Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Sources of Law

Which statement about juristic writings as a source of law is correct?

Juristic writings are persuasive, not binding. Courts may rely on the views of eminent jurists to clarify unsettled points of law or interpret ambiguous provisions, but such writings cannot override statutes or bind courts like Supreme Court judgments.

  1. AThey are binding on courts in the same way as Supreme Court judgments
  2. BThey have persuasive value and may help courts when statutes and precedents are unclearCorrect
  3. CThey are enacted by Parliament after scholars' consultation
  4. DThey override statutes when the scholar is eminent

Explanation

Opinions of jurists and textbook writers are not binding. Courts may refer to them for guidance, especially in unsettled areas, so their authority is persuasive. Treating them as binding or as overriding statutes is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Sources of Law shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Sources of LawFree diagnostic mock

More Sources of Law questions