UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY
CHANDIGARH

Topic : Rights & Duties

A project report to be submitted on the above topic in the subject of
Jurisprudence. For the fulfilment of requirement of the syllabus of B.A.
LLB(Hons.) 2nd Semester

Submitted To : Submitted By :
Name – Ms. Manisha Name – Abhinav Jaspal,
Section – C, B.A. LLB,
2nd Semester.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has contributed
to the successful completion of my college project on rights in Jurisprudence.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my instructor Ms. Manisha for
providing me with the necessary guidance and support throughout this project.
Their insightful comments and constructive criticism have helped me in
improving the quality of my work.
I would also like to thank my classmates for their valuable inputs, feedback,
and encouragement that helped me gain new perspectives and insights on the
topic of rights.
Furthermore, I would like to thank the UILS Department and Dr. Rajinder Kaur,
Director, UILS, for their assistance in providing me with relevant and up-to-
date resources that were crucial for the completion of this project.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their unwavering
support, motivation, and encouragement that helped me in overcoming the
challenges faced during the course of this project.
 INDEX
1) Introduction to Rights & Duties…………………………………………………3.
Definitions – Rights………………………………………………………………….3.
Definitions – Duties………………………………………………………………….4.
2) Understanding Why We Possess Rights & Duties……………………….5.
3) Rights & Duties – Classification & Elements……………………………….7.
Classification – Rights……………………………………………………………….7
Classification – Duties………………………………………………………………10.
Elements – Rights…………………………………………………………………….11.
4) Literature Review……………………………………………………………………..13.
5) Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………15.
6) Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..17.
7) References………………………………………………………………………………..18.
I. Introduction to Rights & Duties –
Right /rʌɪt/
Right, A title ? A privilege ? An Interest ?, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes
‘Rights’ as, Entitlements to perform certain actions, or to be in certain states; or entitlements
that others perform certain actions or be in certain states. It adds, ‘Rights structure the form
of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as many now see it. To accept
a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a
certain view of what may, must, and must not be done.’

Definitions –

1. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “Rights held to be justifiably belonging to any
person”.

2. “Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek in general,
to be himself at his best.” – Laski

3. “Rights are powers necessary for the fulfilment of man’s vocation as a moral being.”
– T.H. Green

4. “Rights are entitlements to act or be treated in a particular way.” - Andrew Heywood

(Political Theory)

5. Salmond has defined a ‘right’ as a man’s capacity of influencing the acts of another,
not by his own strength, but of the opinion on the force of society. He says, A right is
an interest recognized and protected by a rule of right'. It is an interest respect for
which is a duty, and disregard of which is a wrong.

6. According to Gray – A legal right is “that power which the man has, to make a person
or persons to do or restrains from doing a certain act or acts so far as the power arises
from society imposing a legal duty upon the person or persons. He states that the
“right is not the interest itself, it is the means to enjoy the interest secured”.

Duty /ˈdjuːti/
When the right is given to the person then it is assumed that certain duties are also imposed
on the person. The right has its correlative duties. There are two kinds of duties when it is the
obligation of the person to perform his duty when he has a legal duty but in case of moral
duty, he has no obligation. No right can exist without a corresponding duty. Every right or
duty involves a bond of legal obligation by which two or more persons are bound together.
Thus, there can be no duty unless there is someone to whom it is due; there can be no right
unless is someone from whom it is claimed; and there can be no wrong unless there is
someone who is wronged, that is to say, someone whose right has been violated. This is also
called as vinculum juris which means “a bond of the law”. It is a tie that legally binds one
person to another

Definitions –
1. According to Salmond – A legal duty is an act that obliges to do something and act, the
opposite of which would be a legal wrong. Whenever law ascribes duty to a person, a
corresponding right also exists with the person on whom the duty is imposed.

2. Austin said that Duties can be of two types – One is, Relative Duty, in which there is a
corresponding right existing in such duties. Another is, Absolute Duty in which there
is no corresponding right existing.

3. Hibbert defines legal duty as – "the predicament or a person whose acts are liable to
be controlled by another with the assent and assistance of the state."

4. According to Prof. Dicey, " a duty is a species of obligation. People obey it due to
indolence, deference, sympathy, fear and reason. And also due to psychological, social
and moral pressures. The majority of duties are supported by State. the breach of the
duty is imprisonment or fine."

