Ronald Dworkin's Rights Theory

In the above context it illustrate the Ronald Dworkin’s theory , Ronald Dworkin is the most influential language legal theorist of this generation. Over the 40 years he has developed a sophisticated alternative to legal positivism.
The judiciary plays an important role in all legal system. But the question is: How does a judge decides a case? If a case is brought to the court, the judge cannot refuse to adjudicate it on the basis that there is no precedent or the lawyer cannot cite any authority on the point of law.
In this connection, Dworkin observed that there is a right answer to each case. Dworkin’s Right Thesis involves the general claim that within legal practice and a proper understanding of the nature of law, rights are more fundamental

If judges were to make law in hard cases, they would be applying the law retrospectively; that’s against the rule of law. Citizen has a complaint that even though he was not surprised by retrospective legislation, there was no liability at that time he did the act. If the citizen is being made retrospectively liable, it is because there was no law at that time that made him liable that places a special duty upon the legislature to justify retrospective legislation.
Critics such as Greenawalt have argues that the ‘denial of discretion is wrong and is inconsistent with our ordinary understanding of judicial responsibilities for opinions. To suggest that judges have discretion is not to imply that they have license to do what they will. The institution of judging offers the judge choice only within the constraints of

Each time they do so they also commit a fraud on the litigants.
Dworkin has an alternative theory. The first step is to make a distinction between strong and weak discretion. Strong discretion is where the officials are bound by pre-existing standards set by the authority. Weak discretion is when the standard cannot be applied in a mechanical way. There’s a need to evaluate what the standard means in a new case. In weak discretion, there is no gap in the law. Strong discretion does not exist for judges. Weak discretion is part of the judicial role. The discretion is controlled and there are no gaps in the law.
Hart says that judges exercise strong discretion in hard cases. But that seems to equate: Rules + Discretion = New Rules.
In order to understand Dworkin’s criticism of Hart, we need to understand the distinction drawn by Dworkin regarding Rules and Principles, and Constructive Interpretation as propounded by