⚡ Essay On Importance Of Judiciary

Thursday, May 27, 2021 2:19:35 AM

Essay On Importance Of Judiciary

Binodtwo provisions of Representation of People Act,which were Essay On Importance Of Judiciary apparent conflict, were brought forth. Hamilton used historical evidence to discuss why bills of rights had existed Hoovers Rugged Individualism the past. The Supreme Court held that literal interpretation must be made and hence rejected the application as invalid. Note that the Supreme Court did not ultimately grant itself the Essay On Importance Of Judiciary power of judicial review until the case Marbury v. It is in connection with his advocacy of that "excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of that reprehensive body," Essay On Importance Of Judiciary "citadel Essay On Importance Of Judiciary the public justice," that Hamilton pronounces judicial review as being part of Essay On Importance Of Judiciary Constitution. All the Acts starts Essay On Importance Of Judiciary the preamble, stating the reasons The Importance Of Muscle Tone the enactment of the act and the main objective of the act. The rule must advantages and disadvantages of being a private limited company Essay On Importance Of Judiciary by the fundamental maslow learning theory that statutes must be construed so as Essay On Importance Of Judiciary carry out Essay On Importance Of Judiciary object sought to be accomplished. This is true, but to interpret the laws and judge their constitutionality are the two special functions of the court. Essay writing on Essay On Importance Of Judiciary is a game case study in manufacturing company.

Justice Chelameswar On ‘Role Of Judiciary In A Democracy’ At Harvard Club Of India

So here we can observe the retrospective effect in the process of making laws. This rule is also called as purposive construction as there is a purpose behind making this ruling. Here court attempts to know the intention of the legislators for bringing in the change in the law. It also tries to analyze the mischief and the defect which was present in the previous law which leads to the creation of the new law.

This case helps us to know the 4 important points which we have to keep in mind while statute interpretation. Here it was stated that interpretation of any statutory enactment should not only restrict them to the interpretation of words and phrases used, but they should also look at the history of the act and the reasons behind passing such acts. In this case, they have applied the mischief rule in the construction of Article of the constitution of India. Article was in question because before the implementation of this section every state had its own powers and privileges to make its own laws regarding taxation. But the supreme court said that article is made in order to regulate the interstate taxation system and to maintain a well-organized taxation system.

And make the whole of India as one economic unit. Here Supreme Court has looked into the history of article and also the reasoning behind it by considering both of it they have interpreted the statute by mischief rule. According to the Road Traffic Act of uninsured cars are not allowed to be driven or parked on the road. The defendant was held guilty because the parliament has passed a bill which states that people should insure their car only then they can drive the car. The mischief rule was applied by the court by stating that the car being used in the road if in case the car causes an accident, insurance would be required. The reason behind this was that people should be compensated when they are injured by such incidents and danger caused to them by others.

This rule of interpretation is adopted when there is a conflict between two or more statutes or between two provisions of the same statute. Every law has a certain purpose set, so judges should take those purposes into consideration and it should be read as a whole while interpreting. Judges should apply such provisions which are in accordance with the public interest. The courts should avoid using such laws which bring ambiguity to the subject and makes courts inconsistent. Supreme Court explained harmonious rule as to when the two provisions of the same legislation are inconsistent with each other, both the provisions must be interpreted in such a way where it gives equal importance to others.

Here one provision will not override on other provision, it aims at harmonizing between conflicting provisions and avoids destruction one provision. Ejusdem Generis means of the same kind. Generally, the words should be given their natural meaning, unless it requires special meaning based on that context. When general words follow specific words that are distinct in nature, the general words should also be given the specific meaning to it.

The courts will interpret such general words follow specific words in a restricted way. It will be based on the facts and circumstances of the case which may change case to case. The legislative intent on principle of Ejusdem Generis is if the general words to be used in the restricted sense that means those words will be having a special meaning to it or else why would they even use specific words.

Whether the following animals are cover:. In this case, it gave us the basic requirements which should be present in the case in order to apply ejusdem generis:. The general rule of the statute is that if a word used in the statute excludes certain cases in its common meaning, it should not be forced unnecessarily to include those cases. An exception to this rule is that when the main objective of the statute is not achieved by excluding those cases then the word may be interpreted on the basis of the case requires.