Some jurists hold that a right may not necessarily have a correlative duty. They say that legal
rights are legal concepts and these legal concepts have their correlatives which may not
necessarily be a duty. Roscoe Pound also gave an analysis of such legal conceptions. He
believed that legal rights are essentially interests recognized and administered by law and
belong to the ‘science of law’ instead of ‘law’. He proposed that such Rights are conceptions
by which interests are given form in order to secure a legal order.
However, Salmond believed that no right can exist without a corresponding duty. Every right
or duty involves a bond of legal obligation by which two or more persons are bound together.
II. Understanding Why We Possess Rights & Duties –
The concept of rights and duties has been an important part of human civilization for
centuries, and has played a critical role in shaping the social, political, and legal systems of
societies across the globe. At its core, the concept of rights and duties refers to the idea that
individuals have certain entitlements or privileges, as well as corresponding responsibilities
or obligations, that are either granted or imposed by a variety of sources.
1) Natural Law
One of the most important sources of rights and duties is natural law. This theory holds that
certain rights and duties are inherent to human beings, and are independent of any legal or
social system. According to this view, these rights and duties are discoverable through reason,
and are applicable to all people, regardless of their particular society or culture. The natural
law tradition has its roots in ancient Greece and Rome, and has been influential in shaping
the Western legal and philosophical tradition. A key concept in the natural law tradition is
that of natural rights. These are rights that are seen as inherent to human beings, and are not
dependent on any particular legal or social system. Examples of natural rights include the right
to life, liberty, and property. Natural rights are often seen as universal and inalienable,
meaning that they cannot be taken away or forfeited under any circumstances.
2) Positive Law
Another important source of rights and duties is positive law. This refers to the body of laws
and regulations enacted by a particular government or legal system. In this context, rights and
duties are derived from legal sources such as constitutions, statutes, and court decisions.
Positive law is an important source of rights and duties because it provides a framework for
resolving disputes and protecting individual liberties.
3) Religion
In addition to natural and positive law, religion has also been an important source of rights
and duties. Many religious traditions provide a basis for understanding rights and duties. For
example, in many faiths, human beings are believed to have certain rights and obligations
based on their relationship with a divine being or creator. For instance, in Christianity, the Ten
Commandments provide a set of moral and ethical principles that are seen as binding on all
believers.
4) The State
Social contract theory is another important source of rights and duties. This theory suggests
that people have certain rights and duties that are derived from a social agreement or
contract between individuals and society as a whole. According to this view, individuals give
up some of their natural rights in exchange for the protection and benefits provided by the
state. In this way, rights and duties are seen as mutually reinforcing, with individuals assuming
certain obligations in order to enjoy the privileges and protections of society.
5) Norms and Traditions
Cultural norms also play a role in determining rights and duties. These norms are often based
on traditions, customs, and values that are specific to a particular society or culture. For
instance, in many cultures, it is considered a duty to care for elderly family members, while in
others, it is seen as a right to express oneself freely. Cultural norms can vary widely depending
on the particular society or culture in question, and can sometimes conflict with other sources
of rights and duties.
The sources of rights and duties are varied and complex, and can depend on factors such as
culture, religion, and legal systems. By understanding these sources, we can gain a deeper
appreciation for the importance of rights and duties in human society, and how they have
shaped our social, political, and legal systems over time.
III. Rights & Duties – Classifications & Elements
The major classifications of rights, include perfect and imperfect rights, positive and negative
rights, antecedent and remedial rights, rights in rem and rights in personam, proprietary and
personal rights, rights in re propria and rights in re aliena, principal and accessory rights,
primary and sanctioning rights, legal and equitable rights, vested and contingent rights, public
and private rights, and servient and dominant rights.

