As we all know, the constitutional supremacy is a written constitution. Hence, it is rigid. As for it is rigid, it requires a constitutional provision which specifically addressing on how to amend a law. It is under the Article 159 of the Federal Constitution. In a constitutional supremacy, parliament is not omnipotent.
The doctrine of precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis, which means to stand by things decided. It might be true that the sovereignty of Parliament is more complete in England than anywhere else. However, does it really mean that the rigidity of doctrine of precedent in this country is of no particular importance? Moreover, can we actually say that the doctrine of precedent is rigid? The main aim of my work is to consider the principles of statutory interpretation and judicial precedent and analyse if judges had intervened with Parliament’s law making role.
This distinction in the law is termed as functions. According to the amendment, the judge is designated to try the law whereas the jury can try according to facts. This distinguishing between the law and fact is important as it gives the legitimacy to the decree of juries. At the same time, the amendment prevents from violation of the justified legal anticipations of the
This is crucial in order to allow laws to meet societies ever-changing needs. Finally, the rule of adjudication is what Hart believes allows judges to interpret cases which are considered ambiguous by using their own discretion. Whilst this can apply to cases which are not covered by any current laws, this also poses an issue regarding the Separation of Powers raising concerns about the applicability of the theory in the UK government. Additionally, leaving decisions to be made without any guidelines for cases that are not
Judicial review also means that judges sometimes do not have the final say, especially in lower courts. The higher courts have the power to review decisions and set them aside. The grounds are absence of jurisdiction, bias or corruption on the part of the presiding officer, gross irregularity in the proceedings, and the admission of inadmissible evidence. Certain statutes make provision for the decisions of magistrates or other judicial officers to be reviewed automatically by judges, meaning that the review is not initiated by an aggrieved individual but takes place by virtue of a statutory trigger. Judges are obliged to follow a code of ethics or conduct.
To overcome this problem, our Courts have developed the practice of appointing ‘fact-finding commissions’ on a case-by-case basis which are deputed to inquire into the subject-matter of the case and report back to the Court. These commissions usually consist of experts in the concerned fields or practicing lawyers. In matters involving complex legal considerations, the Courts also seek the services of senior counsels
The judicial branch in Canada is a key element to the division of power. The judiciary branch is an uninfluenced and independent from the legislative and executive branch, the judges are appointed by the Prime Minister and their role is to interpret and apply the laws of Canada as written in the Canadian Constitution. There are two essential principals in modern democracy; the rule of law (La primauté du droit) and the separation of powers (Lampron p. 218). The rule of law is the idea that no one is above the law. This theory allows for a healthy democracy as authority must practice is powers legitimately and in accordance with written and publically adapted laws.
predominance of legal spirit (i) Supremacy of law: Explaining the first principle, Dicey states that rule of law means absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to arbitrary powers or wide discretionary power. It excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative or even wide discretionary authority on part of the Government. According to him English men were ruled by the law and by the law alone. The rule of law banning of rule of judge, in matters pertaining to a person or a nation. it is so imperative that the reign of law should not be reduced to anarchy by willfully lawless
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment or order in any matter or case, made by any court or tribunal in the country. The Supreme Court is vested with the absolute power of interpretation of the constitution being the ultimate guardian of the constitution. When can an SLP be made? The appeals can be made in cases where a substantial question of law is involved or where gross injustice has been observed . The judgment, decree or order against which the appeal is being made must have the character of judicial adjudication.
The boss equity is leader of the Malaysian legal. His arrangement are made by The Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the guidance of the Prime Minister subsequent to counseling the Conference of Rulers Federal Court of Malaysia. Article 121(2) of the Federal Constitution meets the Federal Court with the accompanying locale which is to focus requests from choices of the Court of Appeal, of the High Court or a judge. Consultative ward as is determined in Articles 128 and 130 and Such other purview as may be