This rule of interpretation will benefit individuals. Whenever there is an ambiguity or when the which would take the benefit away from the individual, so the meaning which prevails over the benefit to the individuals should be adopted. The courts should be generous towards the persons to whom benefits are conferred by the statute. Here it involves the judges to give the widest meaning to the statute in order to protect the interest of the parties, if you look into certain statutes the main purpose is to benefit and protect the interest of the person, for example, Industrial Disputes Act, Consumer Protection Act, Juvenile Justice Act and all labour-related laws.

Provision is capable of giving two meanings where one would preserve the benefit and another. In this case, the court held that in a case which is related to the prevention of unfair labour practices it should be made completely in accordance with the labour point of view as they are benefitting people here and while interpreting Social Welfare Legislation also they should consider the benefitting people of the society.

The supreme court held that the rights of maintenance of children below two years old and the mother under Section of the code of civil procedure are independent of each other and any other and subsequent legislature regarding maintenance of children below two year and mother that maybe Muslim women Protection of rights on Divorce Act, could not affect the same in absence of clear provision to the effect.

It is the modern version of mischief rule. It is actually more flexible compared to literal rule and golden rule which tends to concentrate more on the meaning of individual words or phrases. This looks for the purpose of the law. This rule allows judges to add or ignore any of the words in the statute while interpreting in order to protect the purpose of creating that law and give fair and equal justice to everyone. This rule is always compared with the mischief rule. As mischief rule looks into the gap between the old and new law and how parliament came up with the new law and what are the new remedies brought out to resolve the problems which were exiting before, whereas the purposive construction rule is broader where it not only figure out the gap between the old and new laws but it also helps judges to make an attempt to identify what parliament meant to achieve.

The days have passed by when judges used to use only strict rule where they interpret the law only based on the meaning of the words used in the statute, but now court seeks to give effect to the purposive rule where it not only consider the words of the statute according to their meaning but also according to the context. In this case, there were five students who were immigrants came to London for the purpose of studies. They challenged the refusal to allow them grants for their education. Long-standing authority on the meaning of the expression was referred to. The natural and ordinary meaning of ordinary residence had been settled by two tax cases.

Here it is considered that the items which are not on the list are not covered by the statute. When something is expressly mentioned in the statute it leads to the presumption that the things which are not specified in the statute are excluded. General words in a statute must receive a general construction unless the statute is specifying any special meaning to the general words. Whenever something is added in the statute it is added with the due consciousness. It is assumed that if something is not added in the statute there is a reason behind it, which is to exclude that from the particular statute. It is one of the best and the strongest way of interpretation. As time passes by words used in the statute will undergo changes in their meaning but when it is interpreted the word should bear its original and same meaning as the statute intended when it was passed.

The meaning of the law should be interpreted in the context when the law was formulated. Old statutes must be interpreted in such a way where that defines its purpose of introducing it. And it also considers the prior usage and interest or of enforcing the act at the time when the law was enacted. If the word is wrongly interpreted for all these years those kinds of words will not be eligible for interpretation. The words can only be interpreted by the court when the title of the property may be affected or when everyday transactions have been affected. Noscitur a soclis is a Latin term which means associated words, the meaning of unclear words or phrases is to be determined or interpreted on the basis of its context and the words and phrases surrounding it.

Associated words try to explain the meaning of the general words and also limit the interpretation of specific or special terms. When a word used in a statute is ambiguous or vague, the meaning of such words will be determined by looking associated words around it. These surrounded associate words will give clear and specific meaning to it. The importance of this rule is it aims to interpret by reading the whole statute. The words are understood in a cognitive sense and the intention of the legislatures can be easily understood. Interpretation is the process of finding out the true essence of the enactment, by giving natural and ordinary meaning to the words of enactment.

This helps in ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute. The main objective of the interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature where the meanings of the words are expressly or impliedly mentioned. Courts sometimes interpret the statute In an arbitrary manner, so in order to overcome all these confusions, certain principles have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the courts. Rules of interpretation act as a tool in determining the meaning of the particular act which is mainly divided into two they are:. Judges while interpreting a statute takes many things into consideration. Determining the primary meaning of the statutory words. And where there is ambiguity in the meaning of the words in the statute.

Answers to the many questions of ambiguity will be there in the statute itself. Every statute starts with the long title, it gives the description of the object of that Act. The long title is used by the court to interpret certain provisions of the statute. It helps in removing the ambiguity and confusion of the act and not in giving conclusive aid in interpreting the provisions of the statute. The long title of the Act is relied upon as a guide to decide the scope of the Act.