Classifications :
Rights –
Perfect and imperfect rights :
Perfect rights are those that are recognized and enforceable by law, while imperfect rights
are not enforceable in court but represent moral claims or ideals that society should strive to
uphold. For example, the right to life is a perfect right because it is recognized and protected
by law, while the right to a clean environment is an imperfect right because it is not
enforceable in court but represents a moral ideal that society should strive to achieve.
In India, the right to life is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. In the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court
held that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, which includes the right to
clean air, water, and environment.
Positive and negative rights :
Positive rights are rights that impose obligations on others to provide goods or services, while
negative rights require others to refrain from interfering with one's exercise of rights. For
example, the right to education is a positive right because it imposes an obligation on the
government to provide education to all children, while the right to freedom of speech is a
negative right because it requires others to refrain from interfering with one's exercise of
speech.
In India, the right to education is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21A of the
Constitution. In the case of Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held
that the right to education is a positive right and imposes an obligation on the government to
provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years.
Antecedent and remedial rights :
Antecedent rights are those that exist independently of any legal recognition or protection,
while remedial rights are created by law to remedy a violation of an existing right. For
example, the natural right to life is an antecedent right that exists independently of any legal
recognition or protection, while the right to compensation for a violation of the right to life is
a remedial right that is created by law to remedy the violation.
In India, the right to life is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. In the case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the right
to compensation is a remedial right that is available to the victim or the victim's family in case
of a violation of the right to life.
Rights in rem and Rights in personam :
Rights in rem are rights that apply to a thing or property, while rights in personam are rights
that are enforceable against a particular person. For example, the right to own property is a
right in rem, while the right to sue someone for breach of contract is a right in personam.
In India, the right to own property is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the
Constitution. In the case of K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court held that the
right to own property is a right in rem that is protected by the Constitution.
Proprietary and Personal Rights :
Proprietary rights are rights that relate to the ownership or possession of property, while
personal rights relate to the personal status or dignity of a person. For example, the right to
sell or lease property is a proprietary right, while the right to privacy is a personal right.
In India, the right to privacy is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held
that the right to privacy is a personal right that is essential for human dignity and freedom.
Rights in re propria and Rights in re aliena :
Rights in re propria are rights that one has in their own property, while rights in re aliena are
rights that one has in another person's property. For example, the right to use one's own
property is a right in re propria, while the right to a right of way over another person's
property is a right in re aliena.
In India, the right to use one's own property is protected under the right to property under
Article 300A of the Constitution. The right to a right of way over another person's property is
recognized in common law and can be enforced through court action.
Principal and Accessory Rights :
Principal rights are rights that exist independently of other rights, while accessory rights are
dependent on the existence of other rights. For example, the right to own property is a
principal right, while the right to receive rent from that property is an accessory right that
depends on the principal right.
In India, the right to own property is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the
Constitution. The right to receive rent from that property is an accessory right that is
protected by contract law and can be enforced through court action.
Primary and Sanctioning Rights :
Primary rights are those that impose an obligation on others, while sanctioning rights are
those that impose a penalty or sanction for a violation of primary rights. For example, the
right to free speech is a primary right, while the right to sue for defamation is a sanctioning
right that imposes a penalty for a violation of the primary right.
In India, the right to free speech is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The right to sue for defamation is a sanctioning right that is protected by law and can be
enforced through court action.
Legal and Equitable Rights :
Legal rights are rights that are recognized and enforced by law, while equitable rights are
rights that are recognized and enforced based on principles of fairness and justice. For
example, the right to sue for breach of contract is a legal right, while the right to sue for
specific performance of a contract is an equitable right that is based on principles of fairness
and justice.
In India, both legal and equitable rights are recognized and enforced by the courts. The right
to sue for breach of contract is a legal right that is protected by contract law, while the right
to sue for specific performance of a contract is an equitable right that is protected by equity
law.
Vested and Contingent Rights :
Vested rights are those that have already been acquired or earned, while contingent rights
are those that are dependent on the occurrence of a future event. For example, the right to
receive a pension is a vested right that has already been earned, while the right to receive an
inheritance is a contingent right that is dependent on the death of the person leaving the
inheritance.
In India, both vested and contingent rights are recognized and enforced by the courts. The
right to receive a pension is a vested right that is protected by pension law, while the right to
receive an inheritance is a contingent right that is protected by succession law.
Public and Private Rights :
Public rights are those that relate to the general public or society as a whole, while private
rights are those that relate to individuals or groups of individuals. For example, the right to
vote is a public right that relates to the general public, while the right to own property is a
private right that relates to individuals.
In India, both public and private rights are recognized and protected by the Constitution. The
right to vote is a fundamental right under Article 326 of the Constitution, while the right to
own property is a constitutional right under Article
Servient and Dominant Rights :
Servient rights are those that impose a burden or obligation on a piece of property, while
dominant rights are those that confer a benefit or advantage on a piece of property. For
example, the right of way is a dominant right that confers a benefit on a piece of property by
allowing access to it, while the obligation to allow that right of way is a servient right that
imposes a burden on another piece of property.
In India, servient and dominant rights are recognized and enforced through property law. For
instance, an easement is a type of servient and dominant right that confers a benefit on one
piece of property while imposing a burden on another piece of property. An example of an
easement in India is the right to use a common driveway or pathway for access to a property.
Such rights are protected under the Indian Easements Act, 1882.

