This article provides a definition of each of the concepts related to independent rational judgments, including the principle of legal exemption, conditional rulings (al-ḥukm al-taʿlīqī), and the principle of correlation (al-mulāzima). The main question is whether the principle of exemption applies in cases where there is no evidence for the prohibition of something that reason deems either good or bad, such as the judgment that oppression is bad and justice is good. The question is: If no evidence is provided to prohibit such actions, does the principle of legal exemption apply or not? The answer is that the principle of rational exemption does not apply, but there is no issue in applying the principle of legal exemption. Therefore, the rational judgment of deserving punishment is negated, as it is a conditional ruling based on the absence of permission or authorization from religious law. This particular question and its answer have not been addressed by prominent scholars, although it may be implied in their discussions. However, no explicit title or detailed analysis of this issue has been found to date, necessitating an independent analytical article on this topic.