justice for all “ JUDICIAL ACTIVISM 1. Introduction 2. Factors: * unceremonious removal of chief justice and the public reaction * Government apprehensions concerning Judicial Activism * Unprecedented defiance of Chief Justice * Reassertion/awaking role of civil society * role of media/projection of media in evoking public interest attenntion * government’s mishandling of this whole affair 3. Significant developments between March 9 and July 20 * Chief
Free Law Separation of powers Government
Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. Prior to the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982‚ the duty of Supreme Court justices was to interpret law‚ not took it upon themselves to make law. Nevertheless‚ the Supreme Court justices play a more predominant role in shaping government policy and legislation today than they did
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law Judge
Judicial Activism in Pakistan Judicial Activism: Social change effected by judicial decree. The doctrine that the judicial branch especially the federal courts‚ may interpret the constitution by deviating from legal precedent as a means of effecting legal and social change. Judicial activism is a time honored trait of judicial function and to give up that trait is to surrender before these two mightier organs of the state. History bounds in scintillating examples of judicial activism‚ when the
Premium Law Separation of powers Supreme Court of the United States
controversy of judicial review which at extreme points‚ is called judicial activism‚ is a concept new to India. Judicial review can be defined as the judiciary‚ in the exercise of its own independence‚ checking and cross checking the working of the other organs of the government‚ while trying to uphold the ideal of ‘the rule of law’. Judicial activism more reformist in character is often confused with judicial review. According to Black’s Law Dictionary‚ judicial activism is “a philosophy of judicial decision-making
Premium Law Separation of powers Judicial review
exemplifies the protection of civil right and liberties with judicial activism. When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However‚ in times of controversy‚ where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand‚ the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse‚ thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v.
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Brown v. Board of Education
system promotes equal access to justice for all (Vines 2013‚ p. 319). As significant figures of the judicial system‚ judges must ensure that courts are independent‚ impartial‚ open and transparent and provides a fair and prompt trial (Rule of Law Institute of Australia 2015). This could be an issue with indeterminate sentencing
Premium Law Crime Criminal law
Judicial Review: A Double-Edged Sword Judicial Review: A Double-Edged Sword 1. Traditional theories of judicial review hold that neutral or principled grounds are the only legitimate bases for judicial decisions and reject political motives in judicial decision-making. Do you believe this is true? Do you see principled v. political motives in important U.S. Supreme Court constitutional decisions which overturn laws passed by legislatures (such
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
The area of law in which this question is concerned is judicial review. Judicial review can be defined as ‘… the means by which the Courts control the exercise of Governmental powers.’ The Courts will look at the way in which a decision was made‚ not the decision itself‚ to find out if any powers have been abused. Judicial review is an application to the Courts to assess an action or decision made by a public body on a point of public law. A particular decision may be found to be in breach of natural
Premium Law
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION PART II ON WHAT GROUNDS CAN JUDICIAL REVIEW BE SOUGHT? The grounds for JR can be classified in at least three ways: 1. Two principal classes of action may be pursued under JR: those which allege that there has been a breach of statutory requirements‚ and those alleging that action has been taken in disregard of the rules of ‘natural justice’. 2. In Council for the Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for the
Premium Human rights Law Administrative law
of “Power vacuum filling” some organ has to extend its influence and it is only natural for judiciary to extend its influence in the sphere. Many argue that it is against the principle of democracy. May be it is true. But there is a widening gap between the principle of democracy and the essence of democracy. Sometimes the hegemonic growth of the form and procedure of democracy become so vast that they make the spirit of democracy in danger. Now it is important to decide what is more important the
Free Separation of powers Law Judicial review