Judicial Activism Active Judiciary‚ passive executive In normal circumstances‚ judicial activism should not be encouraged. But the circumstances are not normal. The political system is in a mess. In several areas‚ there is a situation to administrative paralysis. Take the recent Hawala case‚ which is a good example of judicial activism. What transpired in this case is very instructive. In this case the prime minister’s name was also involved‚ and
Premium Separation of powers Supreme Court of the United States Judicial review
ground for setting aside administrative decisions in most continental legal systems and is recognised in UK cases where issues of European Community law and ECHR is involved‚ it seems logical that the treatment becomes the standard of substantive review in all cases. A significant criticism of the Wednesbury criteria is that they do not allow for the effect on the life of the individual involved to be judged. Just because a judgement is not so unreasonable as to be incomprehensible does not mean
Premium Human rights Law European Convention on Human Rights
Pros and Cons of Judicial Review Adam Kimball Pol. 1110 Instr. Madigan 12/10/96 Judicial Review is the power given to Supreme court justices in which a judge has the power to reason whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Chief Justice John Marshall initiated the Supreme Court’s right to translate the Constitution in 1803 following the case of Marbury Vs. Madison‚ in which he declared the Supreme Court as the sole interpreters of Constitutional law. This is one
Premium Political philosophy Supreme Court of the United States
Judicial activism is gaining prominence in the present days. In the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)‚ citizens are getting access to justice. Judiciary has become the centre of controversy‚ in the recent past‚ on account of the sudden (Me in the level of judicial intervention. The area of judicial intervention has been steadily expanding through the device of public interest litigation. The judiciary has shed its pro-status-quo approach and taken upon itself the duty to enforce the basic
Free Law Judge Court
Judicial Discretion Judicial discretion refers to the authority that judges have for making and interpreting certain laws. Within the United States‚ judicial discretion is one of the fundamental tenants of the system of law‚ and is guaranteed in the United States Constitution. Both state and federal judges can exercise judicial discretion‚ although their discretion is not unlimited. This study focuses on a series of legal‚ extralegal‚ and systemic variables presumed to affect the workings of criminal-justice
Premium Law
I have expressed my views about the Pakistan Supreme Court and its need to maintain judicial self restraint in articles published in this newspaper and elsewhere. However‚ in view of the turmoil currently prevailing in Pakistan‚ a clear elaborate enunciation of the philosophy of judicial restraint is called for. In a recent statement‚ the Chief Justice has said that it is the Constitution‚ not Parliament‚ which is supreme in the country. There is no controversy about this legal position‚ and indeed
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Felix Frankfurter Harvard Law Review
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Self-Restraint There are many differences between Judicial Activism and Judicial Self Restraint. Judicial Activism is the process by which judges take an active role in the governing process and Judicial Self Restraint is that Judges should not read their own philosophies into the constitution. Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court should be an active and creative partner with the legislative and executive branches in help shaping the government policy
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Plessy v. Ferguson
USU 1300 Is Judicial Activism in the best interest of the American people? Suzanna Sherry reminds us in her working paper‚ Why We Need More Judicial Activism‚ that “an examination of constitutional practice shows that too little activism produces worse consequences than does too much” and since we cannot assure judges are consistently “fair” it is better to be overly aggressive than overly restrained. In the most basic sense‚ judicial activism is when judges apply their own political opinion in
Premium
The British Constitution and Judicial Independence One of the basic principles of the British Constitution is judicial independence . Simply explained‚ this means that judges‚ in making their decisions‚ must not be influenced or coerced by outside forces (History Learning Site). This independence is assured by several safeguards which include fiscal autonomy‚ independent selection‚ and security of tenure. The purpose of these is to ensure that judges will render fair and impartial decisions without
Premium Separation of powers Human rights Law
Regional Trial Court and other lower courts Regional Trial Courts (RTC) Highest “trial courts” in the Philippines. It was formerly called as the Court of First instance (CFI) before 1980. It was established in each of the 13 regions in the Philippines. Qualifications: Natural-born citizen at least thirty-five years of age and for at least ten years‚ has been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held a public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice
Premium Civil procedure Complaint Service of process