Governance must be by rule, and not arbitrary, vague and fanciful. Under our Constitution, the Rule of Law pervades over the entire field of administration and every organ of the state is regulated by Rule of Law. Part III of the Constitution of India guarantees the Fundamental Rights. Article 13(l) of the Constitution makes it clear that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provision of Part III dealing with the Fundamental Rights, shall, to the extent of such
(f) Judicial immunity Judicial immunity is a form of legal immunity which protects judges from liability resulting from their judicial actions. Judicial immunity enables judges, counsel and witnesses to speak and act fearlessly and impartially with the public in the interest of justice. The Federal Constitution is silent on the issue of judicial immunity where under the Article 122AB(1), immunities for Judicial Commissioners are protected but there is no explicit protection for other judges. However, judicial immunity is accorded to the superior and the subordinate civil courts under Section 14(1) CJA and Section 107 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 respectively. The immunity from legal action under Section 14 CJA is given to either a judge or any person in the exercise of judicial duty or function and this would necessary include the judges and the deputy registrars of the court in the performance of their judicial function.
First and foremost, rule of law is one of the branch of Constitutionalism. Rule of law encompasses the basic principles of equal treatment of all people before the law which guarantees basic human rights. ("The rule of law explained", 2018) The rule of law implies that the supremacy of law which includes all the laws must conform with a certain minimum of standards for an instance, protection of civil liberties. Professor A.V Dicey developed concept of rule of law that comprises three concepts of principles. Firstly, no one should be punished except for a conduct which represents a clear breach of law.
It is believed that all legislations must be interpreted by the courts in line with the fundamental rights entrenched in the constitution (Bill of Rights). The constitutional interpretation is known as the authoritative interpretative of the supreme law (constitution) by the judiciary throughout the judicial appraisal and/or evaluation of the constitutionality of the legislation and the government action. Before any interpretation can take place, the following questions must be taken into consideration; • What has to be done with the fundamental values of the constitution? • Are these values purely of a high-sounding and remarkable references to human dignity and justice, which are used as the ethical/or moral detail for case law? • From whose view point are these tenets recognised and
The writ of habeas corpus doesn’t have to go through the formal process of civil and criminal procedure as defined by the common law. An informal motion by the council of the imprisoned person is enough to invoke the common law courts and it can be filed in the court of Chancery of any of the following three courts i.e. kings bench, court of common pleas and court of Exchequer. The motion usually started with “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,” had to show on its face that there was probable cause to believe the petitioner was unlawfully imprisoned, and it had to be accompanied by an affidavit, under oath, supporting the allegations in the petition. If the petition doesn’t have any formalities completed then it will be dismissed straight away without hearing by the court.
The independence of judiciary will be guaranteed by the state and enshrined in the constitution laws of the country. It is the duty of all governments and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary. 2. The judiciary will deicide matters before it impartially on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats, and interferences direct or indirect from any quarter or for any reason. 3.
However, what if it were instead that we accepted a person is "guilty until proven innocent". In this case, we would have to go through every applicable law in the United States and prove that a person has not broken a single one of those laws to be truly innocent. This isn't only unreasonable, but almost impossible to go through every condition necessary to verify that a person is innocent. And with this reasoning, every person in the United States would be classified as "guilty," and we would almost never be able to prove otherwise. This analysis is very similar to how Karl Popper proposes we solve the problem of induction.
The State and Central Governments have powers to commute death sentences after their final judicial confirmation. This power, unlike judicial power, is of the widest amplitude and not circumscribed, except that its exercise must be bona fide. Issues often alien and irrelevant to legal adjudication – morality, ethics, public good, and policy considerations are intrinsically appropriate to the exercise of clemency powers. These powers exist because in appropriate cases the strict requirements of law need to be tempered and departed from to reach a truly just outcome in its widest sense. The executive’s powers to commute a death sentence, in other words, exist to remedy deficiencies in the strict application of the law.
My final recommendation is that, if both the accused person and the prosecutor agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone, the court must make the order unless the court is satisfied that the order is not in the interests of justice which can be seen under section 118 of Western Australia’s the Criminal Procedures Act 2004. In conclusion, I believe the amendment to the jury system provides an incredibly effective delivery of justice while still maintaining the accused’s right of presumption of innocence and right to a trial by jury referred to by Justice
4. The existing law: Article 11(4) state that existing laws comprise the written and unwritten laws of Ghana as they existed immediately before the coming in force of the Constitution, and any Act, Decree, law or statutory instrument issued or made before that date, which is to come into force on or after that date. 5. Common Law, i.e. case law: Article 11(2) states that the common law of Ghana shall comprise the rules of law generally known as the common law, the rules generally known as the doctrine of equity and the rule of customary law including those determined by the Superior Court of judicature.