THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Judicial activism has become a subject of controversy in India.1 Recent and past attempts to hinder the power of the courts‚ as well as access to the courts‚ included indirect methods of disciplining the judiciary‚ such as supersession of the judges2 and transfers of inconvenient judges.3 Critics of judicial activism say that the courts usurp functions allotted to the other organs of government. On the other hand‚ defenders of judicial activism assert that the
Premium Constitution United States Constitution Separation of powers
Explain Judicial Review using two case examples. As soon as civilizations created constitutions‚ actions were being called unconstitutional by those who opposed them. In some instances‚ unconstitutional acts were the subject of revolution‚ regicide‚ or as happened in the American political system‚ the declaration of a Judiciary body. American judicial review can broadly be defined as the power of this such judicial branch of the government to determine whether or not the acts of all branches of the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Separation of powers United States Constitution
Judicial Precedent is the way that English Common Law has evolved since the time of Henry II when courts were unified into a national system‚ making it common throughout England. Integral to it is the Latin phrase ‘stare decisis’ which literally means ‘to stand by what has been decided’. Its meaning in the case of judicial precedent is very similar‚ that a Judge will go by the same ruling as a previous judge has in the same cases; providing that the precedent comes from a higher or equal court‚ if
Free Common law Law Precedent
AFFECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ON JUDICIAL PRECEDENT Although the Human Rights Act 1998 has impacted on the judicial understanding of precedent‚ the underlying features of the doctrine remain unchanged. The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on one of the most fundamental aspects of any legal system and that is‚ all like cases must be treated alike. It involves the application of the principle of stare decisis i.e to stand by the decided. The doctrine of judicial precedent has always played a pre-eminent
Premium Stare decisis Common law Case law
Week Two THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW • If you want to challenge a decision made by a Cth statutory body‚ e.g. the Australian Electoral Commission of the Australian Taxation Office‚ you must turn to the federal system of judicial review. • The HC was given original jurisdiction by s.75 of the Cth Constitution to judicially review (to issue writs) decisions made by officers of the Cth. However‚ it is not easy to get to the HC – it reserves itself for important decisions. •
Premium Statutory law Supreme Court of the United States Decision making
the world repeats‚ and it is not an exception for law‚ providing that ‘some degree of certainty’ of law is essential. In English legal system the doctrine‚ which brings together the past and the present is the doctrine of judicial precedent‚ which predominant value is irrefutable. However‚ it is a disputable question‚ whether the bias of the doctrine on the maintenance of the judicial authority is accurate and contemporary. The nature of precedent can be described by putting the words of Lord Denning
Premium Stare decisis Common law Law
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM & GROWTH OF ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE I. INTRODUCTION Judiciary in India particularly‚ Supreme Court and high courts have played an important role in preserving the environment without halting the development of the country which means preservation of doctrine of sustainable development. India being a developing country with vast geographical area and large population‚ the main task of the government becomes to look after present and future needs of people. It is usually
Free Pollution Environmentalism Supreme Court of the United States
common-law tradition is built on the doctrine of Stare Decisis ("stand by decided matters")‚ which directs a court to look to past decisions for guidance on how to decide a case before it. This means that the legal rules applied to a prior case with facts similar to those of the case now before a court should be applied to resolve the legal dispute. The use of precedent has been justified as providing predictability‚ stability‚ fairness‚ and efficiency in the law. Reliance upon precedent contributes
Premium Brown v. Board of Education Law Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
utilize ‘least privilege’ on a daily basis. Believe the idea is to limit security rights and only grant higher level access when necessary to limit accidental and intentioned damaging activity. The latest Microsoft and Apple operating systems do prompt you for administrative rights when changing a configuration or installing software. In the open source world you would have to be granted sudo privileges to the root account when configuring or installing. At my workplace‚ I have seen many examples of ‘least
Premium Computer Internet Personal computer
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 that it is not disproportionately devastating for the affected individual – for example‚ when resources are scarce‚ it
Premium Human rights Law European Convention on Human Rights