Duties –
The three primary classifications of duty, namely positive and negative duties, primary and
secondary duties, and absolute and relative duties.
Positive and Negative Duties :
Positive duties are those obligations that require a person to take a specific action, perform a
duty or undertake an obligation. These duties typically require a person to do something to
benefit others, such as providing healthcare, education, or food. Positive duties can be
enforced by law, and failure to fulfil them can result in legal consequences. For example,
doctors have a positive duty to provide medical care to their patients, and the government
has a positive duty to provide education to its citizens.
Negative duties, on the other hand, are obligations that require a person to refrain from doing
something that may cause harm to others. These duties are typically aimed at preventing
harm or injury and are enforceable by law. Examples of negative duties include the duty to
not harm others physically or mentally, the duty to not steal or damage property, and the
duty to not discriminate against others.
Primary and Secondary Duties :
Primary duties are independent obligations that are owed regardless of any other duty or
relationship. They are duties that individuals owe to society or other individuals, and the
violation of such duties can lead to severe legal consequences. For example, the duty to not
commit murder or assault is a primary duty that cannot be waived or compromised, and a
person who violates this duty is subject to severe legal consequences.
Secondary duties, on the other hand, are dependent obligations that arise as a result of the
violation of primary duties. These duties typically require a person to rectify the harm caused
by the breach of primary duties. For example, a person who has caused physical harm to
another person has a secondary duty to compensate the victim for the harm caused.
Absolute and Relative Duties :
Absolute duties are obligations that are owed to the state or society as a whole. These duties
are independent of any specific relationship or circumstance and apply universally to all
individuals. Failure to fulfil such duties can result in severe legal consequences, such as
imprisonment or fines. Examples of absolute duties include paying taxes, obeying the law,
and serving on a jury.
Relative duties, on the other hand, are obligations that arise out of specific relationships or
circumstances. They are owed to specific individuals or groups of individuals and can vary
depending on the nature of the relationship or circumstance. Examples of relative duties
include the duty of parents to care for their children, the duty of doctors to provide care to
their patients, and the duty of employers to provide safe working conditions for their
employees.

Essential Elements of Rights :

