ABSTRACT:
The very statement that “moral judgements cannot be proved by evidences” is a true statement, without any sort of doubt with it. The statement is of one of the Central Claims of Analytical positivism given by Hart. As moral judgements are value judgement, which involves a question of choice between what is posited and if it is posited whether it is rightly applied in to the cases where it is supposed to get applied or not? And whether the idea of attainment of justice, which is one of the most important element is attained or not? For example, with the question whether bar girls should be allowed to dance at bars or not? Is a question which would be answered on the basis of moral intellect of a person, and is attach to the very idea of what is moral for that particular person? As because if asked whether it is right constitutionally or not, the answer would be based on a priori understanding of that particular person. And more over where the law is unconstitutional, it does not means that legislatures did that by violating the constitution but the intention of the legislatures was wrong, but there is no attribution of malafide intention in it. For example Sec 37 of the Indian Constitution which claims that- the provisions contained in this part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.