Written by Rida Fatima Dahar,
Kinnaird College Lahore
April 2026
1. Introduction
“Law must be stable, yet it cannot stand still” (Pound,, 1943, p.1) a remark that captures the very heartbeat of the sociological jurisprudence. Sociological School of Jurisprudence studies the relationship between law, morality and society. In this regard, Roscoe Pound made an important contribution through its theory of law as “social engineering.”
According to Pound, law should be a tool to balance different social interests and promote overall social welfare (Pound, 1959). It underscores the idea that justice is achieved through accommodation of moral values and societal needs. In the context of Pakistan, this raise the question of can judicial institutions successful reconcile strict legal doctrines with fairness and justice. This essay argues that Roscoe Pound theory of “social engineering” shows that law must balance social interests by considering moral values and social demands, not just strict laws. It further evaluates how Pakistani courts sometimes promote justice and fairness; however, they do not always successful balance legal formalism with social justice.
2. Definition of sociological jurisprudence and law and morality
Initially, Sociological Jurisprudence is a school of legal thought that view law as a social institution rather than strict rules (IGI Global, n.d.). Law, morality and society is an essential part of sociological jurisprudence. Moreover, law is a system of enforceable rules to regulate human conduct. Conversely, morality consists of principles of right and wrong to guide behaviour but legally unenforceable (Shrikanth, 2023). The relationship of law and morality is evident when laws reflect moral values such as prohibition of murder as observed by court in Muhammad Amber vs. State (PLD 2006 SC 283) under Section 302 of P.P.C. Thus, it can be said that this shows how law enforces moral values to maintain social order.
3. Law and society
However, the tension arises when rigid law produce outcomes in society perceives as unjust. Such as Muhammad Waseem vs. State shows how unjust it is when law is rigid to social demands (Tahir,2022). But after this case Anti Honour killing laws 2016 was passed , which indicates that law must evolved as society evolved (Shahid et al., 2024). Furthermore , Roscoe Pound presented the idea of “social engineering” in which law balance the conflicting social interests. Such as in Shehla Zia vs. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693), court interprets law to protect public welfare. It can be said that Court applied legal principles that advocates societal well being, exemplify the Pounds “social engineering” concept. Thus, it emphasized that morality and societal values can guide judicial interpretation, promoting fairness beyond mere textual application of law.
4. Roscoe Pound Theory of Social Engineering
Roscoe Pound made a seminal contribution to jurisprudence and viewed law as a mechanism for protecting and balancing competing interests in society. He argued that jurist must evaluate these interests to satisfy human desires while maintaining balance between stability and social change. Rejecting rigid legal formalism, he emphasized “law in action” rather than “law in books”, presenting law as a tool of social change and control. According to him, “law is social engineering,” meaning it functions as a tool to create harmony by adjusting conflicting interests. Using the analogy of an engineer, Pound described lawyers as designer of social order, aiming for maximum satisfaction of human desires with minimum conflict, while ensuring law remain dynamic, flexible and responsive to social transformation (Pound, 1910). Moreover, in Benazir Bhutto vs. Federation (PLD 1998 SC 416), court relaxed the procedural rules to allow public interest litigation. It can be said that it reflect the Roscoe Pound concept of “law in action”, where rigid rules are set aside to achieve justice. By expanding locus standi , the court prioritized social welfare over technical formalism , thereby balancing the conflicting interests . It demonstrates how law can function as a tool of social engineering to make justice more accessible to public needs. This approach shifted the legal thought from formalism to a pragmatic, society centric view and highlight law’s role in shaping a just society
5. Classification of Interests and Jural Postulates
Moreover, Pound (1910) further classified interests into individual, public and social categories. Individual interests includes right to life , liberty , property and personal relations ( Article 8-28 , 1973 Constitution of Pakistan ) ; public interests are the state functions like security and administration ( Article 5 , 1973 Constitution of Pakistan ) ; while social interests ( Article 25 ,1973 Constitution of Pakistan ) stressed on morality and welfare. He argued that law must protect these interests with minimum friction. Additionally, Pound (1910) introduced Jural postulates, which are basic assumptions of civilized society. Such as no intentional harm to others, respect for property (Article 23 ,1973 Constitution of Pakistan) , honesty in transactions (Article 18, 1973 Constitution of Pakistan), duty of care (Article 4 , 1973 Constitution of Pakistan ) and control of dangerous activities (Article 14 , 1973 Constitution of Pakistan). Overall, his theory presents law as a goal oriented system aimed at achieving justice, fairness and social progress.
6. Strict Rules vs Morality
Furthermore, Roscoe Pound theory of social engineering stressed that law should not rigidly follow formal rules, as strict legalism often fails to address real needs of society. It can be said that Legal Formalism prioritizes rules over outcomes, which results to injustice when human interests are ignored. Pound (1910) argued that law must be flexible, allowing judges to interpret law to balance legal certainty to social welfare. By considering moral values and practical needs of society, courts can achieve fairness and promote social stability (Clash of Interests, 2025). It bridge the gap between strict rules and real life circumstances , ensuring that law serves as a tool for social engineering rather than merely a set of inflexible commands , thereby harmonizing justice with societal progress.