According to Salmond every legal right has five following elements –
(i) Person of inherence :
Also called the subject of the right, this refers to the person who possesses the right. In other
words, the individual who can claim the benefit of a legal right is called the person of
inherence. For example, if a person owns a property, then that person is the person of
inherence with respect to the right of ownership. However the subject of the right need not
to be determinate or certain, for example an unborn child can also be a subject of right if they
is to inherit the said property. A right can also be owned by society as a whole for example
the right of citizens to participate in a political process.
(ii) Person of incidence
: This refers to the person or entity against whom the right is claimed. In other words, the
individual or entity who is obligated to respect the legal right is called the person of incidence.
For example, if a person owns a property, then anyone who tries to use or occupy that
property without the owner's consent would be the person of incidence.
(iii) Content :
This refers to the nature of the right. It describes what exactly the right entails. For example,
the right to property would include the right to use, occupy, sell, or lease the property.
(iv) Object :
This refers to the thing or object to which the right relates. For example, in the case of the
right to property, the object would be the property itself.
(v) Title :
This refers to the legal basis or justification for the right. It is the means by which the right is
acquired. For example, a person may acquire the right to property through purchase,
inheritance, or gift.
Here's an example that incorporates all of these elements :
Let's say John buys a house from Sarah. In this case, John is the person of inherence because
he now possesses the right of ownership. Sarah, on the other hand, is the person of incidence
because she is obligated to transfer ownership of the house to John. The content of the right
is the right to use, occupy, sell, or lease the property. The object of the right is the house itself.
Finally, the title for John's right to the house would be the purchase agreement or the deed
that transfers ownership from Sarah to John.
two more illustrations of the essential elements of rights in different situations :
(a) In the case of a labor union, the person of inherence is the union itself, which has the right
to represent and negotiate on behalf of its members. The content of the right is the union's
ability to bargain collectively with employers, while the object of the right is better working
conditions, wages, and benefits for its members. The title of the right is the legal recognition
of the union's right to represent its members and to engage in collective bargaining.
For example, imagine a labor union representing factory workers. The union negotiates with
the factory owner to improve working conditions and to increase wages and benefits for the
workers. The union is the person of inherence, representing the collective interests of its
member. The content of the right is the union's ability to negotiate on behalf of its members,
while the object of the right is better working conditions, wages, and benefits. The title of the
right is the legal recognition of the union's right to represent its members and to engage in
collective bargaining.
(b) In the case of a mortgage loan, the object of the right is the property itself, which serves
as collateral for the loan. The person of incidence is the borrower, who has the right to use
and possess the property as long as they make timely payments on the loan. The person of
inherence is the lender, who has the right to foreclose on the property if the borrower defaults
on the loan.
For example, imagine John wants to buy a house but does not have enough money to pay for
it upfront. He obtains a mortgage loan from a bank. The bank is the person of inherence, as
they own the loan and have the right to receive payments from John. John is the person of
incidence, as he has the right to live in and use the property as long as he makes payments on
the loan. The object of the right is the property itself, which serves as collateral for the loan.
If John fails to make payments, the bank can foreclose on the property (the title of the right)
and take ownership of it.
IV. Literature Review –
Will Theory :
The Will theory, also known as the Choice theory, asserts that legal rights are derived from
the will or intention of the person who holds the right. According to this theory, a person has
a legal right if and only if he or she has the intention or will to exercise that right. This theory
was developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who believed that legal rights
were grounded in the rational will of the individual. The Will theory is grounded in the idea of
autonomy, which emphasizes individual freedom and self-determination. According to Kant,
individuals possess rational autonomy, which is the capacity to govern oneself according to
reason. The Will theory asserts that legal rights are based on an individual's free choice to
exercise those rights.
However, the Will theory has been criticized for its lack of objectivity and its focus on the
subjective will of the individual. Critics argue that it is not sufficient for legal rights to be based
solely on the will or intention of the individual. For example, a person may have the intention
to exercise a right that is not recognized by law. Furthermore, the Will theory does not provide
a clear basis for resolving conflicts between competing rights, as the subjective will of the
individual may not always align with the interests of society or other individuals.
An example of the Will theory in practice can be seen in the Indian legal system. In the case
of State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (1996), the Supreme Court of India held that the right to life
and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right that
cannot be taken away except according to procedure established by law. The Court held that
the will and choice of an individual are integral components of the right to life and personal
liberty.

Interest Theory :
The Interest theory, also known as the Benefit theory, asserts that legal rights are based on
the interests of the individual or group that holds the right. According to this theory, a person
has a legal right if and only if he or she has a legitimate interest that is protected by law. This
theory was developed by the English philosopher H.L.A. Hart. The Interest theory emphasizes
the importance of protecting the interests of individuals and groups, particularly those who
are vulnerable or disadvantaged. The theory asserts that legal rights are designed to promote
individual and societal interests, and that the law should balance the interests of different
individuals and groups to achieve a just and equitable society.
However, the Interest theory has been criticized for its lack of clarity in defining what
constitutes a legitimate interest. Critics argue that it can be difficult to determine what
interests should be protected by law and what interests should not be protected. Additionally,
the theory does not provide a clear basis for resolving conflicts between competing interests,
as different individuals and groups may have conflicting interests.
An example of the Interest theory in practice can be seen in the Indian legal system. In the
case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court of India held that sexual
harassment in the workplace is a violation of the fundamental rights to equality and gender
justice under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that women
have a legitimate interest in being free from sexual harassment, and that the law should
protect this interest.

