VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES- TC

VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

PSDA SUBMISSION
RESEARCH PAPER ON:

The Moral Foundations of Law: A Critical Analysis of

Natural Law Theory and Its Influence on
Jurisprudence

Subject:
JURISPRUDENCE (LLB-302)

Submitted to: Submitted by:

MR. AASH MOHAMMAD YASHASVI SHARMA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 17517703522
VSLLS, VIPS-TC VI-N
 INDEX
CONTENT
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Historical development of natural law
• Ancient
• Medieval
• Enlightenment & modern
4. Key debates in natural law theory
• Natural law v. Legal positivism
• Natural right debate
• Religion v. Secularism
5. Criticism in natural law
6. Contemporary relevance of natural law
• Human rights and constitutional law
• Influence on international law
• Ethical & moral debates
7. Case study
• Kesavanada bharati v. St. Of kerala
• Brown v. Board of education (1954) (usa)
• Prosecutor v. Jean-paul akayesu (1998) (ictr)

8. Conclusion

9. References
 The Moral Foundations of Law: A Critical Analysis of Natural Law
Theory and Its Influence on Jurisprudence

I. ABSTRACT

Natural law has long served as a foundation for justice, shaping legal thought by
asserting that certain moral principles are inherent and universal. Its influence extends
across human rights, constitutional law, international criminal justice, and ethical
debates, providing a framework for evaluating laws beyond mere legal positivism.
Courts and legal scholars continue to invoke natural law principles in landmark rulings,
as seen in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which upheld the basic structure
doctrine, Brown v. Board of Education, which dismantled racial segregation on moral
grounds, and Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, which recognized sexual violence as an
act of genocide. Beyond judicial decisions, natural law plays a crucial role in
contemporary legal debates on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, LGBTQ+
rights, and environmental protection, where questions of morality and justice often
intersect with evolving legal norms. By examining these intersections, this study
highlights the enduring relevance of natural law in shaping modern legal systems and
underscores the necessity of balancing traditional moral principles with progressive
legal interpretations in an evolving society.

II. INTRODUCTION
The Natural Law School is one of the oldest and most enduring legal theories,
emphasizing that law is not merely a set of arbitrary human commands but is rooted in
universal moral principles inherent in human nature. Dating back to the philosophical
traditions of Plato and Aristotle, natural law has profoundly influenced legal and ethical
thought across civilizations. The theory asserts that there exist objective moral truths
that govern human behaviour, which can be discerned through reason and should serve
as the foundation for all legal systems. This perspective stands in contrast to legal
positivism, which argues that law derives its legitimacy solely from formal enactment
and authority rather than moral considerations.
The historical evolution of natural law theory1 reveals its adaptability and continued
relevance. In the classical era, Aristotle’s concept of "natural justice" laid the
groundwork for legal thought by emphasizing reason as the foundation of law. In the
medieval period, St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas infused religious perspectives into
natural law, particularly through Aquinas’ fourfold classification of law—eternal,

1
John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 23.
divine, natural, and human law. The Enlightenment era saw further developments, with
John Locke advocating for natural rights (life, liberty, and property) as essential to just
governance. In the 20th century, Lon Fuller revived natural law through the concept of
the "inner morality of law," arguing that legal systems must uphold fundamental
procedural principles to maintain legitimacy.
Despite its influence, natural law theory has been the subject of intense debate and
criticism. Legal positivists like John Austin and H.L.A. Hart reject the notion that law
must conform to moral principles, insisting that the validity of law is determined by its
formal enactment rather than its ethical soundness. Others, such as Jeremy Bentham
and Edmund Burke, challenge the practicality of natural rights, questioning their
enforceability and subjectivity. The role of religion in natural law also remains a
contested issue, with scholars debating whether legal principles should be grounded in
divine will or secular reason.
In contemporary legal discourse, natural law continues to shape debates on human
rights, constitutional law, and international justice. The Nuremberg Trials, which
prosecuted war criminals based on "crimes against humanity," exemplify the enduring
relevance of natural law in asserting moral standards beyond national legislation. This
paper will explore the historical development, key theorists, major debates, criticisms,
and modern applications of natural law theory, offering a comprehensive analysis of its
role in shaping legal thought and justice.

III. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL LAW

1. Ancient Foundations
A. Socrates
Socrates, often regarded as the intellectual father of natural law theory, emphasized the
moral foundation of law and the duty of individuals to obey just legal systems. Unlike
his student Plato, who developed a metaphysical theory of justice, Socrates relied on
dialectical reasoning (the Socratic Method) to expose ethical truths inherent in human
nature.2
One of the most significant insights into Socrates' legal philosophy comes from Plato’s
Crito, where Socrates, despite being sentenced to death unjustly, refuses to escape from
prison. He argues that laws must be obeyed because they form the social contract that
upholds order and justice.3 He insists that violating the law—even an unjust law—
would undermine the very foundation of society. However, this does not mean that laws

2
Gregory Vlastos, Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher 88 (Cornell Univ. Press 1991).
3
Plato, Crito 50a–54d (G.M.A. Grube trans., Hackett Publ’g Co. 2000).
should be blindly followed; rather, Socrates implies that laws should be subject to moral
reasoning and reformed when they contradict justice.4
Socrates’ ideas laid the groundwork for later natural law theorists, particularly Plato,
Aristotle, and Cicero. His emphasis on rational discourse, civic duty, and the moral
legitimacy of laws continues to shape contemporary debates on civil disobedience,
constitutionalism, and the rule of law.5
B. Plato
Plato’s contribution to natural law theory is deeply intertwined with his philosophical
vision of justice and morality. He argued that justice is an intrinsic moral order, closely
related to his metaphysical theory of Forms (or Ideas)—eternal, unchanging, and perfect
entities that represent absolute truth and morality6. In his seminal work The Republic,
Plato posits that a just society is one where each individual fulfils their designated role,
contributing to the overall harmony of the state.7 This conception of justice is not merely
a human construct but is rooted in objective moral truths that laws should reflect.
For Plato, the philosopher-king is the ideal ruler because they possess knowledge of the
Form of the Good, the highest and most fundamental moral principle. Only those who
grasp this truth, he argues, are fit to govern, as they can create laws that align with
absolute moral standards.8 Unlike legal positivism, which separates law from morality,
Plato’s natural law philosophy insists that a legal system must be grounded in moral
truth to ensure social order and justice.
However, critics have noted that Plato’s elitist political model—where governance is
restricted to a select intellectual class—raises concerns about authoritarianism and the
lack of democratic participation9. Nevertheless, his idea that law must be rooted in
objective moral principles remains foundational to natural law theory and has
influenced later thinkers such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, who adapted
Platonic thought into their own legal and theological frameworks.10
C. Aristotle
Aristotle, Plato’s most renowned student, expanded on and refined his teacher’s ideas,
introducing the concept of natural justice (dikaion physikon). He argued that certain
legal principles exist “by nature” (physis) rather than by human convention (nomos).

4
Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State 136 (Princeton Univ. Press 1984).
5
Mark McPherran, The Religion of Socrates 214 (Penn State Univ. Press 1996).
6
Plato, The Republic bk. VI, 507b–509b (G.M.A. Grube & C.D.C. Reeve trans., Hackett Publ’g Co. 1992).
7
Id. at 368e–369b.
8
Id. at 504d–505a.
9
Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies vol. 1, at 86 (5th ed. Routledge 2012).
10
St. Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio bk. I, ch. 5 (R.G. Markus ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 2005).
These natural laws are universal and can be discerned through reason and observation
of human nature.11
In contrast to Plato’s abstract metaphysical approach, Aristotle’s natural law theory is
empirical and teleological, meaning that laws should be derived from the purpose (telos)
of human beings and society. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle asserts that the highest
good of human life is eudaimonia (human flourishing or well-being), and laws should
be crafted to facilitate this state.12 He distinguishes between two forms of justice:
1. Natural Justice: Exists universally and applies to all human beings, independent
of cultural or political differences.
2. Conventional Justice: Created by societies to regulate interactions but must align
with natural justice to be truly just.13
Aristotle’s view that reason is the key instrument for discerning justice laid the
foundation for later interpretations of natural law, particularly in Aquinas’ synthesis of
Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology.14 His work influenced the development
of constitutionalism, human rights discourse, and modern theories of justice.
However, Aristotle’s emphasis on hierarchical social structures—particularly his views
on slavery and the subordination of women—has been heavily criticized. He justified
slavery by arguing that some people are “natural slaves” due to their inability to exercise
rational autonomy, a position that starkly contrasts with modern human rights
principles.15 Nonetheless, his rationalist approach to justice and natural law continues
to shape contemporary legal and ethical debates.
2. Medieval Contributions
A. St. Augustine
St. Augustine (354–430 AD), a foundational figure in Christian philosophy, argued that
divine law is the highest and most legitimate form of law. His famous assertion that “an
unjust law is no law at all” (lex iniusta non est lex) underscores the belief that human
laws must be aligned with divine moral principles to be legitimate.16
In his work De Libero Arbitrio, Augustine maintains that justice is rooted in God's
divine order, and any law that contradicts this divine order is inherently flawed. 17 He
distinguishes between eternal law (God’s perfect will) and temporal law (human

