Hart's Pure Theory of Law: Where's the Realism?

A question from 2022 Judicial Services paper had this: "Critically examine Hart's Pure Theory of Law. Discuss its strengths and weaknesses in explaining the concept of law." Now, I know what you're thinking - koi problem nahi, Hart's Pure Theory mein realism nahin hota, woh purely analytic hai. But here's the thing, it's not that simple.

To answer this question, you need to get into Hart's head and understand his theory. It's all about the distinction between primary and secondary rules, and how they make up the whole of law. You need to discuss how his theory explains the concept of law in a clear and coherent way, but also its weaknesses, like it being overly formalistic and unable to explain the role of morality in law.