Protection Theory :
The Protection theory, also known as the Correlative theory, asserts that legal rights are based
on the need to protect individuals from harm. According to this theory, a person has a legal
right if and only if the exercise of that right is necessary to protect the individual from harm.
This theory was developed by the American philosopher Wesley Hohfeld. The Protection
theory emphasizes the importance of protecting individuals from harm, particularly harm
caused by others. The theory asserts that legal rights are designed to prevent harm and to
ensure that individuals are able to live their lives free from interference.
However, the Protection theory has been criticized for its narrow focus on harm prevention
and for its lack of consideration of other important values, such as individual autonomy and
societal interests. Critics argue that the theory does not provide a clear basis for resolving
conflicts between competing rights or interests, as harm prevention may not always be the
most important consideration.
An example of the Protection theory in practice can be seen in the Indian legal system. In the
case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court of India held
that the right to livelihood is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court held that denying individuals the right to earn a livelihood can cause harm, and that
the law should protect this right.
In my opinion, each of these theories has its strengths and weaknesses, and no single theory
provides a complete and satisfactory explanation of legal rights. The Will theory emphasizes
individual autonomy and choice, but it does not provide a clear basis for resolving conflicts
between competing rights or for determining what rights should be recognized by law. The
Interest theory emphasizes the importance of protecting individual and societal interests, but
it can be difficult to determine what constitutes a legitimate interest and how conflicts
between different interests should be resolved. The Protection theory emphasizes the
importance of preventing harm and ensuring individual security, but it may not adequately
consider other important values such as autonomy and societal interests.
Ultimately, a comprehensive theory of legal rights must take into account multiple factors,
including individual autonomy, societal interests, and harm prevention. It is important for
legal systems to balance these factors and to ensure that legal rights are grounded in a clear
and consistent set of principles that promote justice, fairness, and equality.
V. Discussion
The objective and goal of this project has been to examine Rights and Duties and to
understand the source of the same. Another objective of the project was to find out if Rights
and Duties are co-related. To achieve this, the Project looked at various propositions,
hypotheses, and statements given by different theorists.
In the process we learned that Right is an entitlement, to be able to perform or forbear to
perform certain actions. While ‘Duty’ has been described to be a co-relative of ‘Right’. It was
observed that, the word Right has been used interchangeably with several other words such
as ‘Claim’, ‘Benefit’, ‘Power’, ‘Liberty’ etc., while the word ‘Duty’ has been used
synonymously with the word ‘Obligation’ , It means something what we are ought to do.
While one theory expounds that certain rights and duties are inherent to human beings. It
proposes that we possess the Rights and Duties solely because we are Human. Another
Theory explains that it is The State that confers the Rights and Duties upon its citizens.
Another theory claims that we derive Rights and Duties from the Religions and various long
followed traditions. None of these theories stand true if read and understood independently,
however it sounds coherent when understood collectively.
Discussing about Rights and Duties, one of the key propositions put forward by theorists is
that rights and duties are interconnected. Specifically, rights cannot exist without
corresponding duties, and duties cannot exist without corresponding rights.
One of the most notable theorists in this field is John Austin. According to Austin, the state
creates rights to protect the interests of individuals and ensure that they can live freely
without interference from others. Austin also argued that the state creates duties to ensure
that these rights are protected and respected. While Austin's theory highlights the role of the
state in creating rights and duties, it has been criticized for overlooking the broader social,
economic, and political factors that influence the creation and enforcement of these rights
and duties. In contrast, Salmond believed that rights and duties are inherent in individuals
and are not created by the state. According to Salmond, rights are natural and exist
independently of the state, and duties arise from the obligations that individuals have
towards each other. This view highlights the importance of social norms and conventions in
shaping our understanding of rights and duties.
To establish a more comprehensive relationship between rights and duties, Hohfeld proposed
a theory of jural relations. Hohfeld believed that legal rights and duties are interconnected
and exist in pairs, which he called "jural correlatives". These pairs include rights and duties,
privileges and no-rights, powers and liabilities, and immunities and disabilities.
For example, if an individual has the right to free speech, others have a duty to respect that
