Background Facts In Lily Thomas V. Union Of India the writ petition was filed as Public Interest

“This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme

Undoubtedly, the aim of the amendment which created Article 121(1A) was in many ways to avoid in the future for any conflict between the decisions of the civil courts and the Syariah courts. However, it turns to have caused even more uncertainty, conflict and confusion in our legal system than ever was the case.

The results of recent elections in Britain raised many significant questions about current political situation in the country, particularly concerning electoral system. Therefore the problem of “crisis” in democracy of Britain was the subject of wide speculation among analysts and political scientists over last years. In addition it is widely recognized that the traditional electoral system in the UK-first past the post- is the main cause of that crisis and should be replaced as part of a plan to reconstitute the democratic culture (Kelly 2008). By longstanding critics of the system, opponents advocate the use of proportional representation (PR) for selecting MPs. Due to this problem it is going to be a referendum on changing the electoral

“When having regard to section 3 of the Act and the above cases (decisions cited to her in relation to the public interest), it is plain that the objective considerations of public interest are of high importance when making determinations under the Act.”

Facts of the case (Summary of facts of case and its journey to Supreme Court)

The matter was presented to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and AAT has different views on this matter and AAT considered the historical Cases and

(b) is not the subject of an order of or a declaration by the Governor in Council made pursuant to section 10 or 20 of this Act or section 18 of the former Act;

The word parliament derives from a word loosely translated as ‘to talk’ or ‘to deliberate’. The UK Parliament consists officially of the two Houses of Parliament: the Lords and the Commons and the monarch, which by convention, delegates his or her authority to a group of ministers known as the executive. The role of parliament is mainly to legislate and to govern the United Kingdom through elected representatives. However the executive has a special role over the legislatures and it has been argued that the UK Parliament has become increasingly dominated by the executive.

The trial judge instructed the jury not to consider LM’s statements when deciding the appellant’s case. The appellant’s grounds for appeal to the High Court, were that these statements should have been considered.

On the point of transfer of power, if the process is followed as described in the text it would insure that the executive would have to step down after fulfilling their term. The new magistrate would then assume this role, but there is little to no mention on how the current magistrate would go about preparing the new appointee for the position. The method used in selection offers a major source of legitimacy in that; there are very clear guidelines as to who is eligible and who is not. To further this legitimacy it is also done in public view in a yearly ritual. It creates a certain sense of fairness because each male over the age of 65 has the potential to be selected each year. This system has an inherent check on the power of the executive

To become a member of parliament, a person needs to persuade a political party to put their name on the ballot.

In the words of Elmer Driedger (as cited in Boyd, 2015), “the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context in their grammatical sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament” (p. 65). This approach advocates analysis which balances the literal language used with the context of the statute and its intended purpose. This paper will assess the strength Driedger's approach in relation to the cases R. v. Boudreault, Paldi Khalsa Diwan Society v. Cowichan Valley (Regional District), and R. v. Skakun. It will be argued that Driedger's approach is advantageous to the courts in general, but insofar as it is combined with the principle of stare decisis, it is beneficial only when the judgments in precedent-setting cases accord with fundamental justice.

Regina v. G and another (Appellants) (On Appeal form the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

The Supreme Court rejected both the contentions because Article 13(2) and Article 359, being parts of the same Constitution, stand on an equal footing and the two provisions have to be read harmoniously in order that the intention behind Article 359 is carried out and it is not destroyed altogether. Also the enforcement of a particular fundamental right is, for the sake of security of India, for which the subjective determination of the President is involved and he cannot be called to justify his action in the court of

The code of civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “code”) contains the procedural laws with respect to enforcement of rights in the civil courts of the country. Since its inception in 1908, the code has been amended several times, with the Amendment acts of 1951, 1956, 1976, 1999 and 2002 (Hereinafter referred to as the acts of 1951,1956,1976,1999 and 2002) being the most significant. These amendments were made in order to correct the defects which were present in the original code of 1908. Although the Code of 1908 laid down the overall procedure of enforcement of civil law, it failed to take into account