Examine legislation as the supreme source of modern law — its kinds, merits, defects, and its constitutional machinery in Nepal.

The question the whole course orbits. Give three or four definitions, their school affiliations, then a synthesis. The classic attempts (brief quotes, exact attribution): Austin (analytical): law is "the command of the sovereign" — a general command, backed by sanction, issued by a determinate superior habitually obeyed. Law is force, organised. Salmond: law is "the body of principles recognised and applied by the State in the administration of justice" — law is what courts recognise and enforce. Savigny (historical): law is the expression of the Volkstgeist — the common consciousness of a people, growing like language, of which legislation is only one voice (Unit 2.2). H. L. A. Hart (analytical, post-Austin): law is the union of primary rules (duties) and secondary rules (rules about rules — recognition, change, adjudication). A legal system exists when officials accept the rule of recognition from an internal point of view. Roscoe Pound (sociological): law is social engineering — an institutionalised process of balancing competing interests (Unit 2.3). Working synthesis for exams: law is the body of rules of conduct, recognised and enforced by the state, prescribing rights and duties, and administered through institutions of adjudication — while jurisprudence's schools contest every clause of that sentence (who makes it, why it binds, what it serves). The question behind the question (write this line): the definition…