right. Similarly, if an individual has the power to enter into a contract, they have the liability
to fulfil that contract. Hohfeld's theory helps to explain the complex relationships between
legal rights and duties and how they relate to each other.
However, Hohfeld's theory has also been criticized for being too narrow and not taking into
account the broader social context in which rights and duties exist. Critics argue that Hohfeld's
theory does not adequately account for the social, economic, and political factors that
influence the creation and enforcement of legal rights and duties.
In conclusion, it is clear that rights and duties are interdependent, and this interdependence
is supported by various theorists such as John Salmond, Pollock, Keeton, and Hohfeld.
However, the relationship between rights and duties is not always straightforward and is
influenced by various social, economic, and political factors. Therefore, it is essential to
consider the broader context in which rights and duties exist when analysing their
interdependence.
VI. Conclusion –
To conclude my Project, ‘Rights’ are entitlements to perform certain actions, or to be in
certain states; or entitlements that others perform certain actions or be in certain states.
According to a prominent political thinker, Laski, Rights are those conditions of social life
without which no man can seek in general, to be himself at his best. When the right is given
to the person then it is assumed that certain duties are also imposed on the person. The right
has its correlative duties. No right can exist without a corresponding duty. Therefore, A right
can be understood as the ability to do something or forbear to do something while Duty can
be understood as an obligation, an obligation can be towards an individual, The State or even
people at large.
The idea of rights and obligations has long been central to human civilization and has
influenced the social, political, and legal structures of societies all over the world. At its
foundation, the concept of rights and duties refers to the idea that individuals have specific
entitlements or advantages, as well as corresponding responsibilities or obligations, that are
either granted or enforced by a variety of sources. Rights and duties can be derived from
natural law, positive law, religion, state, and norms. Natural law is based on universal
principles inherent in human nature, while positive law is determined by the legal system of
a particular society or state. Religion can also provide guidance on rights and duties based on
its beliefs and teachings. The state is a source of rights and duties because of the authority
and power it possesses. Norms within a society also play a role in shaping the rights and duties
expected of individuals.
In addition to this, there have been several theories that attempt to explain the origin of
Rights and Duties, for instance, ‘Will’ and ‘Interest’ theories are two perspectives on the origin
of rights and duties. Will theory assert that rights and duties arise from the exercise of free
will or choice. This means that individuals have rights because they choose to exercise them,
and they have duties because they choose to undertake them. Interest theory, on the other
hand, holds that rights and duties are based on an individual's interests. In this view,
individuals have rights because they have a legitimate interest in protecting their own well-
being or that of others, and they have duties because they have a corresponding obligation
to respect the interests of others. These theories help to provide a framework for
understanding the underlying principles that govern rights and duties.
Throughout, the objective of this project was to examine Rights and Duties and to understand
how they are co-related with each other. There were several theorists that were of the
opinion that Rights and Duties are inseparable while other theorists, for one, John Austin was
of the opinion that Duties could be absolute which means it could exist independently of any
Right. However, this proposition was met with a lot of criticism. For one, Salmond believed
that all the duties have corresponding rights and vice-versa. This proposition was further
corroborated by Hohfeld, who in his theory of Jural-Relations attempted to establish relation
between various co-relatives and contradictories.
There is no doubt that Rights and Duties are interdependent and co-related and the same has
been reflected in this Project.
VII. References –
Literary Sources :
1) Dr. N.V. Paranjape, Studies in Jurisprudence & Legal Theory, Central Law Agency, 1994,
(10th ed. 2022)

Online Sources :
1) Wenar, Leif, "Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition), Ed-
ward N. Zalta (ed.),
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/rights/>.
2) ‘Rights: Meaning and theories; different kinds of rights; concept of Human Rights’, Civil Ser-
vice India,
https://www.civilserviceindia.com/subject/Political-Science/notes/rights-meaning-and-
theories.html
4) Suyash Verma, ‘Legal Concepts’, Desi Kanoon, 14th August 2012,
https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2012/08/jurisprudence-notes-legal-concepts.html
5) ‘Concept of Rights and Duties Under Jurisprudence’, iblogpleaders, 2019,
https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-of-rights-and-duties-under-jurisprudence/
6) ‘Meaning definitions and kinds of duties’, SRD LAW NOTES,
https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/09/meaning-definition-and-kinds-of-duties.html