The principle is intended to be a protection against arbitrary governance, whether by a dictator or by oligarchy. Thus, the rule of law is hostile both to monarchy and to anarchy. However, this principle will only exist with the presence of a transparent system, the main components of which are strong enforcement structures, a clear set of laws that are freely and easily accessible to all, , and an independent judiciary to safeguard citizens against the arbitrary use of power by the state, individuals or any other organization in a society. A widely shared cultural belief that the law should rule is the essential
It is also very important because it allows the supreme court of the country to check the decisions of the lower courts of the country and it also helps to check on the legislative and the executive branch of the government. The most important thing that judicial review do is the protection of the rights of the individuals and it create a balance between the powers of the government and maintain equality to every person. If there is no judicial review then the system of civil liberties would be very different. Types of Decisions in Judicial Review The court can give three types of decisions after the judicial review is conducted and the decisions are as follows: 1. The law is unconstitutional.
For a successful democracy, the existence of a free judiciary is a must. Without it, the system may be equivalent to dictatorship. Parliament and the state legislature made the constitution and the judiciary is given the responsibility to correct their errors, if at times the other two cross the limits of their powers as defined in the constitution. Thus, these three limbs of democracy must be separated as much as possible and balanced against each other. As majority of legislatures and executives are of the same party in power, they may act in such a manner in which an individual or a group of people might not get benefitted from the policies made for them.
The holdings and collective rationale of Courts can be studied only in retrospect, and not by anticipatory analysis of any sort. However, it can be argued that one may validate this premise by the virtue of applied logic alone, as follows: first, that federal judges do, at this moment, maintain a schematic of strict life tenure granted to them by the Constitution. Second, that the actions of federal judges in the context of these executive orders were at conflict with the intentions of the executive. Third, that these actions by the judiciary – irrespective of personal political belief and assured by rigorous congressional scrutiny upon the judicial appointments of its officers – resulted from the courts interpreting the Constitution to the best of their respective wisdom and legal
One can argue that it is a rather abstract principle of equality, but then it leads to a more concrete feature that can explain the process of democratic governance. The concrete feature of political equality is the full inclusion of all persons subject to the legislation of a democratic state. Hence, political equality aims at the equal formulation and equal consideration for all citizens’ interests and requires the capability of every government to accommodate it regardless of the subject of majority or minority. The equal formulation that every government can provide in order to develop a good democratic regime is by giving an equal chance on participation to all citizens. The failure to do so will harm the country’s democracy.
The modern concept of human rights is rooted in the experiences of ‘legal lawlessness’ when crimes were committed with the authorization of the law, and when some human beings were denied their status as such. An answer to these experiences was the emergence of the international human rights law 2. The main aim of this branch of international law is to prevent broad violations of fundamental rights from recurring in the future. Appreciating the worth of every human being, the international community decided to eliminate elements that could destroy the individual person, but also to create the conditions that would enable him or her to develop and flourish 3. Accordingly, the Preambles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that the
The first fundamental step in political development is the movement from total lawlessness, or anarchy, to some kind of centralized law and order. The politically developed nations have of course long accepted the concept of a central authority or government, and the Rule of Law which sets restraints upon the scope of people's actions; but this nevertheless remains as the foundation of government and of a nation's compact with its government. When power, that is the ability to physically influence the behavior of others, is centralized, the rule of law is thus imposed. Instead of individuals arguing and settling their differences in a continuing series of battles based on personal power, the authority to establish decisions on social conduct
CHAPTER 4 : JUDICIAL REVIEW 4.1. MEANING Judicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary.It is Examination by a country's courts of the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government to ensure that those actions conform to the provisions of the constitution. In other words it is the control of two branches of the government (i.e. the Executive and the legislature) by the third branch (i.e. the Judiciary) only to the extant that their actions are in conformity with and not in violation of the constitution.
Constitution adopted in l789. The United States would have a vastly different political system if the courts did not possess the power of judicial review. Without judicial oversight of government actions, the legislative branch would be legally supreme, and the fundamental protections included in the constitution, such as freedom of speech would be ineffective. The inclusion of fundamental rights in the Constitution, combined with the power of judicial review, serves to protect the minority from laws created by a slim majority because a supermajority (two-third of each house of congress plus ratification by three-fourth of the States) is required to modify the
It has developed into a radical affirmative jurisprudence with its own parameters. Judicial Activism – Meaning Judicial Activism: The expression `Judicial Activism ' signifies the anxiety of courts to find out appropriate remedy to the aggrieved by formulating a new rule to settle the conflicting questions in the event of lawlessness or uncertain laws. The Judicial Activism in India can be witnessed with reference to the review power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution particularly in Public Interest Litigation. MERRIAM-WEBSTER 'S DICTIONARY OF LAW defines judicial activism as "the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decision that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY defines judicial activism as a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy among other factors, to guide their