The way something is interpreted is how it is used in the practices of law, so indeed the way something is written is imperative. Judicial Review is never actually explicitly stated and described in the constitution. The importance of interpretation goes right along with the concept of judicial review. If you boil things down that’s all judicial review is, a concept. Now this ‘concept’ was derived from the constitution by our justices in the supreme court, but it is something that falls under the interpretation of the constitution.
The theory is too rigid to be accepted in many parts of world. Thus, separation of power mainly focuses on principle that each organ should separately perform its functions and no organ should interfere in the functions of other organs. Separation of power was not accepted by Indian Constitution because of its absolute rigidity. In can be made clear from case Ram Jawaya v. state of Punjab. But in case of I.C.
There are four main elements that explained postmodernism’s quasi-phenomenology of the state. First one is a genealogical analysis of the modern state’s ‘origins’ in violence. Modern political thought has attempted to transcend illegitimate forms of rule where power is unconstrained, unchecked, arbitrary and violent, by founding legitimate, democratic forms of government where authority is subject to law. The second one is an account of boundary inscription. To inquire into the state’s constitution, as postmodernism does, is partly to inquire into the ways in which global political space is partitioned.
To understand what the principle of “power arrest power” is, we need to identify what the duties, and responsibilities of each branch in separation of power is. Firstly, legislative authority is considered as the power to amend, make, pass and repeal the law. Secondly, executive authority is the power to enforce the law. Thirdly, judicial authority is the power where if there is a dispute , it is judiciary who has responsibility to determine which law should be applied in order to solve the dispute. It can be seen that each branch has different role , thereby, it means that if legislative authority has responsibility to enact the law, it does not have a duty for judicial decision or execution.
Austin’s particular theory of law is often called the “command theory of law” because the concept of command lies at its core: law is the command of the sovereign, backed by a threat of sanction in the event of non-compliance. He distinguished positive law from positive morality which is devoid any legal sanction. In his own words, “the existence of law is one thing, its merit and demerit is another...A law which actually exists, is a law, though we happen to dislike it or though it may vary from the text by which we regulate our approbation or disapprobation
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
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.
In one vital respect the constitutional battles of the seventeenth century had left their imprint on the shape of the legal system of today. Now, the relationship between the common law and equity was settled. Equity was said to be a ‘gloss’ on the common law, modifying the common law where the enforcement of legal rights was harsh or oppressive, but not claiming to be a parallel or rival system of law (Bryan and Vann,
Another case is Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad,etc. vs. Karunakar. This case talks about right to representation and Kraipak was used in figuring out whether the power was an administrative power or quasi-judicial power and also that what part of principle of natural justice must be applied depends on the facts of the circumstances . Another important case, which is based on Kraipak is UOI vs Tulsiram Patel. This case is about reasonable opportunity under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
The maxim nemo Judex in causa sua state that no one shall be the judge of his own cause provides the rules against bias. The author will now examine the importance of judicial independence and the approaches of the English Legal System toward the concept of judicial biasness. 1.0 The Roles of Judges Judges are upholder of justice. Not only did they hear and decide cases, they also play a critical role in ensuring the executive act intra vires through judicial review. The role of judges have changed significantly especially with the passing of Human Right Act 1998 (herein with HRA 1998).