Critical Analysis of State of West Bengal V. Anwar Ali

They appealed on penalty, The hearing officer made fundamental errors in both principals and law. She considered disciplinary matters for 1999 and 2000 which clearly postdated 1997 offence, when making the decision of the 12 day suspension she clearly had antecedents in her mind. Clearly they where not antecedents and should not have been considered. After getting a new hearing they decided that

The reasons for judgment was then appealed to the District Court according to s. 149 of the Weapons Act, which permits an appeal on a question of the law. The District Court judge allowed the appeal on the bases that the magistrate has wrongly applied, as “the primary test”, the test that was set out in s 138(3) of the Weapons Act for possession of modern handguns and failed to give proper consideration to the evidence as to the pistols being a collectable

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

Subsequently, the Committee on Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice (Madhava Menon Committee) emphasized the need for the same. Under the present criminal justice system, wide discretionary powers are awarded to the judges which sometimes results in lopsided, unfair judgments. Even though some basic principles such as proportionality, fairness and deterrence are recognized as forming the basis of the

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

Issue 2 and 5: The Court noted that the exclusion of principles of natural justice (PNJ) is a well known concept and the legislature has the competence to enact such laws. Whether the exclusion of application of PNJ would vitiate the entire proceedings would depend upon the nature and facts of every case in the light of the Act or Rules and Regulation applicable to the case. The Court, then, read into various provisions of the Act and the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 in order to determine the nature of functions of the Commission under various provisions. The Court found that at the face of it, the exercise of power u/s. 26(1) of the Act while forming prima facie opinion is inquisitorial and regulatory. It held that while forming prima facie opinion, the Commission does not condemn anyone. This function is not adjudicatory in nature but merely administrative. This function is in the nature of preparatory measures in contrast to the decision making process and hence

Discuss the importance of the judicial selection and appointment in securing an independent judiciary. (50 marks)

This is an appeal against a decision of the full count of the supreme court of western

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.

The main issue that brought attention to this law was the Singh case, which demonstrates a man murdering his wife, with his first attempt of strangling her, and when that was not successful, he began to slit her throat with a Stanley knife. This degree of violence, alongside his sentencing gives the impression that the judiciary system, courts and parliament partially understood the idea that men should have the authority to violently retaliate to the words of women, which can potentially lead to death. The idea that women ask for violence through their words or actions, and the concept of ‘a crime of passion’ are very outdated, and display the values that societies held when women did not have the same amount of rights, respect and power in

In adjudicating upon the ambit of § 123(3), the Court by a majority opinion , adopted the purposive interpretation approach instead of a restrictive literal one, injecting a considerable might into the provision as well as embellishing its scope to formally and explicitly prohibit any appeal as may be made in the name of religion, caste et al to the populace during elections. In the analysis that follows, we shall dissect the qualitative aspects of the judgment in light of its intractable relation to the social realities that prevail. As Philip Allott observed : “Law establishes possible futures for society, in accordance with society’s theories, values and purposes.” In a nation often mired by societal conflicts based upon archaic classifications,

In order to ensure that Fundamental Rights did not remain empty provisions, the founding fathers of our Constitution have made various provisions in the Constitution to maintain an independent judiciary. Articles related to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and independent judiciary together provide a firm constitutional basis to the growth of Public Interest Litigation in India. The founding fathers envisaged ‘‘the judiciary as a bastion of rights and justice’’. An independent judiciary lanced with the power of judicial review was the constitutional device chosen to achieve the required objective. This jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights was conferred upon both the Supreme Court and the High Courts, hence them being the courts that have entertained all the Public Interest Litigation cases.

Jury trials in India had come to an end unceremoniously; the immediate cause for abolition of jury trials was “Not Guilty” verdict of jury in K.M.Nanavati Vs. state of Maharashtra . The sessions Judge disagreed the Jury opinion, in his view, no reasonable body of men could bring that verdict on the evidence and referred the matter

Judicial review may well be comprehended in the setting of two particular—yet parallel—lawful frameworks, common law and regular law. Furthermore by two unmistakable hypotheses on majority rules system and by means of a government ought to be put together, legislative matchless quality and detachment of forces. Regular law judges are viewable as wellsprings of law. These judges are also equipped for making new lawful standards and dismissing lawful guidelines that are no more legitimate. In the common law convention, judges are seen as the individuals who apply the law, with no energy to make or obliterate legitimate guidelines.

Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg., Justice N. L. Untwalia, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice P. S. Kailasam, Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice Y. V. Chandrachud.