Difference between Law and Conventions

Hello and welcome to my blog! If you're curious about the fascinating world of law and conventions, you've come to the right place. In this article, we'll delve into the crucial dissimilarities between law and conventions, unraveling their intricate relationship and shedding light on their respective influences on our legal systems and societal norms. So, grab a cup of coffee, sit back, and embark on this enlightening journey with me!

The Conventions of the Constitution is the name given by Dicey to the indefinite number of customs, traditions and precedents, that form an integral part of the British Constitution. So deep-rooted these conventions have been found in the habits of the Englishmen, and so firmly the mechanism of government is erected on their foundation that without them the Constitution becomes maimed if not unworkable.

A distinction is very often made between the laws of the Constitution and conventions of the Constitution. But conventions are not really very different from laws and it is frequently difficult to place a set of rules in one class or the other. Jennings has rightly said that the Conventions, like most fundamental rules of any Constitution, rest essentially upon general acquiescence. "A written constitution is not law because somebody has made it, but it has been accepted." Conventions are based on usage and acquiescence and their binding force, like laws, is derived from the willingness of the people to be so bound. If obedience to law is deemed a fundamental duty, obedience to conventions is among the political obligations, because they help the wheels of the political machine going in accordance with the will of the people. Both, laws and conventions, are inevitably similar as they serve the common purpose of regulating the structure and functions of government aiming at the good of the people and are the result of common consent. "What is the law and what is the convention," Jennings maintains, "are primarily technical questions. The answers are known only to those whose business it is to know them. For the mass of the people, it does not matter whether a rule is recognised by the judicial authorities or not. The technicians of Government are primarily concerned." 

Technically, the difference between laws and conventions spreads to three aspects. In the first place, laws emanate from a legally constituted body and carry with them greater sanctity. Conventions are extra-legal and they grow out of practice. Their existence is determined by usage. In the second place, law is usually expressed in more precise terms and it has the added dignity of extracting unquestioning obedience from everybody. Conventions are never formulated. They grow out of practice, they are modified by practice, and at any given time it may be difficult to say whether or not a practice has become a convention. Finally, the law is enforced by the courts and it is the duty of judges to consider whether Acts are–legally-Valid and to take such steps that they are obeyed. Conventions are not enforced by the courts and judges cannot force their obedience as they have no legal sanction. 

Source: Select Constitutions (Anup Chand Kapoor and KK Mishra)