Understanding the LAW From Physics’ Perspective

It is believed that Physics is one of the most conceptual subjects where students don’t need to remember anything, but rather understand only the concept. All the laws and principles defined in Physics whether it is Newton’s “Law of Gravitation” or Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity,” all are literally subjective concept that need to be understand and essentially not required to remember or memorize as such. 

On the contrary, it is believed that the rules and provisions of Law, are objective (facts) in nature that largely need to be memorize with their respective codes. Or in other words, unlike Physics, in law, there is less scope to understand the concept.

But if you pay a little attention on the provisions and rules of law, you will find that the legal provisions are also as conceptual as the Law of Physics. We understand it with an example, I take the most popular theory in Physics i.e. “Law of Gravity,” it is a beautiful principle, which states that 

“Every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.”

Where:

• F is the force between the masses;
• G is the gravitational constant;
• m1 is the first mass;
• m2 is the second mass;
• r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

How simple it is.

Do you really think that still, Physics students need to memorize it, of course not; what all they need to do is – understand that the higher the mass of the particle, greater will be the gravitational force and with distance, the intensity of gravitational force decreases; nothing needs to be memorized.

Similarly, if I apply the same principle in Law and see what does happen. For the experiment purpose, I will take Article 13 of the Constitution. The reason is, as in Mechanics (Physics), Law of Gravity is one of the most important laws; similarly, in Law, Article 13 of the Constitution is very much important. Article 13 states that:

13. (1): “All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.”

13. (2): “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.”

Likewise, Article 13 discusses about the void provisions and explains the circumstances in which a particular provision will be void; so, now, I apply the same formula that described above:

Where:

• VP is the Void Provision;
• C is the Constitution;
• 13 (1) is the first provision of Article 13 explained above;
• 13 (2) is the second provision of Article 13 explained above;
• I is the Inconsistency between the existing provision/s or new provision made by the legislature and the provision of the Constitution.

Now, I collate both the law of gravity and provision of Article 13; 

 

First principle of Gravity says that “every particle attracts every other particle in this universe.”

Article 13 (1) says that any of the provision which is in force on Indian Territory, will be void, if that is inconsistent with the provision of the Part III of the Indian Constitution i.e. Fundamental Rights.

Secondly, the second rule of Law of Gravity says that “the force of particle is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.”

Similarly, clause 2 of Article 13 says that the State/Legislature shall not make any law, which affects the Fundamental Rights and any law made in contravention of Part III, be void. It means, Legislature cannot make any law that anyway affect the Fundamental Rights conferred by the Indian Constitution (Doctrine of Colourable Legislation).

The story does not end here, When Newton was merely 23 years old, he conceptualized the law of gravity and later (almost after more than 20 years), he consolidated the three laws of motion.

Similarly, (more than) after 20 years, the concept of “Basic Structure” evolved from the Article 13 itself.

Now

How many of you can establish such relationship or/and find it relevant?

I know, hardly anyone of you can find any meaning in this sort of explanation especially the students of humanities, but for the law students who are from physics background can appreciate it very well. 

Anyway, my purpose is neither to teach you Physics nor to explain the legal provisions through the principles of Physics but yes, my intention is to explain to all those law students who think that legal provisions are largely the matter of memorization and least to understand, that law is (like physics) purely the subject of concept, all you need to do is, understand it carefully. Believe me, if you memorize the legal provisions, you would not able to apply it in your case or somewhere in your real life; however, if you understand it, only then you can apply the understood legal provision to all those situations wherever it fits.