1ST INTRA STATE CONFERENCE ON "VISTA OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" TEAM CODE: T34 JUDICIAL ACCOUNABILITY: A FACET OF REALITY ABSTRACT: “Judiciary unlimited” is an unelected judiciary which is not accountable to anyone except itself. Today Judiciary has marginalised the Indian Government. The Supreme Court has its own laws and ways of interpretation with implementation. The issue is not whether something justifiable has come out of all this but whether the Courts have arrogated vast and uncontrolled
Free Law Separation of powers Judge
of law in which this question is concerned is judicial review. Judicial review can be defined as ‘… the means by which the Courts control the exercise of Governmental powers.’ The Courts will look at the way in which a decision was made‚ not the decision itself‚ to find out if any powers have been abused. Judicial review is an application to the Courts to assess an action or decision made by a public body on a point of public law. A particular decision may be found to be in breach of natural justice
Premium Law
Judicial Review: A Double-Edged Sword Judicial Review: A Double-Edged Sword 1. Traditional theories of judicial review hold that neutral or principled grounds are the only legitimate bases for judicial decisions and reject political motives in judicial decision-making. Do you believe this is true? Do you see principled v. political motives in important U.S. Supreme Court constitutional decisions which overturn laws passed by legislatures (such
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
charges of violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902 during these drastic times. What was his violation? The publication and circulation of the Left-Wing Manifesto‚ a mere pamphlet‚ in the United States was his infringement. He appealed the decision on the basis that it violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and press and it was passed on to the United States Supreme Court. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Gitlow on the basis of Section 1 of the Fourteenth amendment to the
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Brown v. Board of Education
PRECEDENT: Stare Decisis - Stand by the Decision The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis‚ this means that like cases should be treated alike. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular case‚ that law must be applied in all future cases containing the same material facts. For example in the case “Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)‚ The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed the duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product. This set a binding
Premium Stare decisis Appeal Common law
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 that is the settled law since the historical decision of the US Supreme
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Felix Frankfurter Harvard Law Review
sufficient similarity. The doctrine of judicial precedent involves an application of the principle of stare decisis i.e.‚ to stand by the decided. In practice‚ this means that inferior courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. This provides consistency and predictability in the law. RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTUM The decision or judgement of a judge may fall into two parts: the ratio decidendi (reason for the decision) and obiter dictum (something said
Premium Stare decisis Case law Precedent
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION PART II ON WHAT GROUNDS CAN JUDICIAL REVIEW BE SOUGHT? The grounds for JR can be classified in at least three ways: 1. Two principal classes of action may be pursued under JR: those which allege that there has been a breach of statutory requirements‚ and those alleging that action has been taken in disregard of the rules of ‘natural justice’. 2. In Council for the Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for the
Premium Human rights Law Administrative law
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
Judicial precedent: A judgment of a court of law cited as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts; a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision. The common law has developed by broadening down from precedent to precedent. A judicial precedent is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision making. This is known as stare decisis (to stand upon decisions) and by which precedents are authoritative and binding and must be followed. In giving
Free Common law Precedent Stare decisis