All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 2-II Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

The correct option is B: Natural Law.

In the context of jurisprudence, the qualitative difference between 'ought' and 'is' is primarily associated with Natural Law jurisprudence. Natural Law is a school of thought in jurisprudence that asserts that there is a moral dimension to law, and that the validity of a law is not solely determined by its existence (what "is") but also by its moral content (what "ought" to be). In other words, Natural Law proponents argue that for a law to be considered just and valid, it must conform to certain moral principles or natural moral law.

This perspective suggests that there is a fundamental difference between describing the positive existence of a law ("is") and evaluating its moral legitimacy ("ought"). Legal positivism, on the other hand, tends to separate law from morality and focuses solely on the observable, positive aspects of law.

Here's a brief explanation of the other options:

A: Inclusive Legal Positivism - Inclusive legal positivism argues that law can include moral elements, but it doesn't necessarily assert a qualitative difference between 'ought' and 'is' in the same way as Natural Law.

C: Exclusive Legal Positivism - Exclusive legal positivism, in contrast to inclusive positivism, argues that law and morality are entirely separate, so it doesn't emphasize the qualitative difference between 'ought' and 'is.'

D: Interpretative theory - Interpretative theories of jurisprudence focus on how laws should be interpreted and applied, rather than the qualitative difference between 'ought' and 'is.'

E: Critical theory - Critical legal theory encompasses various approaches, including those that critique societal structures and power dynamics within the legal system. It doesn't directly address the qualitative difference between 'ought' and 'is' as a central theme.