11
Aristotle, Rhetoric 1373b4–10 (W. Rhys Roberts trans., Modern Library 1954).
12
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1097b20–1098a20 (Terence Irwin trans., Hackett Publ’g Co. 1985).
13
Id. at 1134a30–1135a5.
14
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, q. 91, art. 2 (Fathers of the English Dominican Province trans.,
Benziger Bros. 1947).
15
Aristotle, Politics 1254b16–20 (C.D.C. Reeve trans., Hackett Publ’g Co. 1998).
16
St. Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio bk. I, ch. 5 (R.G. Markus ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 2005).
17
Id. at bk. I, ch. 6.
legislation), arguing that only the former is truly just. Augustine also asserts that the
legitimacy of earthly rulers depends on their adherence to divine justice—those who
impose unjust laws are mere “bands of robbers” rather than legitimate authorities.18
While Augustine’s legal philosophy provided a moral foundation for law, it has been
criticized for its theological rigidity, particularly in pluralistic societies that separate
church and state. However, his ideas on justice, moral legitimacy, and the role of divine
authority significantly influenced later thinkers like Thomas Aquinas.19
B. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) built upon Augustine’s ideas but provided a more
systematic and rational approach to natural law. In his Summa Theologica, he outlines
four types of law, each playing a role in the governance of human affairs:20
1. Eternal Law: Represents God’s divine order of the universe, governing both
natural phenomena and moral principles.21
2. Divine Law: Moral directives found in scripture and religious teachings, which
guide human beings toward salvation.22
3. Natural Law: The moral order inherent in human nature, accessible through
reason and universally applicable to all human societies.23
4. Human Law: Laws created by societies to regulate human conduct, which must
align with natural law to be valid and just.24
Aquinas, unlike Augustine, emphasized rationality as the means to understand and
apply natural law. He argued that humans, by virtue of their capacity for reason, can
discern fundamental moral truths without requiring direct divine revelation.25 This
rationalist approach made his natural law theory highly influential in secular legal
thought, particularly in shaping constitutionalism, human rights discourse, and modern
jurisprudence.
However, some critics argue that Aquinas’ reliance on divine law makes his framework
less applicable in secular legal systems. Additionally, his strict natural law
interpretations have been invoked in debates on abortion, euthanasia, and LGBTQ+

