Justice Bhagwati Case

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

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

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

Sujan Roka Govt. 2305-71013 Professor Sharifian Sept/30/2017 Civil rights v. Civil Liberties Civil rights and civil liberties are the rights and freedom both made for good of communities and country. Both are introduced to benefit citizen of the country. A Civil right is mainly about the fair treatment with every person which is protected by the fourteenth amendment. “It was first introduced after civil right movement which was mainly about the true equality among African American who were mainly treated as slaves.” (1, FindLaw). But now the civil right is not limited only to African American, it includes every person like women, transgenders, lesbians, gay, etc. On another side, Civil liberties are basic rights and freedom given to

Explain fully the issues involved in the High Court decision in Stingel v Clark (2006) 226 CLR 442. Did the High Court reach the right decision in this case?

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.

Justice Nariman’s judgment shows us that with the right kind of conviction, it is possible to uncover the importance of free speech as a value unto itself within our larger constitutional scheme. That the court has defended the Constitution’s ideals of tolerance with a sense of vivacity and integrity, and that it has provided the jurisprudence of free speech with an enhanced and rare clarity, must give us hope. It must allow us to believe that we can now challenge the noxious culture of censorship that pervades the Indian state. It also shows us that we do not need an American style First Amendment to achieve liberal ideals; what we require, as the court has demonstrated here, is a government that confirms to our own Constitution, which, when

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,

One of the success of the Humans Rights Act is that, the judges have developed new principles of public law. For example, ‘proportionality’ principle for deciding matters of judicial review in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001); and ruling that the home secretary,

A constitutional controversy of great significance vis-à-vis Art.356 was raised in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India..

A fair judicial system is a cornerstone of a just society. For citizens of the Gupta Empire, and any other society throughout history,

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.

i developed a specific interest in common law and human rights law through studying goverment and politics at A-Level in which we have looked in depth at the types of laws in encompassed in constitution. The particular case of

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 Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India has been implementing a project since 2012 on enhancing “Access to Justice” in North Eastern states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura & Sikkim and Jammu &