Which one of the following reflects the most appropriate relationship between law and liberty

Explanation

The statements in this question are a little vague and prone to interpretations based on the context. Option B is a popular choice because it was a statement made by John Locke. He, in Second Treatise of Civil Government, wrote: “where there is no law, there is no freedom” In 1689, he also wrote that “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” No law would give LICENSCE (Unregulated liberty). Therefore, B is correct. But, then such statements are not to be considered objective realities. If there are no laws, there can be either complete liberty, because nothing restricts the actions of citizens, or NO liberty because then lawlessness can heavily curtail liberty. It really depends. It is an extreme statement to say that when there are no laws, there is no liberty (Can we say there is no liberty in a Jungle?) There can be liberty despite the absence of laws. Still, our experience says that UPSC would pick B as the answer despite all the odds. Option D: This can also be justified, but this would not be the most appropriate answer here (because UPSC might well consider B as more appropriate). The fundamental philosophy of rule of law in a liberal society is that laws should be just, reasonable and based on the principles of fairness and equity. If laws are changed too often, one would find their actions restricted because what was a completely lawful action, such as smoking, may suddenly become illegal because it hurts the health of a common citizen. And then on the next day, the government can legalise smoking and thus infringe on the liberty of those who cannot bear public smoking. When laws are changed too often, and when there is no fundamental principle on which laws are based, it can lead to dictatorship and arbitarariness, which defeats the very purpose of the rule of law based on reason. But, laws can also be changed too often based on the exigencies and contingencies and this may not violate someone’s liberty. However, if there was no option B, this would have been the most appropriate answer. Option A is incorrect because if there are more laws, it may lead to more liberty as well as laws themselves might be enabling more liberty.