This is what Fuller terms as 8 principles of internal morality of law. Non-compliance of any of the criteria would mean that it is not law. Retroactivity can't be justified as it penalizes an individual for a crime which is not a crime before the passing of the law. Based on internal morality of law, Fuller stated that “retroactive law is not a law at all.” The same goes to the predecessor's law for not complete the purposive enterprise. Accordingly, in Fuller's view the predecessor law of conceding immunity would be invalid and there is no need for the enactment of a law retrospectively.
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. There are a number of defenders of rule of law who have emphasized the need for the same kind of safety. He also discusses clarity as to which norms are to be declared as law. Hart had earlier argued that rule of recognition serves a very important purpose in peoples’ understanding of which rules can be secretively enforced by the society. However, in the Postscipt of his book, the Concept of Law, he says that the need for certainty is not a requisite condition.
Respect for Human Dignity? Justice? and The Right to Privacy? The Belmont Report (1979) speaks to basic ethical principles. In addressing beneficence, Perry was not respected for his decisions and protected from harm and, with multiple stays of execution, Truman was not making further effort to secure his well-being.
When the defendant’s wrong does not fit in any of these pigeon holes he is said to have committed no tort. Hence this theory of Salmond is also known as pigeon hole theory. However the theory of pigeon hole has been criticized by the latter writers as they feel this theory, if accepted, will put an end to the growth and evolution of the new categories of liability in tort and the Courts could be prevented from identifying any new torts based on the violation of the legal rights of a person. Torts are infinitely various and not limited and confined. The novelty of claim may arise and Court may recognize a novel claim.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court overlooked a fact that these amendments were made with a sole reason of removing all the charges put on Smt. Indira Gandhi while delivering the judgement in which it said that Amendment Acts of 1974 and 1975 were constitutionally valid as they were legislative and Parliament had power to amend them. Also, these amendments were never debated because all the opposition leaders were put in preventive detention which restricted them from voting against the amendment or voicing their opinion over them. With the due respect to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I would like to state that it was ignorant on the part of the Court to say that it was a matter of Parliament and Court cannot do anything about it. The duty of Hon’ble Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution and it is the Guardian of the same.
In the same speech he addresses his experience combatting a bill to the British constitution that made it illegal to criticize religion. He recalls that he was one of the people who become involved in trying to prevent the bill from being passed. He is completely for Laïcité and believes that there should be no religious involvement with respect to the decisions taken by or operation of the government. Religion should be kept separate. Salman Rushdie does not believe in religion as a tool for peace, he is quite against religion; he stated
When they both decide to go against the government, it is solely because both think that government prevents the Transcendentalist lifestyle. This lifestyle, means that one is exempt from taxes or any other enforced laws and regulations, as a Transcendentalist disagrees with the very core of the state. So, under the guise of moral responsibility, civil disobedience is a way to act for their own personal gain. McCandless has a distaste for government, having strong views on various politicians, many of which he dislikes. His political leanings are reminiscent of Thoreau’s essay ‘On Duty of Civil Disobedience’, and can be summed up with, “ ‘I heartily accept the motto - ‘That
In the medieval, the English jurist Edward Coke asserted that king must be under God and law. The modern concept of the rule of law is fairly wide and sets up ideal for any government to achieve and was developed by the International Commission of Jurists, known as Delhi Declaration, 1959. According to this the rule of law implies that the function of the Government in a free society should be so exercised as to create condition in which dignity of man as an individual is upheld. “Rule of Law” is to be understood neither as a “rule” nor a “law”. It is generally understood as a doctrine of “state
In Ranjit Thakur v Union the Supreme Court cited Lady Diplock’s decision in the GCHQ case and expressly said no to ruling out the application of the proportionality test. The wording of the opinion in that case however was far away from the US standard of the proportionality test and in substance was closer to the Wednesbury test. The shock the conscious test clearly falls in the category of exceptional and rare cases that was envisaged by Lord Green M.R. in the Wednesbury
Dating back to the ancient civilization, in ancient Mesopotamia, India, Greece, Rome, and China various concepts and ideas of the rule of law began to evolve. For ancient Greece, one of the great philosophers, Plato believed the idea of governing a nation should be ruled by the best man, but the idea itself came to fade away. During the 16th century, in Britain, Samuel Rutherford started an outstanding legal system, the rule of law, defined as the principle in which people (government or citizens) and institutions are accountable to follow and obey the law. It was further popularized by A.N.Dicey in the 19th century. Which the rule of law gave equal human rights, prompted security later, externalized to the international level where nowadays international organizations in the name of international law protect human rights and terrorism at the global level.