An Assignment on

Sociometrics & Jurismetrics Techqniques

Submitted towards the partial fulfilment of syllabus for the 2nd semester of

LLM course for the subject.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Submitted To: Submitted By:

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No. Contents Pg No.

1. Preface 6

2. Introduction 7

3. Meaning and Origin of Jurimetrics 8

4. The Concept of Jurimetrics 9

5. Scope of Jurimetrics in legal research 10-11

6. Assumption of Jurimetrics 12

7 Problem encounter in Jurimetrcis 13

8 Jurimetrics within the Indian Judicial System 14

9 Power of SC to review its own Judgement 15

10 Power of SC to punish for contempt 16-17

11 Conclusion 18-19

12 References 20

2
DECLARATION

The text reported in the project is the outcome of my own efforts and no part of this report has
been copied in any unauthorized manner and no part in it has been incorporated without due
acknowledgement. Any part produced/reported from any source has been duly cited and proper
credit is given to the concerned person.

Name & signature

3
Certificate

The work undertaken by Mr. Mohit Agarwal is genuine to the best of my knowledge. The
references used by the student has been duly cited and acknowledged to my understanding.

Name & signature

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am extremely thankful for the guidance provided by the faculty members at Dr. Rajendra
Prasad Law Institute. I am grateful to my professor for giving me the opportunity to
undertake a study on the topic:Sociometrics & jurismetrics techqniues. I thank the college
staff at library and computer labs for co-operatively assisting in the process of research work.

Sincere thanks to my seniors for guiding me on the presentation and formatting part of the
project without which the proper arrangement of the content could have been done.

5
Preface

Jurimetrics is the science of law.Although it is the legislature which is entrusted with the
work of making the law, it is the lawyers and the judges who are intrinsically involved in the
study of law scientifically. How far can the task of a judge in developing the law be described
as scientific? It can be assessed by a consideration of the theory of the logical plenitude of
law. In a broad sense, this theory means that a judge cannot refuse to decide a case on the
ground that there is no precise authority in point. The theory of the logical plenitude of law
states the irrefutable truth that law is not a mere collection of detailed rules, but an organic
body of principles with an inherent scope of growth and flexibility to adapt to new
circumstances. Unassumingly, law is not only an organic body of principles but is a rational
system for the exercise of authority of human beings. We need to use the Doctrine Logical
Plenitude in a way to make it a narrowing force because if a case can be decided purely by
logical deductions from the actual rules in force than we are depriving the law of all power to
develop and will crush its growth.

6
Introduction 

In recent years, attempts to predict judicial behaviour have taken a mechanical turn for which

the term ‘jurimetrics’ has been invented. It takes the form of different kinds of investigations

into legal phenomena by using symbolic logic, behavioural models and mechanical aids.

Earlier, Boolean algebra was used to analyse complex sets of facts, prediction of behaviour

has now moved away from that of the individual to that of groups and the use of computers is

being explored. Loevinger employs the term ‘jurimetrics’ to denote a different set of activities

from those that are normally performed under the umbrella of ‘jurisprudence’. There are

some basic differences between jurisprudence and jurimetrics. For example, jurisprudence is

concerned with such matters as the nature and sources of the law, the formal bases of law, the

province and function of law, the ends of law and the analysis of general juristic concepts.

Jurimetrics is concerned with such matters as the quantitative analysis of judicial behaviour,

the application of communication and information theory to legal expression, the use of

mathematical logic in law, the retrieval of legal data by electronic and mechanical means, and

the formulation of a calculus of legal predictability. Jurisprudence is primarily an undertaking

of rationalism; jurimetrics is an effort to utilize the methods of science in the field of law. The

conclusions of jurisprudence are merely debatable; the conclusions of jurimetrics are testable.

Jurisprudence cogitates essence of law, ends and values. Jurimetrics investigates the methods

of inquiry.

7
MEANING AND ORIGIN OF JURIMETRICS

Jurimetrics is the study of law and science. It involves a strictly empirical approach to the law

and examines a wide range of scientific and legal topics that are interrelated. 7 Origin of the

term JURIMETRICS, juri-, juslaw + E-metrics(as ineconometrics).Jurimetrics is a step

towards seeking new alternatives in the field of legal inquiry and may not be treated as a

‘new science.’The term jurimetrics originated in the 1960s as the use of computers in law

practice began to revolutionize the areas of legal research, evidence analysis, and data

management. The term ‘Jurimetrics’ was coined by Lee Loevinger in 1949 and introduced

into the legal vocabulary in the late forties and signifies the scientific investigation of legal

problems. It has been defined as ‘the empirical study of legal phenomena with the aid of

mathematical models on the basis of rationalism.’ This is given strong support by the

American Bar Association’s(ABA’s) Section on Law and Technology, which publishes the

journal Jurimetrics. This has focused especially on legal informatics, symbolic logic, but has

sometimes ranged much wider. Like the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioural Research

(which emphasis biology), ‘Jurimetrics’ has tended to be somewhat isolated towards the

‘scientistic’ end of socio-legal studies may be changing.