18
St. Augustine, The City of God bk. IV, ch. 4 (Henry Bettenson trans., Penguin Books 2003).
19
John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights 46 (Oxford Univ. Press 1980).
20
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, q. 91, art. 1–4 (Fathers of the English Dominican Province trans.,
Benziger Bros. 1947).
21
Id. at I-II, q. 91, art. 1.
22
Id. at I-II, q. 91, art. 2.
23
Id. at I-II, q. 91, art. 3.
24
Id. at I-II, q. 91, art. 4.
25
J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide 74 (Ignatius Press 2011).
rights, sometimes in ways that restrict individual freedoms.26 Despite these criticisms,
Aquinas’ hierarchical structure of law remains foundational in both theological and
secular legal philosophy.
3. Enlightenment and Modern Developments
A. Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes approached natural law from a pragmatic perspective. In Leviathan, he
described the state of nature as a brutal, lawless condition where life is "solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short."27 To escape this chaos, individuals enter into a social contract,
surrendering certain freedoms to an absolute sovereign in exchange for security and
order. Unlike earlier theorists, Hobbes viewed law as a mechanism for maintaining
stability rather than a reflection of moral principles.
B. John Locke
Locke’s theory of natural law was more optimistic. He argued in Two Treatises of
Government that individuals possess inherent rights to life, liberty, and property.28
Unlike Hobbes, he believed that governments are bound by a social contract to protect
these natural rights. If a government fails to do so, citizens have the right to rebel.
Locke’s ideas laid the groundwork for modern democracy and human rights.
C. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau expanded on social contract theory by asserting that legitimate laws must
reflect the "general will" of the people. In The Social Contract, he argued that true
freedom is found in obeying laws that individuals collectively create, rather than those
imposed by a ruler.29 Rousseau’s philosophy influenced democratic governance models
and legal principles emphasizing popular sovereignty.
D. Lon Fuller
Fuller developed the concept of the "inner morality of law," arguing that laws must meet
certain procedural standards to be legitimate. In The Morality of Law, he outlined eight
principles, including consistency, clarity, and fairness.30 He contended that a legal
system that fails to uphold these principles cannot be considered just, emphasizing the
connection between legal validity and moral reasoning.

26
Russell Hittinger, The First Grace: Rediscovering The Natural Law In A Post-Christian World 123 (ISI Books
2003).
27
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Richard Tuck Ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 1996)
28
John Locke, Two Treatises Of Government (Peter Laslett Ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 1988).
29
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (Maurice Cranston Trans., Penguin Classics 2003).
30
Lon L. Fuller, The Morality Of Law (Yale Univ. Press 1969).
IV. KEY DEBATES IN NATURAL LAW THEORY
1. Natural Law vs. Legal Positivism
A. John Austin & H.L.A. Hart
Legal positivists such as John Austin and H.L.A. Hart argue that law is separate from
morality.31 According to Austin, law is simply a command issued by a sovereign, backed
by the threat of sanctions. Hart refined this by introducing the concept of primary and
secondary rules, emphasizing that the legitimacy of law stems from social acceptance
rather than moral considerations.32
B. Natural Law Response
Natural law theorists argue that laws lacking moral legitimacy are fundamentally
invalid. They contend that legal systems must be grounded in ethical principles to
ensure justice and fairness.33
2. The Natural Rights Debate
A. Edmund Burke & Jeremy Bentham
Critics of natural rights, including Burke and Bentham, viewed them as abstract and
impractical. Bentham famously dismissed natural rights as "nonsense upon stilts,"
arguing that rights must be grounded in legal frameworks rather than theoretical moral
claims.34
B. Locke & Rousseau
In contrast, Locke and Rousseau maintained that natural rights are inherent to human
beings and serve as the foundation for just governance. Their theories greatly influenced
the development of constitutional democracy and human rights law.35
3. Religion vs. Secularism in Natural Law
A. Theological Natural Law
Thinkers like Aquinas and Augustine asserted that law is rooted in divine principles and
moral absolutes.36
B. Secular Natural Law

31
John Austin, The Province Of Jurisprudence Determined (Wilfrid E. Rumble Ed., Cambridge Univ. Press
1995).
32
H.L.A. Hart, The Concept Of Law (3d Ed. Oxford Univ. Press 2012).
33
Robert P. George, In Defense Of Natural Law (Oxford Univ. Press 1999).
34
Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1796).
35
John Locke, Two Treatises Of Government (Peter Laslett Ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 1988).
36
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Fathers Of The English Dominican Province Trans., Christian Classics
1981).
Philosophers such as Fuller and John Finnis argue that natural law can be justified
through rational moral reasoning, independent of religious doctrine.37
4. Modern Challenges: Do Laws Need Morality?
A. Realists & Positivists
Legal realists and positivists argue that laws should be practical, enforceable, and
separate from ethical considerations.38
B. Natural Law Theorists
Supporters of natural law insist that morality is essential to legitimate law, particularly
in areas such as human rights and constitutional interpretation.39

