How to present these descriptions, analyses and applications of principles in the form of written arguments that are appropriately structured, developed, supported and referenced
How to Present Legal Descriptions, Analyses, and Applications in Written Arguments
1. Understand the Structure
A well-structured legal argument typically follows this flow:
Introduction
Briefly state the issue or legal question you are addressing. Outline the scope of your argument.
Statement of the Law
Describe the relevant legal principles, statutes, or doctrines. This is where you explain the administrative law principles or any other relevant laws.
Application/Analysis
Apply the stated law to the facts or issue. Discuss how principles operate in the context of your question.
Supporting Case Law
Integrate case law that illustrates or supports your argument. Use facts, rulings, and reasoning from cases to strengthen your point.
Counterarguments (Optional but Recommended)
Address possible opposing views or limitations and explain why your position still holds.
Conclusion
Summarize your argument succinctly, reaffirming the legal position you support.
2. Developing the Argument
Be Clear and Concise: Avoid jargon or overly complex sentences. Each paragraph should have one main idea.
Use IRAC Method:
Issue: Identify the legal issue.
Rule: State the legal rule or principle.
Application: Apply the rule to facts or issues.
Conclusion: Draw a conclusion.
Link Cases to Principles: Don’t just name cases. Explain how the case law illustrates or enforces a principle.
Use Proper Citation: When referencing cases, mention case name, year, and brief context. This shows authority and supports credibility.
Use Transitional Phrases: Phrases like “This principle is exemplified in…”, “In contrast, the court in… held that…”, “Therefore, it follows that…” guide the reader.
3. Referencing Case Law: Detailed Example Format
Case Name (Year): Start by mentioning the case clearly.
Facts: Briefly describe the relevant facts.
Issue: What legal question did the court address?
Holding: What was the court’s decision?
Reasoning: What principles did the court apply?
Significance: Why is this case relevant to your argument?
Illustrating with 5 Landmark Case Laws (Example)
1. Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
Issue: Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is unlimited.
Holding: Parliament cannot alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court balanced parliamentary sovereignty with fundamental principles.
Application: This case shows how administrative law respects constitutional limits, emphasizing the principle of legality.
2. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)
Issue: Whether the procedure for depriving a person of their passport violated Article 21.
Holding: The Court expanded the right to life to include due process and fairness.
Significance: Established that administrative actions must be reasonable and just, reinforcing the principle of natural justice.
3. A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India (1969)
Issue: Can an administrative authority be biased or have a conflict of interest?
Holding: The Court held that any bias violates the rule of natural justice.
Reasoning: Administrative authorities must be impartial.
Application: This case is fundamental for arguments involving audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua.
4. S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981)
Issue: Independence of the judiciary and transparency in appointments.
Holding: Administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must be open to judicial review.
Significance: Established judicial oversight on administrative decisions, upholding accountability.
5. Union of India vs. Raghunath Rai (1989)
Issue: Whether an administrative order was arbitrary and violated principles of reasonableness.
Holding: The Court struck down arbitrary administrative actions.
Application: Reinforces that administrative decisions must not be arbitrary or capricious.
Putting it all together: Sample Paragraph (Written Argument Style)
Introduction:
The principle of natural justice is a cornerstone of administrative law, ensuring fairness and impartiality in government decisions.
Statement of Law:
As established in A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India (1969), any administrative authority must avoid bias or conflict of interest to uphold the rule of nemo judex in causa sua.
Application and Analysis:
In situations where administrative officers have personal interest, decisions risk being arbitrary and unfair, undermining public confidence. This principle was reaffirmed in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), which expanded due process rights under Article 21 to require that procedures be fair and reasonable.
Supporting Case Law:
Furthermore, in Union of India vs. Raghunath Rai (1989), the Supreme Court struck down an arbitrary administrative order, emphasizing that administrative actions must be grounded in reasoned justification.
Conclusion:
Thus, administrative authorities must rigorously apply principles of natural justice to ensure decisions are impartial, transparent, and justiciable.
Final Tips
Use headings/subheadings to organize arguments.
Always support claims with authority (cases/statutes).
Write in formal, objective language.
Avoid plagiarism by paraphrasing and properly citing cases.
Proofread to ensure clarity and coherence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments