DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW (U.P.)

Session- 2014-15

FOUNDATION OF LAW“THE SCOPE OF INDUCTIVE REASONING IN ADJUDICATION”

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:MR.MANWENDRA KUMAR TIWARI KUNAL KUMAR

ASSISTANT PROFFESSOR ROLL NO: 73

DEPARTMENT OF LAW SEMESTER: 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I would like to express my gratitude to all those who helped me in this

topic. I extend my sincere acknowledgements to Mr.Manwendra Kumar

Tiwari Sir who gave me the opportunity to make a project on the topic

“THE SCOPE OF INDUCTIVE REASONING IN

ADJUDICATION”. I am deeply indebted to him whose help and

stimulating suggestion helped me in choosing this topic. 

I would also like to help my friends for their constant help and valuable

suggestions.

I further extend my thanks to the library staff of DR. RAM MANOHAR

LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY who helped me in getting

all the material necessary for the project.

-KUNAL KUMAR

ROLL NO: 73

TABLE OF CONTENTS:Acknowledgement

What is Inductive Reasoning?

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Types of Inductive Reasoning

What is Adjudication?

Adjudication and Inductive Reasoning

Cases related to Inductive Reasoning

Scope of Inductive Reasoning in Adjudication

Research Methodology

Bibliography

WHAT IS INDUCTIVE REASONING?Inductive reasoning is observing a set of characteristics based on a premise based on broad generalizations and statistical analysis which leads to the development of a hypothesis.

In other words, inductive reasoning is reasoning from a specific case or cases leading to derivation of a general rule. It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalisations. It takes past experiences and uses them to explain a present or future circumstance. It is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed to be true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion.

This is sometimes called a “bottom up” approach. The researcher begins with specific observations and measures, begins to then detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses to explore, and finally ends up developing some general conclusions or theories.

For example,

1. All women develop back problem after the age of 50.2. Shalini is 51 years old. 3. Shalini has developed a back problem.

A conclusion obtained through inductive reasoning is probable, not certain. Inductive arguments are not true or false, they are either weak or strong. Science is based on inductive reasoning.

INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING:

As stated above, inductive reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the general. This means arriving at a general rule from observing a specific example or a number of particular instances i.e. a form of logic. While inductive reasoning argues from the particular to the general, deductive reasoning is reasoning from the general to the particular.

In law, deductive reasoning means reasoning based on a general rule of law to determine the appropriate outcome in a specific case. Judges use deductive reasoning to come to a legal conclusion based on a general rule

from a previous case. The law's reliance on the doctrine of precedent is an example itself of deductive reasoning.

For example, all apples are fruits, all fruits grow on trees; therefore, all apples grow on trees.

Deductive reasoning says that if something is true of a class of things in general, this truth will apply to all members of that class.

INDUCTIVE REASONING DEDUCTIVE REASONING

With a general proposition (such "general-to-general" reasoning is rarely used)

With a general proposition ("reasoning by generalization”)

With a particular proposition ("categorical syllogism")

With a particular proposition ("reasoning by analogy")

A conclusion obtained through deductive reasoning is certain. Mathematics is basedon deductive reasoning

A conclusion obtained through inductive reasoning is probable, not certain. Science isbased on inductive reasoning

TYPES OF INDUCTIVE REASONING:Law employs inductive reasoning in following two ways:

1. Case law principles are created by inductive generalization; and

2. The legal principles to be used in a particular case are determined by inductive analogy.

A. From Particular to General (Inductive Generalization)

This type of reasoning creates appellate case legal principle. Here is an example of legal reasoning by inductive generalization.

Case 1 held that a contract without consideration was void.

Case 2 held that a contract without consideration was void.

Case 3 held that a contract without consideration was void.

Conclusion: Therefore, all contracts without consideration were void.

As more and more appellate cases hold that presented, litigated contracts without consideration were void, it seems increasingly safe to inductively conclude that as per this case law the Principle exists: "All contracts without consideration were void."

Exceptions to the principle include equitable doctrines of waiver and estoppels.

Another example of this type is:

Condition 1: Pavlovian conditioning caused dog Rio to salivate when a bell rings.

Condition 2: Pavlovian conditioning caused dog Rambo salivate when a bell rings.

Condition 3: Pavlovian conditioning caused dog Buddy to salivate when a bell rings.

Conclusion: Therefore, Pavlovian conditioning causes all dogs to salivate when a bell rings.

As scientists conduct more and more conditioning experiments and discover that all conditioned dogs salivate when a bell rings, it seems increasingly safe to inductively conclude that "Pavlovian conditioning causes all dogs to salivate when a bell rings." The conclusion will never be certain, however, because some day science may discover a dog that receives Pavlovian conditioning but doesn't salivate when a bell rings.

B. From Particular To Particular (Inductive Analogy)

Let us understand this analogy through an example.

Condition 1: Child A cries every time the door bell rings.

Condition 2: Child B resembles Child A by (Similarity A, B and C)

Conclusion: Therefore, Child B will also cry every time the door bell rings.

Similarities create positive analogies, whereas, differences create negative analogies.

