Here are the three standards you and your friends (including the jurisprudence professor’s classic line) are discussing in the context of jurisprudence (legal philosophy/theory), especially as they relate to Indian legal practice, constitutional adjudication, and social change. These form a useful “triangulation” or dynamic framework for understanding how law operates in reality — not just as abstract rules, but as a living process of aspiration, compromise, and transformation.
1. Normative Standards (Higher/Ideal Standards)
These are the “higher”, ideal, aspirational, or morally/philosophically grounded benchmarks of what the law ought to be.
They represent the ultimate goals of justice, equality, dignity, fairness, and human flourishing — often drawn from moral philosophy, constitutional values (like the Preamble’s justice, liberty, equality, fraternity), natural law ideas, or human rights principles.
- In your professor’s words: “Those are higher normative standards” — the lofty ideals we teach in theory classes (e.g., perfect equality, absolute justice, transformative constitutionalism in India).
- They are prescriptive (“what should be”) rather than descriptive (“what is”).
- In Indian jurisprudence, this is vividly seen in transformative constitutionalism — the idea that the Constitution is not just a static document but a tool for radical social reconstruction (e.g., ending caste/gender inequalities, uplifting marginalized groups).
Normative standards are often seen as universal or eternal ideals, but they can feel distant from day-to-day reality.
2. Pragmatic Standards (Practical/Real-World Standards)
These are the workable, context-sensitive, consequence-focused standards that lawyers, judges, and administrators actually follow in practice.
They prioritize what is feasible, effective, politically viable, or instrumentally useful given existing social, economic, political, and institutional constraints.
- Your professor’s punchline: “what we follow are pragmatic standards” — the compromises, incremental steps, balancing of interests, and realpolitik we use in courts, law offices, and governance.
- This aligns with legal pragmatism (a major school in jurisprudence): judges decide based on consequences, social context, empirical realities, and “what works” rather than rigid abstract principles.
- In India, this is common in PILs (Public Interest Litigation), where courts balance grand ideals with practical limits (e.g., resource constraints, federalism, executive non-cooperation).
Key dynamic: Pragmatic standards aim to achieve normative standards (as you said: “Pragmatic standards aims to achieve Normative Standards” 🤣).
They act as the “realistic bridge” toward ideals — incremental progress through workable rulings, policy experiments, and adaptive interpretation, rather than sudden revolutionary change.
3. Transformative Standards (The Bridge/Linking Standards)
This is the crucial third element you highlighted: “there is a bridge. that’s transformative standards.”
Both Normative & Pragmatic depend on Transformative standards.
- Transformative standards refer to the dynamic, evolving, change-oriented benchmarks that actively bridge the gap between high ideals (normative) and messy reality (pragmatic).
- They emphasize law as an instrument of social transformation — especially in post-colonial, unequal societies like India.
- In Indian jurisprudence, this is most famously embodied in transformative constitutionalism (influenced by scholars like Upendra Baxi and judgments from the Supreme Court): the Constitution demands progressive realization of justice through active judicial and legislative intervention (e.g., Vishaka guidelines on sexual harassment, Navtej Johar on LGBTQ+ rights, or expansive interpretations of Article 21 for dignity and social change).
- Transformative standards are neither purely ideal nor purely compromise — they are the motor of change that pushes pragmatic practices closer to normative goals over time.
The Dynamics of Triangulation (How They Interact)
Think of these three as points of a triangle (triangulation) — each pulls and balances the others:
- Normative → pulls upward toward ideals (the “north star”).
- Pragmatic → grounds in reality (the “what we can do now”).
- Transformative → acts as the bridge/movement between them (the “how we get there”).
The tension is healthy:
- Pure normative without pragmatism = utopian, ineffective.
- Pure pragmatic without normative = cynical, status-quo preserving.
- Transformative standards provide the directional energy — ensuring that pragmatic compromises are not ends in themselves but steps toward higher norms.
In Indian context, this triangulation is especially powerful: the Constitution is explicitly transformative (aiming to end historical injustices), but courts must be pragmatic (balancing competing claims), all while aspiring to normative ideals of justice and equality.
Your professor’s humorous line captures the gap between classroom ideals and courtroom reality — but the “bridge” of transformative standards is what makes Indian jurisprudence dynamic and hopeful rather than just cynical. Keep laughing at the gap, but keep building the bridge! 😄
GRP_VCare2Dare 