V. CRITICISM OF NATURAL LAW

One of the primary criticisms of natural law is its inherent subjectivity. The theory
assumes the existence of an objective moral order, yet morality varies significantly
across cultures and historical periods. Different societies have distinct moral
frameworks, leading to conflicts over what constitutes natural law. This raises the
fundamental question of who determines the ultimate moral principles that should
underpin legal systems.40 Critics argue that relying on subjective moral interpretations
weakens the universality of natural law claims.
Another issue with natural law is its inconsistency over time. Thinkers like Aristotle,
Aquinas, and Fuller have each contributed their own versions of natural law,
highlighting the difficulty in establishing a unified framework. 41 While Aristotle
emphasized reason as the basis of justice, Aquinas integrated divine law into his model,
and Fuller focused on procedural morality. These differences undermine the claim that
natural law provides a stable and universally accepted foundation for legal systems.
Legal realists further challenge natural law by arguing that law is shaped by social,
political, and economic forces rather than inherent morality. Oliver Wendell Holmes,
for example, emphasized that judicial decisions are influenced by practical
considerations rather than abstract moral reasoning.42 This pragmatic approach suggests
that law evolves based on societal needs rather than any predetermined moral order.

37
John Finnis, Natural Law And Natural Rights (2d Ed. Oxford Univ. Press 2011).
38
Karl N. Llewellyn, The Bramble Bush: On Our Law And Its Study (Oceana Publ’ns 1951).
39
Lon L. Fuller, The Morality Of Law (Yale Univ. Press 1969).
40
Jeremy Waldron, Nonsense Upon Stilts: Bentham, Burke, And Marx On The Rights Of Man (Methuen 1987).
41
Anthony J. Lisska, Aquinas’s Theory Of Natural Law: An Analytic Reconstruction (Oxford Univ. Press 1996).
42
Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (Little, Brown & Co. 1881).
From this perspective, natural law appears too rigid and disconnected from the realities
of governance.
Finally, critics question the adaptability of natural law in modern legal systems. While
its principles have influenced human rights and constitutional law, contemporary legal
systems often operate under positivist frameworks that separate law from morality. The
rise of pluralistic societies with diverse ethical viewpoints further complicates the
application of natural law, as it becomes increasingly difficult to find common moral
principles that everyone agrees upon.43 The debate continues as to whether natural law
remains relevant in an era dominated by legal pragmatism and secular governance.

VI. CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF NATURAL LAW

1. Human Rights & Constitutional Law
Natural law principles heavily influence modern human rights and constitutional law.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) embodies natural law ideals,
emphasizing inherent human dignity and rights that transcend positive law. 44 Courts
frequently invoke natural law reasoning when interpreting constitutional provisions,
particularly in cases involving fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and equality.45
2. Influence on International Law
The prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity relies on natural law
concepts. The Nuremberg Trials rejected the defense of "legal positivism," asserting
that certain acts (e.g., genocide) are inherently immoral and punishable under universal
moral standards.46This precedent continues to shape international law, with tribunals
such as the International Criminal Court applying natural law principles in their rulings.
In Nuremberg Trials (1945-46), Following World War II, high-ranking Nazi officials
were prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. A key argument in the
defense was that they were merely following orders under German law, an assertion
based on legal positivism (the idea that law is valid if enacted by proper authority,
regardless of morality). The Nuremberg Tribunal rejected this defense, affirming that
certain acts—such as genocide and torture—violate universal moral laws and are
punishable even if domestic law permits them. This ruling reinforced the idea that
natural law principles override unjust positive laws.

