities have
the power to enforce these rights and provide redress for violations.
3. Legal Recognition: Legal rights are recognized and conferred by the legal system.
They may be explicitly enumerated in laws, statutes, constitutions, or international

1
 treaties. This legal recognition sets the boundaries for permissible conduct and
responsibilities within a society.
4. Individual Entitlements: Legal rights are primarily concerned with the
entitlements of individuals. They define what a person can and cannot do, as well
as what can and cannot be done to them within the legal context. This individual
focus distinguishes legal rights from moral or ethical principles.
5. Government and State Authority: Legal rights often delineate the relationship
between individuals and the government or state authority. They set limits on the
exercise of state power, ensuring that governmental actions adhere to legal
principles and individual rights.
6. Positive and Negative Aspects: Legal rights can encompass both positive and
negative aspects. Positive rights require the provision of certain benefits or services
by the state, such as the right to education or healthcare. Negative rights, on the
other hand, entail protections against interference or harm by others, like the right
to freedom of speech or freedom from discrimination.

Kind of Legal Rights

In simple words, the court of law can enforce legal rights against persons and also against the
government. A legal right is an interest accepted and protected by law. Also, any debasement
of any legal right is punishable by law. Legal rights affect every citizen. Legal rights are
equally available to all the citizens without the discrimination of caste, creed & sex.

I. Perfect & Imperfect Rights

The perfect right has the following features:
1. It is recognized by law.
2. It is enforceable by law. So, in the case of breach of this right, a person may go to
court for enforcing this right.
Thus, all fundamental rights, viz. Right to equality, right to religion, etc. are perfect rights as
these are enforceable by law.
The imperfect right has the following features:
1. It is recognized by law.

2
 2. It is not enforceable by law. This means that a person cannot go to court for the
breach of imperfect right.
All the time-bound claims or debts come under the category of imperfect rights.

II. Positive & Negative Rights

The basis of distinguishing right as positive or negative is the nature of correlative duty it
carries with it.

Under Positive rights, the person has to perform some positive duty to fulfil this right.
Negative rights prevent a person to do some act, that is it corresponds to a negative duty.
Example: Right to life under article 21 of the Indian constitution is a negative right because it
prevents a person to kill another person.

III. Real & Personal Rights

Real right or right in- rem corresponds to the duty imposed upon the people in general. It is
available against the whole world in general. Example: Tort or crime is a real right.

Personal right or right in-persona is available against a particular person & it corresponds to
duty the duty imposed upon a particular person. Therefore, the personal right generally arises
out of contractual obligation. Example: breach of contract is a personal right.

IV. Proprietary & Personal Rights

A proprietary right is available with respect to a property that is it relates to the owner & his
assets. The assets must have some monetary value. Example: the right to ownership of
property, Right to patent, Right to goodwill, etc.
A personal right is related to a person’s life i.e., his reputation or standing in the society. These
rights promote a person’s well-being in society & have no economic value. Example: Right
to life.

V. Public & Private Rights

3
The rights which are vested in a person by state or govt., or constitution is called public rights.
Example: Right to vote, right to use public parks, etc.

Private rights are connected with private individuals or persons. Example: A contract entered
by two people gives rise to private rights to them.

VI. Inheritable & Uninheritable Rights

Inheritable rights can be passed from one generation to another, i.e. this right survives even
after the death of its owner. Example: A son is a legal heir to the property of his father after
his death. Uninheritable rights die with the death of its owner. Example: All personal rights
are uninheritable rights.
VII. Right in repropria & Right in realiena

A person possesses Right in repropria with respect to his own property. He can use, dispose
of, destroy, modify or exclude others from his property. Thus, this right gives a person,
absolute ownership over the property.
Right in realiena is the right in the property of another person. Example: Right of way over
the neighbour’s field. So, it is not an absolute right.

Rights Duty Correlation

The two most important views regarding whether the rights and duties are correlated or not
are Salmond’s view and Austin’s view. According to Salmond “no right can exist without
any corresponding duty and vice versa.” He believed that every duty which is being
performed is in respect of a correlated right attached to it.

On the Contrary what Austin has to say is that all the types of duties are not similar and
they are divided between relative and absolute duty. Relative duties are the one which have
corresponding rights whereas Absolute duties are the one which are independent and have
no rights correlated to them. For example, not to commit suicide, is one of your absolute
duty, there is no corresponding right here.