7. How Pakistani court balance fairness and strict laws
A key question is whether courts in Pakistan are able to balance strict legal rules with fairness and social justice. Such as in Darshan Masih vs State (PLD 1990 SC 513), court intervened against bonded labour. It can be said that it shows that court prioritized fairness while remaining within legal framework. It reflects a strong balance between legal rules and fairness. It used law as a tool to achieve moral justice. Moreover, court protected the rights of vulnerable workers emphasizing fairness. Similarly, in Al Jehad Trust vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324), court emphasized on judicial independence and laid down principles for judicial appointments. It may be said that it shows how court balance the constitutional law with institutional fairness. In this case, neither law nor morality was ignored. This shows that court maintain balance in both elements effectively. Thus, legal provisions were interpreted with judicial integrity. Moreover in Shahroz vs. ASJ (LHC, 2026), court observed the rigid interpretation of Christian Personal law. It can be said that it shows that court maintained the legal structure while ensuring fairness. It avoided strict formalism by adopting interpretation. In this case, moral justice and human dignity were prioritized with legal rules. It also reflected the Roscoe Pound theory of social engineering. Thus, these case laws show how courts balance morality with strict rules.
On the other hand, sometimes courts follow strict rules and ignore fairness. Such as in Maulvi Tamiz ud din vs. Federation (PLD 1955 Federal Court 240), the court validates the dissolution of assembly. It can be said that it shows how courts ignore public interest and fairness. No balance was achieved between law and justice. It demonstrates that sometime courts fail and prefer formalism. Similarly, in State vs. Dosso (PLD 1958 SC 533), court upheld martial law theory Kelsen Theory. It can be said that it shows how courts favoured law only, not balance. Law was applied without considering social implications. However, concept of fairness is misused by the courts to favour a political group as well. Moreover, fairness is being differently dependent on context, weakening legal certainty.
8. Analysis
Analytically, it can be said that this theory is a major contribution to sociological jurisprudence. It promotes fairness, flexibility and social welfare. It allows courts to interpret law in the light of evolving situations. It has encouraged the legal development as well. This makes law practical and responsive. Moreover, it strengthens the judiciary to some extent. Conversely, the idea of balancing of interests is subjective and lead to judicial overreach. It also risk to arbitrary decision making. Excessive focus on social interests may weaken individual interests. Additionally, H.L.A.Hart (2012) has criticized it as “it may lead to subjective decisions and undermine legal certainty.” Thus, it can be said that a balance approach is necessary to prevent misuse and law should serve society.
9. Conclusion
In nutshell, law and morality are deeply interconnected and their balance is essential for achieving justice in the society. Roscoe Pound (1910) suggests that law should function as tool of social engineering, harmonizing the competing interests rather than rigidly applying rules. The discussed case laws show that how in Pakistan particularly, courts adopt flexible approach to ensure fairness and protect fundamental rights. However, it also raises concerns about judicial overreach and legal uncertainty. Thus, it can be said that a balanced application of rules, guided by morality and social realities, remains crucial for an effective legal system. As Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani has remarked that “The judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution and protect the rights of the people.”
10. References
Books & Articles
Roscoe Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (Yale Univ. Press 1943).
Roscoe Pound, Jurisprudence (Harvard Univ. Press 1959).
Roscoe Pound, The Theory of Social Engineering (Cambridge Scholars Publ’g 2018) (reprint of 1910 work).
H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (3d ed. Oxford Univ. Press 2012).
Shrikanth, Law and Morality: An Analysis, IJLLR J. (2023), https://www.ijllr.com/post/law-and-morality-an-analysis.
Shahid, M.H. Awan & F.A. Rana, Honour Killings in Pakistan: Legal Perspectives and Reforms, 5(1) Qlantic J. Soc. Sci. 134 (2024).
A Clash of Interests: Evaluating Roscoe Pound’s Theory of Social Engineering, 4(3) Pak. J.L. Analysis & Wisdom 54 (2025).
Tahir, Muhammad Waseem v. The State: Loopholes in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2016, Oxford Hum. Rts. Hub (Feb. 28, 2022), https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/muhammad-wasim-v-the-state-loopholes-in-the-criminal-law-amendment-act-2016/.
IGI Global, Social Jurisprudence, IGI Global Dictionary, https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/social-jurisprudence/69319.
Cases
Muhammad Ameer v. State, PLD 2006 SC 283 (Pak.).
Shehla Zia v. WAPDA, PLD 1994 SC 693 (Pak.).
Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1988 SC 416 (Pak.).
Darshan Masih v. State, PLD 1990 SC 513 (Pak.).
Al-Jehad Tr. v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1996 SC 324 (Pak.).
Muhammad Shahroz v. ASJ, 2026 LHC 1518 (Pak.).
Federation of Pakistan v. Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan, PLD 1955 FC 240 (Pak.).
State v. Dosso, PLD 1958 SC 533 (Pak.).
Statutes
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973).