43
H.L.A. Hart, Essays In Jurisprudence And Philosophy (Oxford Univ. Press 1983).
44
Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (Iii) A, U.N. Doc. A/Res/217(Iii) (Dec. 10, 1948).
45
Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire (Harvard Univ. Press 1986).
46
David Luban, Legal Ethics And Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007).
In Roe v. Wade (1973) (USA), Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe"), who challenged a Texas
law that criminalized abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy,
derived from the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, protected a woman’s
right to choose an abortion. The ruling sparked intense natural law debates—supporters
argued that bodily autonomy is an inherent human right, while opponents contended
that the unborn also have a natural right to life. The decision remained controversial
until it was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022).
3. Ethical & Moral Debates in Law
A. Abortion, Euthanasia, LGBTQ+ Rights: Debates over abortion, euthanasia,
and LGBTQ+ rights frequently invoke natural law arguments. Some scholars
argue that laws should align with moral principles derived from human nature,
while others contend that legal systems should remain neutral on moral issues.47
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), Supreme Court ruled that the
law violated fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, and equality under the
Constitution. The judgment emphasized that laws must be aligned with moral
principles that uphold human dignity and liberty, reflecting natural law
reasoning. The ruling decriminalized same-sex relationships in India, marking a
historic shift toward greater LGBTQ+ rights.
B. Environmental Law: Recent legal developments recognize nature's inherent
rights. Courts in Ecuador and India have applied natural law reasoning to grant
legal personhood to rivers and forests, reflecting a growing recognition that
environmental laws should align with moral obligations to protect nature.48 The
Vilcabamba River Case (2011) (Ecuador), This was the first case in the world
where a court recognized a river as a legal entity with rights. The lawsuit was
filed against a government road expansion project that threatened the
Vilcabamba River. The court ruled that nature has inherent rights to exist and be
protected, a concept rooted in natural law thinking. This decision influenced later
environmental rulings worldwide, including in India and New Zealand.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), Environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta
filed a case against industries polluting the Ganges River. The Supreme Court of
India established the "polluter pays" principle, holding that industries must be
held accountable for environmental damage. The ruling reinforced the moral
obligation to protect the environment, aligning with natural law principles of
responsibility toward nature.

47
John Finnis, Natural Law And Natural Rights (Oxford Univ. Press 1980).
48
Christopher D. Stone, Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, And The Environment (Oxford Univ.
Press 2010).
 In Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand (2017), The Uttarakhand High Court
declared the Ganga and Yamuna rivers as legal persons with rights to protect
them from pollution and degradation. The ruling, inspired by Ecuador’s
Vilcabamba case, recognized that nature should be treated as an entity with legal
protections rather than just a resource for human use. However, this decision was
later stayed by the Supreme Court of India.

VII. CASE STUDY:

A. Kesavananda Bharati V. State Of Kerala (1973)
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala49
reflects natural law principles by establishing that certain fundamental rights and
constitutional values are beyond legislative alteration. The case arose when Swami
Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader, challenged Kerala’s land reform laws, arguing
that they violated his constitutional rights. The central issue was whether Parliament
had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, particularly regarding fundamental
rights.
The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the authority to amend the
Constitution, it cannot alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution, which includes
fundamental rights, democracy, and the rule of law. This "Basic Structure Doctrine"
aligns with natural law by asserting that justice and moral principles are inherent in the
legal framework and cannot be overridden by political authority. Chief Justice S.M.
Sikri emphasized that certain constitutional principles derive from higher, immutable
moral foundations, reflecting Aquinas’ assertion that human laws must conform to
natural law to be legitimate.50
This case illustrates how natural law principles continue to shape modern legal
decisions, reinforcing the idea that legal authority is bound by moral constraints. It
highlights the enduring debate between positivist and naturalist interpretations of law,
demonstrating that even in constitutional democracies, morality remains an essential
component of legal legitimacy.
B. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (USA)
This landmark U.S. Supreme Court case overturned racial segregation in public schools.
The case arose when Oliver Brown sued the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas,
because his daughter had to travel long distances to a segregated Black school instead
of attending a nearby White school. The Court ruled that racial segregation violated

49
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
50
S.M. Sikri, "Basic Structure Doctrine and Constitutional Morality," (1973) SCR.
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stating that "separate but equal"
facilities were inherently unequal. The decision was influenced by the natural law
principle that all individuals possess inherent dignity and should be treated equally
under the law. It laid the foundation for the civil rights movement in the U.S.

C. Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (1998) (ICTR)

Jean-Paul Akayesu, the former mayor of Taba, a commune in Rwanda, was charged
with multiple counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the
Geneva Conventions for his role in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, where nearly
800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred over 100 days. As mayor,
Akayesu held authority over local security forces and played an active role in facilitating
mass killings, torture, and sexual violence against Tutsis. Initially, his role was seen as
passive, but further investigation revealed that he ordered, encouraged, and
participated in atrocities, including directing militias to commit acts of sexual
violence. The ICTR indicted Akayesu on 15 counts, including genocide and crimes
against humanity. The trial lasted from 1997 to 1998, and on September 2, 1998, the
tribunal convicted him on 9 counts of genocide and crimes against humanity.

This ruling was historic for several reasons. First, it defined genocide under
international law, becoming the first case to hold an individual accountable for
genocide based on the UN Genocide Convention (1948). Second, it recognized rape
as a tool of genocide, ruling that rape and sexual violence were integral to the
genocide, thus broadening the legal definition of genocide to include gender-based
violence. Lastly, the judgment emphasized natural law principles, reinforcing that
crimes against humanity violate inherent human dignity, transcending national laws
and political considerations.

Akayesu was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the case set a precedent for later
prosecutions of war crimes, particularly regarding gender-based violence in conflicts.
The ruling significantly shaped international humanitarian law, influencing later
cases before the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other tribunals dealing with
mass atrocities.

VIII. CONCLUSION
Natural law theory remains one of the most enduring and influential schools of legal
thought, providing a moral foundation for legal systems across history. From the
philosophical inquiries of Plato and Aristotle to the theological perspectives of
Augustine and Aquinas, natural law has shaped the understanding of justice and
legitimacy in legal frameworks. The Enlightenment further refined these ideas, with
thinkers like Locke and Rousseau emphasizing individual rights and the social contract
as natural law principles that underpin democratic governance.
Despite its profound influence, natural law has been subject to rigorous debate and
criticism. Legal positivists such as Austin and Hart argue that law must be distinguished
from morality, asserting that legal validity depends on social acceptance rather than
inherent moral principles. Additionally, modern legal realists challenge the universality
of natural law, contending that law is shaped by practical, political, and economic
considerations rather than abstract moral ideals. These debates underscore the evolving
nature of legal theory and the challenges in defining an objective moral order.
However, the relevance of natural law persists in contemporary legal systems,
particularly in areas such as human rights, constitutional law, and international justice.
The Nuremberg Trials exemplified the application of natural law in holding individuals
accountable for crimes against humanity, while the Supreme Court's Kesavananda
Bharati decision reaffirmed that fundamental constitutional principles must align with
higher moral values. These examples demonstrate that, even in an era dominated by
legal positivism, natural law continues to shape the interpretation and application of
legal principles.
Ultimately, the natural law school of jurisprudence serves as a crucial reminder that law
is not merely a set of rules imposed by authority but a reflection of fundamental moral
principles that guide justice and governance. While debates over its application and
universality continue, natural law remains integral to legal philosophy, influencing both
historical and modern legal frameworks in profound ways.

IX. REFERENCES
1. Aquinas, T. (1265-1274). (1911). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English
Dominican Province, Trans.)
2. Aristotle. (1925). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford University
Press. (Original work published 350 BCE)
3. Cicero, M. T. (1928). De Legibus (On the laws) (C. W. Keyes, Trans.). Harvard
University Press. (Original work published 44 BCE)
4. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press.
5. Finnis, J. (1998). Aquinas: Moral, political, and legal theory. Oxford University
Press.
6. Finnis, J. (2011). Natural law and natural rights (2nd ed.). Oxford University
Press.
7. Fuller, L. L. (1964). The morality of law. Yale University Press.
8. Grotius, H. (1925). On the law of war and peace (De Jure Belli ac Pacis) (F. W.
Kelsey, Trans.). Carnegie Institution. (Original work published 1625)
9. Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government (P. Laslett, Ed.). Cambridge
University Press. (Original work published 1689)
10. Kesavananda Bharati V. State Of Kerala (1973) AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT
1461
11. Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
12. Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (1998) (ICTR-96-4-T)