WHAT IS ADJUDICATION?Adjudication is the legal process of resolving a dispute, the formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. It also includes the entry of a decree by a court in respect to the parties in a case. It implies a hearing by a court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved. It indicates that the claims of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest.

Three types of disputes are resolved through adjudication: disputes between private parties, such as individuals or corporations; disputes between private parties and public officials; and disputes between public officials or public bodies. The requirements of full adjudication include notice to all interested parties (all parties with a legal interest in, or legal right affected by, the dispute) and an opportunity for all parties to present evidence and arguments.

In deciding a case or while adjudicating, the judge will apply “deductive” and “inductive” reasoning, as well as “reasoning by analogy”. Different types of legal reasoning are applied so that a Court can discover or create a legal rule to apply to the facts before the Court.

Applying these types of reasoning to legal judgments means you will look behind the actual words used in a judgment to discover what the law is.

JUDICIARY AND INDUCTIVE REASONING:

The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or court system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law or enforce law, but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. However, as law is dynamic and cannot come to a standstill due to lack of law on a particular aspect, judiciary takes up the responsibility of keeping law updated with the changing times and needs. Inductive reasoning plays a very important role in this function of the judiciary. There have been several instances in India where courts laid down rules in cases for which no laws were formulated by the legislature and later those rules or guidelines were used in subsequent cases of similar sort.

CASES RELATED TO INDUCTIVE REASONING:

The cases enumerated below are those where courts gave judgments using the logic of inductive reasoning. All of these cases are first of their sort. Rulings given in all these cases were subsequently applied in all cases of similar nature in future.

In the realm of protection of rights of women a landmark judgment of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011) changed the landscape of rights enjoyed by women vis-à-vis sexual harassment at workplace. This 1997 judgment of the Supreme Court arising from gang rape of Bhanwari Devi by a group of influential men led the Supreme Court in laying down guidelines against sexual harassment against women at workplace. The incumbent state of civil and penal laws was recognized as inadequate and the Supreme Court set a precedent by drawing inspiration from an international instrument on human rights, the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women. It was this case basically that led to the passing of Protection of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013.

The catena of landmarks does not only cover judgments on citizen’s rights but also includes many decisions having far reaching consequences on commerce and trade. One such decision is Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India (S.L.P. (C) No. 26529 of 2010), a Supreme Court decision passed in January, 2012. The transfer of international subsidiaries of Hutchinson Telecommunications to Vodafone International in Cayman Islands opened a pandora’s box of issues regarding consequent tax liability, DTAA signed between India and Mauritius and larger issues like impact of India’s regressive stand on tax issues having possible impact on future trade revenues. The Supreme Court has pronounced decisions on all such cases inductively as there was no law on such matters in India.

Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621) was the first case which caused a huge uproar over the definition of freedom of speech. The court ruled that the procedure of law must be fair and the law must not violate other fundamental rights. The most striking aspect of the Supreme Court’s introduction of substantive due process was that it empowered courts to expand the limited phraseology of the right to life under the Constitution to include a wide range of unenumerated rights.

The Shah Bano case (1985 SCR (3) 844), related to the issue of Muslim personal law, caused a furore as the court awarded Shah Bano a maintenance allowance after divorce. It became a landmark case in the history of Muslim personal law as Muslim women were granted maintenance allowance under Section 125 CrPC after divorce henceforth (which was considered against Quranic law by many Muslim orthodox heads).

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India ([1994] 2 SCR 644 : AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3 SCC1) was a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, where the Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and related issues. This case had huge impact on Centre-State Relations. The misuse of Article 356, popularly known as "President's rule", to impose central authority on states, was stopped after this judgement.

R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu (1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632 ) decided that the right to privacy subsisted even if a matter became one of public record. The right to be let alone is part of personal liberty.

Tamil Nadu v  Suhas Katti was the first case involving conviction under the Information Technology Act, 2000, related to the posting of obscene messages on the Internet.

These are among the many landmark cases of the Supreme Court of India where our judiciary not only provided justice in novel cases but also provided a base for future cases of similar nature using inductive reasoning.

SCOPE OF INDUCTIVE REASONING IN ADJUDICATION:

After having studied what inductive reasoning is and how our courts have applied it on several occasions, it can be definitely said that the scope of inductive reasoning in adjudication is very wide in India. It is not possible to lay down laws on every aspect by any legislature of the world and whenever there is a loophole in the legal arena there can be no better saviour than our judiciary. Judiciary uses inductive reasoning or analogy in novel cases to dispense justice. Lack of statute or legal rules induces the use of inductive reasoning by the courts. In a way we can say that it is impossible to imagine the smooth working of our judicial system without the use of inductive logic. Thousands of cases come to the courts everyday, many of the cases are such for which there is no law laid down by our legislature. It is here that the judiciary uses inductive logic and either lays down a new ruling or applies the ruling of a past similar case to the subsequent one.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The research methodology adopted for making this project is Doctrinal Method. It is concerned with the analysis of the legal doctrine and how it

has been developed and applied. It consists of a complex and in depth analysis of legal reasoning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:www.repository.law.indiana.edu

www.jstor.org

legalresearch.org

How do Judges decide .