Criticism of Kelson’s Theory
Firstly, it excludes all references of social facts and felt needs of the society. Thus, his pure theory of law is without any sociological foundation.
Secondly, Kelson’s assertion that all the norms excepting the basic norm (Grundnorm) are pure, has no logical basis. One really fails . to understand as to how subsequent norms which derive their authority from the Grundnorm can be pure when the grundnorm itself is based on a hypothesis that it is an outcome of the combination of various social and political factors and circumstances in a given situation. Commenting on this point, Julius Stone has sarcastically remarked, “we are invited to forget the illegitimacy of the ancestor in admiration
of the pure blood of the progeny”.
Thirdly, the theory is found to be based on hypothetical considerations without any practicability. It is not possible to divest law from the influence of political ideology and social needs.
Fourthly, as stated by Friedmann, Kelson’s theory provides no solution for the conflicts arising out of ideological differences. His theory rejects the element of justice as a mere emotion which is, indeed, not true. Law cannot be completely divorced from ethics and morality which gives it a honourable place in the society.