You are on page 1of 9

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:
MR.MANVENDRA KUMAR TIWARI
ASSISTANT PROFFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAW

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

SUBMITTED BY:
KUNAL KUMAR
ROLL NO: 73
SEMESTER: 1

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


topic. I extend my sincere acknowledgements to Mr.Manvendra 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 library staff of DR. RAM MANOHAR
LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY who helped me in getting
all the materials necessary for the project.
-KUNAL KUMAR
ROLL NO: 73

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Acknowledgement
What is Inductive Reasoning
Intoduction to Inductive Reasoning
Difference between Inductive and Deductive logic
Definition of Adjudication
How to judges decide a case using Inductive logic
The scope of Inductive Reasoning in Adjudication
Relavent cases in which Inductive Reasoning is applied
Conclusion
Research Methodology
Bibliography
Websites and References

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 uses 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.

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 REASONING AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING


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.

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
With a general proposition (such
"general-to-general" reasoning is
rarely used)
With a particular proposition
("categorical syllogism")
A conclusion obtained through
deductive reasoning is certain.
Mathematics is based
on deductive reasoning

DEDUCTIVE REASONING
With a general proposition ("reasoning
by generalization)
With a particular proposition
("reasoning by analogy")
A conclusion obtained through
inductive reasoning is probable, not
certain. Science is
based on inductive reasoning

TYPES OF INDUCTIVE REASONING:


Law employs inductive reasoning in following two ways:

1. Case law principles are created by inductive generalization;


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 principles as stated
above. 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 this case law.
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 Fido to salivate
when a bell rings.
Condition 2: Pavlovian conditioning caused dog Roverto salivate
when a bell rings.
Condition 3: Pavlovian conditioning caused dog Spot 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)


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.

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

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 another landmark judgment of
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan changed the landscape of rights enjoyed by
women vis--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.
The catena of landmarks does not only cover judgments on citizens 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, a Supreme Court decision passed in January, 2012. The transfer of
international subsidiaries of Hutchinson Telecommunications to Vodafone
International in Cayman Islands opened a pandoras box of issues regarding
consequent tax liability, DTAA signed between India and Mauritius and larger
issues like impact of Indias regressive stand on tax issues having possible
impact on future trade revenues.
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India was the first case which caused a huge
uproar over the definition of freedom of speech. The court ruled that the
procedure must be fair and the law must not violate other fundamental rights.
The Shah Bano case, 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 after divorce henceforth.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India 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 case 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.