8
THE CONCEPT OF JURIMETRICS

Legal Reasoning is a process through which data is interpreted as high level concepts. In law,

data is being represented in natural language, representing the facts of a legal case. Those

facts are human events which may lead to a dispute. One of the objectives of legal argument

is to interpret, analyze the facts of the case to try to fit the facts into defined rules of law.

Legal reasoning takes intensive factual interpretation and the drawing of conclusions through

heuristic computations. It is thought that with artificial intelligence tools, some form of

computational model, appearing as Legal Expert Systems ("LEX"), can be devised for the

analysis of legal problems within defined domains and where possible, to provide basic legal

advice derived from the reasoning process.

SCOPE OF JURIMETRICS IN JUDICIAL RESEARCH

9
research. Quantitative methods are essentially aids to description. They help to bring

out in detail the regularities in the data researcher has collected. Means, ratios

andpercentages are ways of summarizing the features and relationships in data.

Statistical measures based on the theory of probability go beyond the mere

quantitative data and use devices to bring out the association between variables

emerging out of data. Such associations at times can be used to test the existing

hypotheses or else they may suggest modifications, refinements or reformulation of

the old one. Quantitative methods are generally suited to the handling of large

quantities of data and wide range of variables. The bulk of the data and the

complexity of the variables involved may make it extremely difficult to handle the

data manually. For this reason, it is desirable to make use of computer which has

opened up, unprecedented opportunities to look beyond our fragmentary items of

unconnected knowledge.

Any social scientist involved in a study of judicial process would, no doubt, be

struck by the great quantity of relevant data systematically recorded and accessible to

one who wishes to use it. This is not always in social sciences research. In common

law countries, particularly, because of the binding nature of precedents, the decisions

of the higher appellate courts assume special significance for the subordinate courts.

For this reason, at least, it becomes almost inevitable that such decisions are

systematically recorded and published as far as possible. Variety of information can

be extracted from these reports, information which is otherwise considered to be as of

no consequence under the traditional approaches to the study of judicial process.

Information such as the parties to the litigation before the court the kind of subject
10
matter litigated, the nature of the court’s response, the voting response of the

individual judges and so forth. This information when classified and presented in

tabular form is likely to reveal certain patterns and regularities. A simple exercise like

this itself can reveal much that ordinarily remain embedded under the plethora of

reports and can be utilized in testing several propositions which are often made but

never really tested. The associations between these regularities can then be projected

into a predictive fashion. Moreover, when observed consistently over a period of time

in a category of cases, these regularities are likely to bring to the surface those

elements in judicial decision-making which are highly subjective, non-rational and

stubbornly value charged. Thus, if jurimetrics reduces our judge’s to ciphers, it does

not so far a paradoxical reason:’ to reduce them to ciphers may be the best way to

discover and explore their humanity’.

ASSUMPTIONS OF JURIMETRICS

Quantitative analysis of juridical behaviour (jurimetrics) can be regarded as the work of

second or third generation of American legal realists. The legal realists juxtaposed the

essential characteristics of positive and sociological approaches and treated the law both as

fact and as a social phenomenon. This new approach was highly empirical. To the realists,

only the reality of law mattered in fact and reality was what actually happened in the courts

and no more. Law therefore was to be found in the decisions of judges which, according to

them were the product of ascertainable factors. The factors which are included are the judges’

personalities, their social environment, and the economic conditions in which they are

11
brought up, business interest, trends and movements of thought, emotions, psychology and so

forth. Legal realism was not just one approach, but a compendium of several view

points.ForJustice Holmes, realism was a temper, the mood of pragmatism, while for

Llewellyn, realism was only a method and the method was to get at the real facts and issues

that underlie legal controversies and the procedures employed the values of the judge, since

the judge’s personality was the only funnel through which policy norms could enter into

judicial decisions. Frank, who was more influenced by Freudian psychology, shifted the focus

to the sets of unique life experiences of judges which shaped their individual value-patterns;

Felix Cohen offered the contemporary view that the decisions of individual judges, whatever,

might be the forces that shaped their individual value-patterns, acquired social significance

only when evaluated in the context of complex antecedent and consequent processes

involving the interaction of many human besides the judge.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN JURIMETRICS

The Group approach:

It is difficult to predict the behaviour of an individual, but that of a mass of people is easier.

Student groups have been used as models of actual social groups. It is not enough merely to

take account of the way in which the members of a group vote; it is necessary to consider the

influence of personalities and of reasoned argument. In this connection two types of

leadership are thought of significant: task-leadership, which is directed towards solving a

problem efficiently and social-leadership, which provides a friendly atmosphere conducive to

solving it.

12
Computer prediction:

It has been suggested that in so far as there is consistency in decision and attitude, the

prediction of judicial opinions by computers becomes possible. Computer techniques in this

connection have been of fact studies (correlation between the circumstances in particular

cases and decisions given in them) and attitude studies (correlation between personal attitudes

to policies and decisions given). With regard to the former, it is said that the acceptance of a

fact by an appellate court rest on identifiable conditions surrounding the way in which it was

presented to the trial court.

