Why we cannot exist without law ?

Laishram Malem Mangal *

That law is an indispensable fourth cardinal basic need of mankind has become a stark reality in the 21st century. Law provides certainty to rules of conduct. The importance and function of law is increasingly felt like never before. Law no longer confines its scope to maintaining peace and security and to providing mechanism for delivering justice but has also become a constructive instrument for a positive social change and order. Today, mankind is collectively a refugee under the regimes of rules of law.

Through law making conventions, we are engaged in reconciling our disagreements, dissenting ideologies and conflicts to solve problems which are common to and which threaten our collective human existence. Indeed, law is the only key and resolution for a secured, peaceful and ordered human survival today and tomorrow. It will remain as a universal truth which could only be reversed when humans are born without social character or simply when opposite sex fails to attract.

The students of LMS Law College condemn and challenge the narrow perceptions which hold that there is no need of any rule of law in our society and that law as an academic discipline is inferior to other counter-part courses (Exerpts from the Key-Note Address presented by the author in the programme referred in to). Certain notable remarks made by some resource persons at the recently held "Extension Lecture on Career Advancement" on 3rd April, 2010 at the LMS Law College, Imphal is reproduced here which directly falls within the scope of this write up.

Former Judge C Upendra remarked that there cannot be a society without law. Law exists only for the society. No law no society. The legal philosophy of Von Savingny is reflected here. He stated "law grows with the growth of the society and gains its strength from the society itself and finally withers away as the nation loses its nationality".

Law, language, customs and Government have no separate existence from the people who follow. Law existed ever since mankind had begun to organise amongst themselves. Before customs which is the socially accepted norm, there were usages which are unrefined practices and sometimes discontinued. Simply put, usage precedes custom, ie customs begin where usage ends.

By now, mankind might be having a thousand billion legislations or declared laws. But still, we rely on a universe of uncodified customs which are sometimes more powerful and effective than an enacted or written law. Legislation is the first and primary source of law as is the law made by treaty or convention in international plane.

Judiciary also makes law which is called judicial precedents. Decisions of the Courts are rules of law made by the process of judicial legislation wherein the court is asked to determine appropriate rule of law for a given case. Legislation cannot always provide each and every law which is needed for a constantly changing and complex society of today.

The courts while determining law in cases for which no certain rule of law is available to apply, lay down appropriate laws which are also otherwise called judge-made law. Decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts in the domestic plane and the International Court of Justice, International Crimes Tribunals in the international arena, among others are concrete examples. Thus, we rely on three major sources of law.

The remarkable statement made by the former Sessions and District Judge, C Upendra at the CNN-IBN documentary on fake-encounter killings in Manipur “True Lies in Manipur” that they (the armed security forces of the State) do whatever they like triggers off academic-activist challenges to those who are committed to the protection and upholding of such basic human and legal values as justice, the rule of law, inalienable human rights and constitutionalism.

The recent shoot out which injured the Advocate General and other such similar instances brings the challenge in lime light. It is not an injury done to any particular physical person but it is a rape of the rule of law and core values of our society. How do we respond to it in such situation reflects our civilisation. VR Krishna Iyer, former Supreme Court Judge stated “the progress or otherwise of a people depends on their level of respect for human rights. (The Hindu, March 19, 2010).

That people which fail to ensure basic human and legal values to prevail is not a civilised society. This perhaps, is the much needed definition of a civilised society in the 21st century.

Emphasising the importance of law in a society in the same line with C Upendra, former Advocate General Hijam Nabakumar, who had taught law in the college for over a period of 17 years, stated that the profession of legal advocacy is a noble and highly respectable. The senior advocate stated that lawyers and advocates are hated professionals but are still necessary for a society. Marxian theory of law that law is a necessary evil is truly reflected here. Law indeed, if used for exploitation and suppression is evil.

The colonial world bears concrete testimony. The AFSPA is typical neo-colonial legislation. Marxian theory of law might not be totally true in modern welfare States. Welfare of the general people has become the prime legal obligation. In such welfare States, law has come to mean welfare laws. But still we find laws which give privilege to or favour certain classified class or sections of people as in India.

Such laws are qualified and justified for its aim is to enable the weaker sections of the society to come forward by providing such privileges which is for a limited time. Categorisation of people economically, socially and educationally has legal-time limits. The statement which Professor Amar Yumnam made as a Dean of the School of Social Sciences, MU is encouraging.

He stated that those Universities which maintain vibrant and dynamic legal studies are widely known for their academic efficiency. He stressed the urgent need for opening a Department of Law at the MU. He stated the Dean’s Office would give first priority to improving law as an academic discipline: This is indeed, a statement from a dynamic intellectual of the Manipur University.

The students of law express gratitude to Professor Amar Yumnam for his sensibilities and concerns about legal studies. His mobilisation of the students of law is worthy to note “You have bright prospects...the world is yours...” It is a fact that the society needs people who know law in every walk of life.

Indeed, a long felt word of encouragement from a responsible academician of the MU has really touched and inspired many students to pursue their career with objectivity. But still we anticipate further commitments and processes to improving legal studies.

Former Deans of the same school had deliberately failed or feared to discuss about law as an independent academic discipline not to talk of improving or giving its due legitimate academic accommodation at the MU with a Department under a School of Law. They are remembered for their narrow academic perceptions, insensibilities, discrimination and poor judgment.

It is highly questionable to the perceptions as to why law as an academic discipline should not be given its due space with a Department under a School of Law at the MU. Why should law (legal studies) be regulated under the Department of Political Science? How could such practices be justified which is not found elsewhere?

Would our friends of the Political Science Department of the MU accept to regulate or affiliate their political science studies under a Department or School of Law? Why should you do something which is not desirable to be done to you by others?

Refute these questions and justify your arguements. Students of law challenge your poor academic perceptions, insensibilities and ill informed convictions.