Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The following is a statement about Ecuador. What similarities or differences do you find between this example and the judicial system in India?
“It would be helpful if a body of common law, or judicial precedent, existed that could clarify a journalist’s rights. Unfortunately, Ecuador’s courts don’t work that way. Judges are not forced to respect the rulings of higher courts in previous cases. Unlike the US, an appellate judge in Ecuador (or elsewhere in South America, for that matter) need not provide a written decision explaining the legal basis of a ruling. A judge may rule one way today and the opposite way, in a similar case, tomorrow, without explaining why.”
Solution
The differences between the judicial system in India and Ecuador can be cited as:
-
Unlike the judges in Ecuador, Indian judges have to follow the instructions and rulings of higher courts in previous cases.
-
Indian judges have to provide a written decision that explains the legal basis of a ruling.
-
An Indian judge may not rule one way today and in the other way tomorrow in the same case and he has to give explanation of the decision of every ruling in written form.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Answer the question.
Distinguish between judicial activism and judicial restraint.
How is judicial activism related to the protection of fundamental rights? Has it helped in expanding the scope of fundamental rights?
State the appropriate concept for the given statement.
Petition regarding important public concern -
Express your opinion of the following.
Judicial activism is significant today.
______ implies pro-active approach of the judiciary towards prevailing socio-economic and political apathy in the country.
Give one word/term for the following:
An approach to jurisprudence which believes that the courts can and should go beyond the letter of the law and narrow interpretation to consider broader social implications of their decisions.
