After the 2005 Act, the selection of the judges is subject to the Judicial Appointments Commissions. The tenure of the judges was due to a good behaviour under Act of Settlement 1700. More recently, the Supreme Court Act established that a person holds office during a good behaviour removable only by the Queen. Now, the 2005 Act established the Judicial Complaints Office where the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor can mention an issue to the office. In addition, judges are disqualified from membership to the House of Commons, however, not appointment to the Bench.
The lower courts must refer to the mandatory precedents of superior courts. However, the superior court judge will differentiate the case before him and the cases that put the precedent and may decide not to comply with mandatory preceding if he considers that the compulsory precedent is unrelated to the case before him. From this, original precursors are formed. Persuasive precedent is a precedent which is useful or relevant to a case. It is not mandatory for the judges to apply persuasive precedent.
The doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis, is a common practice in the common law systems. It states that judges are to follow the court's previous decisions when deciding cases with the same facts. It is simply an ideal of 'deciding similar cases in a similar manner'1 so that consistency is maintained when deciding cases. There are a number of advantages and disadvantages in common law systems where judges make the law. In fact, the question of whether judges in common law systems make the law is controversial and debatable.
The dominant legal discourse that reflects these practices is therefore not unified, but is more like a network that has some centre points, usually the major states, but also some subdued discourses that subsist at the edges. Unlike Kelsen’s premises, securing the unified logic or consistency without contradictions is not a function of the discourse; it is rather the other way around: the law allows to keep up commitments in spite of contradictions enables political coordination at the same time. Still, there is a place for something like a Pure Theory of law. It can still observe the legal practice, the dogmatic and philosophical reasoning and serve as an ideology critique, pointing out when and how a legal practice dissolves into some form of mythical thinking and showing how moral and legal theory try to ignore the post-foundational philosophical
It is the power exerted by the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislatures, executive and administrative arms of government and to ensure that such actions conform to the provisions of the nation’s Constitution. Judicial review has two important functions, like, of legitimizing government action and the protection of constitution against any undue encroachment by the gov¬ernment. The power of Judicial Review is incorporated in Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution insofar as the High Courts are concerned. In regard to the Supreme Court Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution, the judiciary in India has come to control by judicial review every aspect of governmental and public
They can apply a different rule only if their "case" presents the facts "different" from that previously decided by other courts. Legal rules are mostly "processed" by the judge in the analysis of the case. Common law guarantees that the law remain always the same thought out the Uk and Walles. Nevertheless is the supreme court and the court of Appeal that produces the legal precedent in relation to criminal matters in England and Wales. Although the English legal system is founded on common law, that is not to say that statutes are any less binding.
Beside customary law, there is also judicial decisions which the decision of high courts in previous cases must be followed by the lower courts in similar cases or situations. Judicial decisions can be obtained from the decision of the superior courts namely as Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court. Judicial decisions are divided to two categories which is binding and persuasive. In binding categories, all decisions of high courts bind the lower courts but the High Courts are bound by their own decisions. While in persuasive categories, High Court judges are not bound to follow the decisions of another High Court Judges but can refer to decisions from outside of the Malaysian courts (English Court).
There was a particular judiciary system of India, which was instead of the plaintiff going to the court, the court presents before the plaintiff and takes decision itself. Witness would not tell a lie if the hearings were conducted in front of the people. The policies of government or the wishes of the government employees did not influence the Sabhā. Manu instructs that the king should not interfere in the clear decisions taken by the members of the Sabhā according to
Additional benefit of collegial executive is the diverse viewpoints it offers, in which each cabinet member heads a different committee and mentions the committee’s decisions in the cabinet meetings. This guarantee that before the executive makes a decision all key issues have been thoroughly discussed. And it prevent executive from acting merely according to the prime minister’s interests. On the other hand, shared executive can impede the decision-making process when unanimity cannot be attained. A minister may refuse to compromise his own beliefs for the advantage of undivided decision, and since his political reputation is on line, he may decide on individual act rather than collective.
So I think judicial credibility can be enhanced when it is accountable and transparent. The Judiciary is independent in a sense that it is answerable to any one and not act arbitrarily and the chief justice of high court and supreme court should have the power to enforce discipline and to take some corrective or advisory measures against his colleagues whenever aberrations in their conduct came into notice as the provision of impeachment is also very difficult to implement. Further judicial standard and accountability bill which is pending need to be passed in order to became judiciary more