Divine law cannot be attained alone by the means of natural reason alone; the precepts of divine law are disclosed only through divine revelation. Natural law includes possession of reason and free will, and should differentiate between good and avoid evil and appreciated the theory of natural law of morality. On his view, a human law (that is, that which is promulgated by human beings) is considered valid only insofar as its content conforms to the content of the natural law; as Aquinas puts the point: "Every human law has just so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law". To paraphrase
evil is very subjective to the individual and cannot directly guide someone to the correct path. Locke also discusses two essential laws of nature: the obligation of preserving yourself as well as the preservation of the rest of mankind as a result of human reasoning. He argues this after stating, “man has not Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession.” (2) This allows for man to be wary about harming another individual’s life, liberty or possessions. These two accounts of the state of nature are very significant because they allow for the understanding of two different approaches to one term. Hobbes believes in an unsafe, truculent environment that individuals cannot wait to escape due to their constant feelings of doubt and being unsafe.
Q2. Foucault had defined governmentality as the art of government. That means the idea of government is not only limited to the state politics, but it includes controlling techniques in wide range and controlling of population. Foucault had linked governmentality to other concepts such as knowledge power and bio politics. Foucault says that governmentality develops a new understanding of power.
A legal system, according to him, does not need to be moral in order to be legitimate. His theory of law is a system of rules involving primary and secondary rules. Primary rules such as Acts of Parliaments, common law, constitutional law facilitates certain behavior while secondary rules are ‘rules about rules’, which determines the validity of legal rules (rules of recognition) as well as allow the modification of it. The rule of recognition is significant as it distinguishes valid rules from non-valid ones without taking into account of
Therefore it can be easy found out that there is a conflict between interest and duty by having a look at the way the selection process was taking place. Further, under these circumstances it is hard for the court to believe that Naquishbund might not have any biases. The main question here is whether is there any reasonable ground for believing if he is biased or not? And not whether Naquishbund was biased or not. In another case Manakalal v. Dr. Prem chand the court had clearly said that the test was of a reasonable apprehension of bias and not actual
In the judicial and quasi judicial context, this concept is backed by the basic underlying rule of “Justice must not only be done but also seen to be done”. In this background, the Doctrine of necessity gives legitimacy to decision making by ignoring the possible bias. According to this doctrine, a decision maker subject to disqualification owing to bias or conflict of interest can nevertheless make the decision if: 1) no other decision maker who is competent is available 2) no other competent decision making body can be constituted 3) quorum can’t be achieved without including him In such scenarios, the doctrine of necessity overrules the rule against bias. The logic of the doctrine of necessity is that, if there is a choice between allowing a person with bias to make a decision or to stifle the
He says that justice involves the idea of equality. He goes on to argue that the use of justice can’t be described in terms of the idea that justice and generality, as a legal ideal, might share. Laws should be very clear and it should be specified as to which norms have the status of law. Hart discusses this and takes the stand that they should not be the end-all of legal morality. Thus, as far as primary rules are concerned, Hart argues that there is a need for certainty, so that these rules can be applied by general public without any official guidance.
The explanation anticipates, however, that particular kinds of human rights will have additional features. Starting with this generic concept does not commit us to treating all kinds of human rights in a single unified theory (see Buchanan 2013 for an argument that we should not attempt to theorize together universal moral rights and international legal human rights). (1) Human rights are rights. Lest we miss the obvious, human rights are rights (see the entry on rights and Cruft 2012). Most if not all human rights are claim rights that impose duties or responsibilities on their addressees or dutybearers.
Admissible evidence in a court of law is any statement, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to the judge or jury in order to establish or bolster a point put forward by a party to the proceedings. Generally, in order for evidence to be admissible it must be relevant, without being prejudicial, and reliable. Basically, if evidence is to be admitted at court, it must be relevant, material, and competent. To be considered relevant, it must have some reasonable tendency to help prove or disprove some fact. It need not make the fact certain, but at least it must tend to increase or decrease the likelihood of some fact.
Secondly, the Constitution can be altered only by the Union Parliament; whereas the States have no power to alter it. Thirdly, the Indian Constitution renders supreme power upon the Courts to invalidate any action which violates the Constitution. Fourthly, the distribution of powers facilitates local governance by the states and national policies by the Centre. The judges concluded that the structure of the India as provided by the Constitution is centralized, with the States occupying a secondary position vis-à-vis the