4
According to Austin there are a bunch of duties which fall under absolute duties. Such as
duties to self, duties to sovereign etc. These are certain duties which are to be followed and
have no corresponding relations with rights. But Austin’s view has been criticized a lot
lately. Salmond has concluded that duties towards self becomes part of criminal law and
thus becomes legal duty and duties to sovereign/state are always corresponding to the rights
which are granted to us by the states.

And the most accepted view regarding rights and duties over the time is that they are
necessarily correlative. They are the two most inevitable components existing together in
present day society.

• As we can describe a right as a power or privilege conferred by law which people

enjoy and on the other hand duty is a burden imposed by law which commands
obligeance for the good of society. And in order to enjoy a right properly there is a
need for other people to consider and respect it. Hence in this way we can say that
enjoyment of right by one person grants duty on another person to respect it. Thus
they work in corollary. They act as two phases of a single coin. For example if the
state has guaranteed right to life, the

• Rights act as an interest and legal rights become legal interests and these legal
interests are backed by law and in this case a duty is imparted on law to protect these
rights.

• The state guarantees certain rights to all of its individuals to promote welfare of the
society and protection of such rights is the state’s duty. Also when state is
guaranteeing rights it becomes a corresponding duty of the citizens to respect the
state and do not create hindrance in the functioning of state. It becomes an
individual’s duty to serve the state in his whole capacity.

Legal Rights in a Wider Sense – Hohfeldian Jural Analysis

Hohfeld’s analysis continues to be a significant contribution to our current understanding

of the nature of rights. A chair at Yale University is named after Hohfeld to honour his

5
enduring importance. Hohfeld’s theories are still relevant today, even after a century has
passed since his death and traces of his theories are also evident in the Indian legal justice
system.

A ‘right’, according to Hohfeld, is a legal interest that imposes a correlative duty. “If X has
a right against Y to keep off the latter’s land, the correlative (and equivalent) is that Y has
an obligation toward X to stay off the place”, Hohfeld says. In the same way that a
‘privilege’ imposes a comparable and correlative no-right, power imposes a correlative
liability and immunity, resulting in handicap. The contrast between a right and a privilege
is particularly important in this regard.

He points out that the term ‘right’ was frequently used to refer to a variety of other legal
interests such as powers, privileges, and immunities. This issue was so common that
Hohfeld was able to obtain enough court support in his article to acknowledge it. As a
solution, Hohfeld proposes separating rights, privileges, powers, and immunities, all of
which he considers to be separate legal interests. Surprisingly, he tries to make this
distinction based on the legal duties that these interests place on another organisation.
Hohfeld’s definition methodology is based on the usage of correlatives and opposites.

Because the most fundamental legal relationships are sui generis, attempts at formal
definition are inevitably unsatisfying, if not completely futile. As a result, the most
promising course of action appears to be to display all of the numerous relations in a scheme
of ‘opposites’ and ‘correlatives’, and then to demonstrate their unique breadth and
application in real examples.

Hofeld’s analysis is majorly based on Salmond’s earlier system. According to Salmond,

there are three categories of rights:

1. Rights in the strict sense, which are defined as interests protected by the law by
imposing its duties with respect to the rights upon other persons,

2. Liberties are defined as “interests of unrestrained activity”,

3. Powers “when the law actively assists me in making my will effective”.

6
Conclusion on Legal Rights

Legal rights are a fundamental concept in the field of law and jurisprudence. They are the
entitlements or privileges granted and protected by a legal system, and they play a crucial
role in shaping the relationships and interactions within a society. Legal rights serve as the
foundation upon which legal systems are built. They define the boundaries of permissible
actions, protect individuals and groups from harm, and provide a framework for resolving
disputes. Legal rights can vary from one jurisdiction to another and can be influenced by
cultural, historical, and societal norms. What is considered a legal right in one country may
not be recognized as such in another. In conclusion, legal rights are a cornerstone of the
legal framework in any society, and they are integral to the protection of individual
freedoms and the promotion of justice. The concept of legal rights continues to evolve and
adapt to the changing needs and values of society, making it a dynamic and essential
element of legal systems worldwide.