JURIMETRICS WITHIN THE INDIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Judiciary is one of the three wings of the State. Though under the Constitution the polity is

dual the judiciary is integrated which can interpret and adjudicate upon both the Central and

State laws. The structure of the judiciary in the country is pyramidical in nature. Indian

judicial process is based on different altitude. Here law itself is a means to an end, justice

being a goal. In a democratic system with high socialist inclination, afflicted by persuasive,

distressing poverty and intent on planned development, social justice has a distinctive colour,

an ‘egalite’ or a militant quality of human rights with a radical thrust. Social justice is the

balancing wheel between freedom, political and economic and indeed, makes for the survival

of democracy. Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer had passionate attachment towards the concept of

social justice. From the words of the Preamble ‘we the people of India…’ to ‘justice – social,

13
economic and political’ embedded in Article 38 of the Directive Principles of State Policy all

are related to justice. The access to justice is a foremost human right, which the court serves

the people best which has the imaginative realism to appreciate the hungers, handicaps and

hurdles of the common people and the judicial activism to innovate remedial strategies to

reach and remove injustice wherever it is practised. The genus of the judicial process, to put

in Justice KrishnaIyers words, “ is not to overstep, ever ready to ‘writ’ its way to effective

relief to the humblest, finds its finest hour when it challenges power, public or private, to

order and obedience so that human rights are within human reach.

Power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgments

Article 137 of the Constitution of India lays down provision for power of the Supreme Court

to review its own judgments. As per this Article, subject to the provisions of any law made by

Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to

review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Under Order XL of the Supreme Court

Rules, that have been framed under its powers under Article 145 of the Constitution, the

Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review is to be

entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of

the Code of Civil Procedure.

14
Powers of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt

The Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone for contempt of any court

in India including itself. The Supreme Court performed an unprecedented action when it

directed a sitting Minister of the State of Maharashtra, Swaroop Singh Naik, to be jailed for

1-month on a charge of contempt of court on May 12, 2006. This was the first time that a

serving Minister was ever jailed. So far as the transfer or disciplinary aspect is concerned

there is unanimity of opinion among the jurists that the executive should have no say in the

matter; may be Parliament, but certainly not the executive. Once a person is appointed as a

judge and takes the prescribed oath, his independence or his conduct cannot be questioned by

the executive which is very often the main litigant before the Courts.

JUDICIAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT

15
Current interpretations of the judicial process have consistently assigned an important role to

the social and political background of the Judges in explaining decision-making behaviour.

Differing background characteristics and experiences have been hypothesized as being

perhaps the major factor in understanding and predicting variant voting patterns of Judges.

Such interpretations derive from the socalled dynamic theories of the judicial process which

picture the Judge as a policy-oriented decision-maker who derive his premises both from

within and without the court room, and whose functions far exceed the mechanical task of

applying settled rules of law to clear fact situations. These theories have not usually specified

the precise nature of the relationship between a Judge’s background, experiences and his

judicial work. They have eschewed the untenable hypothesis that judicial decisions can be

explained solely in terms of social background. And they have accepted the notion that the

Judge operates in an institutional framework which places certain restrains on the pure

expression of personal preferences, but which also allows significant latitude for such

expression.

16
CONCLUSION

In order to analyse judgments you need some insight into the decision making process of the

judge. The single most important means of assessing whether you think a judge is right or

wrong is to develop an understanding of the mechanism as to how the judge has arrived at the

conclusion, yet very little has been written by judges themselves about the practicalities of

judgeship in modern times. Hence, there arises today an emphasis on the logic of discovery,

and the drawing of an analogy between the task of the judge and that of the natural scientist.

The latter, with a specific knowledge acquired through experiments, frames a provisional

hypothesis and tests that supposition by making further experiments in order to assess the

accuracy of the deduction drawn from it. The Common Law doctrine of binding precedent

has prevented final courts from engaging in tentative experiments and from correcting the

mistakes of the past. Jurimetrics, the application of modern logic and computer techniques to

legal problems, may be useful in the analysis of facts, in the identification of ambiguities in

syntax and perhaps in the prediction and formulation of judicial decisions. Judicial behaviour

17
is perhaps best defined as a field of inquiry in which there is a fusion of theories and methods

developed in the various social sciences in order to study scientifically how and why judges

make the decisions they do. Judicial behaviour should be understood to have a primary focus

on the explanation of the behaviour of individual decision makers but may also include

propositions about decision making within or by groups of decision makers and by the

institution-courts that are headed by individual judges and groups of judges.The Pioneers of

Judicial Behaviour accounts for the emergence and exploration of three current theoretical

approaches to the study of judicial behaviour--attitudinal, strategic, and historical-

institutionalist.

18
References

 https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jurimetrics/

 File:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/Ma'am's%20folder/Jurimetrics%20the
%20methodology%20of%20le gal%20inquiry.Pdf

 10 RWM Dias, Jurisprudence, (Butterworths Publications , London, 5th ed, 1985, p-

 Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Social Justice-Sunrise or Dawn, (Eastern Book Company,
Lucknow, 2nd edn P. 12-13

19