Laws and logic are interwoven in legal thinking and reasoning. Plato (429-347 BC) was a renowned philosopher and disciple of Socrates (469-399 BC), a distinguished Greek philosopher and the master of Aristotle (384-322 BC), who was the most famous of all the Greek philosophers. Plato wrote the classics The Republic and Law which are his masterpieces in laws and logic.
According to Plato an ideal king must be a philosopher. So Philip, the father of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), sent his son to the Academy of Aristotle to study philosophy which enabled Alexander to be a great king.
Jawahar Lal Nehru, on his address in the book titled The Success of Non-Violence, spoke as follows:-
Politicians have to deal with day to day problems and they seek immediate remedies. Philosophers think of ultimate objectives and are apt to lose touch with the day to day work and its problems. Is it possible to combine these two approaches and function after the manner of Plato’s philosopher-king?
Aristotle gave the world the various formulae for thinking by using syllogism to verify the truth in a sentence. Syllogism is a progress made from guesswork to demonstration. The verification of a sentence is different from the reality of the word that denotes the connotation of the word.
To give an example of syllogism:
Major Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
The major premise, all men are mortal, was arrived at by the inductive method of logic, so it contains truth. The minor premise is mixed with the major premise and the conclusion, through the minor premise, is that Socrates is a man. One can substitute Mahatma Gandhi, for example, in the place of Socrates and reach the same conclusion.
This process is a fallacy in reasoning, for when the major premise does not contain the truth the conclusion is false. The reasoning may be logical, but it will be false if the reason contained in major premise is not correct.
Major Premise: All crows are white.
Minor Premise: A bird in hand is white.
Conclusion: The bird is a crow.
There will be confusion in the mind of a man, which is called muddled thinking, when the middle premise is not mixed with the major premise in syllogistic logic. There is an example in the matter of presidential reference under Art. 143 of the Indian Constitution, represented in AIR 1954 SC 322. The presidential reference was made to the Supreme Court to answer three questions and, for the sake of brevity, only the first question will be discussed:
Was Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 ultra vires, or any of the legislature passed the said Act?
The Presidential reference arises when there is a dilemma for the government in deciding to move in the right direction without the opinion of the Supreme Court. Hence the Government formulated certain questions to be answered which became the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The opinion is sought through the president in disguise for the government under Article 143 of the Constitution of India. It is not a binding ratio decidendi of a case decided by the Supreme Court since there was no lis pendens before the Supreme Court between two parties. Hence it is only an advisory opinion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can also decline reference under Art. 143 of the Indian Constitution.
His Lordship Kania, C.J. used the syllogism of logic in paragraph 33, page 844 of the judgement, his Lordship Pathanjali Shasthri used the syllogism in paragraph 106 of page 364 of the judgement, and Justice Dass also quoted from paragraph 269 the syllogism of Prof. Cushman’s Syllogism.
Major Premise: Legislative powers cannot be constitutionally delegated by Congress.
Minor Premise: It is essential that certain powers be delegated to administrative officers and regulatory commissions.
Conclusion: The powers thus delegated are not legislative powers.
They are, instead, administrative, or quasi-legislative, powers.
So, the judicial dilemma of judges was solved by the thinking through syllogism to determine whether the Delhi Laws come within the purview of delegated legislation of the Parliament or not.
In our free India, the first reference to the Supreme Court under Art. 143 of the Indian Constitution was made by the first President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, on behalf of the government headed by the first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru, who were tallest personalities in the political scene of post Independent India.
The following syllogism can be used in Laws and Logic as twins:
Major Premise: No government can claim the divine right to govern wrongly.
Minor Premise: The elected representatives headed by the cabinet system of government also is of the people.
Conclusion: The elected representatives headed by the cabinet in a democracy cannot govern wrongly.
Second Example for Syllogism:
Major Premise: Any law passed by the Parliament contrary to the provisions made in the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Minor Premise: Any ordinance promulgated by the Governor, repugnant to the provisions made in the Constitution, is unconstitutional.
Conclusion: Hence any law against Constitutional provision is unconstitutional.
The logic is a hard nut to crack. Law is easy to learn but difficult to forget. That is the attraction for the students to study law.
Logic is one of the important tools for the modern research method as well as in the art of advocacy and logic must be one of the subjects in curriculum for any law graduates.