Usually, the short title is used for the purpose of referring and identification of any Act. This is one of the important part of the statute but its role in interpretation is very minimum. It shall come into force on the first day of January The main aim and objective of the act is found in the preamble of the statute. All the Acts starts with the preamble, stating the reasons behind the enactment of the act and the main objective of the act. The court held that even though the preamble cannot be used to defeat the enacting clause of a statute, it can be treated as a key for the interpretation of the statute.

Heading gives the key to the interpretation of the clauses under it and helps to know what the intent of the provision. Headings might be treated as the preamble to the provision. The court held that the headings are like a preamble which helps as a key to the mind of the legislature but does not control the substantive section of the enactment. Marginal notes are inserted at the side of the section and help to understand the effect of the section. This cannot be used for interpretation of the section.

It was held that the side notes are not part of the Act and hence marginal notes cannot be referred. Definition clause is used to define all the important terms and to avoid the necessity of frequent repetitions in describing the same subject matter to which the word or expression defined is intended to apply. Definition clause of one particular Act is applied only on the particular Act, not on any other Acts.

Illustrations are the examples given in the statutes for a better understanding of the section. It was held that illustrations are parts of the Section and help to elucidate the principles of the section. Proviso provides examples of specific cases. These specific examples are given to such cases where general words require special meaning for it. Explanations are added to the section to explain and elaborate on the meaning of the words in the section. The purpose behind this explanation is to explain, clarify, subtract or include something by elaboration. This forms an important part while interpreting the laws. The schedule forms an important part of the statute. This should be read along with the section.

It contains minute details which adds information to the provisions of the enactment. The expressions of the schedule cannot override the meaning of the provision. Punctuation is one of the minor element of the statue. Considering the facts, all laws cannot be free from ambiguity when applied to them. There can be no legislature or judge that can make a perfect law written in perfect English for ordinary people to understand and not get criticized. Therefore, interpretation of a law is very important as what one writes can be converted into various meanings and various judgments. A judge should ask himself the question: If the makers of the Act had themselves come across this luck in the texture of it, how would they have straight ended it out?

He must then do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the material of which it is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases. The main and most important objective of interpretation is to see the intention that has been merely expressed by the words. The words of the statute are to be interpreted so as to ascertain the mind of legislature from natural and grammatical meaning of the words which it has used. When the intention of legislature is not clearly expressed, a court needs to interpret the laws using the rules of interpretation.

There are two types of Rules of Interpretation with sub-categories:. In construing Statutes, the cardinal rule is to construe its provisions literally and grammatically giving the words their ordinary and natural meaning. This rule is also known as the Plain meaning rule. The first and foremost step in the course of interpretation is to examine the language and the literal meaning of the statute. The words in an enactment have their own natural effect and the construction of an act depends on its wording.

There should be no additions or substitution of words in the construction of statutes and in its interpretation. The primary rule is to interpret words as they are. It should be taken into note that the rule can be applied only when the meanings of the words are clear i. But some statutes omit a definitions section entirely, or more commonly fail to define a particular term. The plain meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself. Proponents of the plain meaning rule claim that it prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues. They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have extensive access to secondary sources.

In probate law the rule is also favoured because the testator is typically not around to indicate what interpretation of a will is appropriate. Therefore, it is argued, extrinsic evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or their meaning. It can help to provide for consistency in interpretation. One criticism of the rule is that it rests on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning. In fact, words are imprecise, leading justices to impose their own prejudices to determine the meaning of a statute. However, since little else is offered as an alternative discretion-confining theory, plain meaning survives.

In Municipal board v. State transport authority , Rajasthan , the location of a bus stand was changed by the Regional Transport Authority. An application could be moved within 30 days of receipt of order of regional transport authority according to section 64 A of the Motor vehicles Act, The Supreme Court held that literal interpretation must be made and hence rejected the application as invalid. The office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo , and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico.

There are certain advantages and disadvantages of the rule. The Law Commission sees it as a rule that is far more satisfactory way of interpreting acts as it avoids unjust or absurd results in sentencing but for some it is considered to be out of date as it was established in 16 th century when conditions were very different from now. State of Bihar , applied the mischief rule in construction of Article of the Constitution of India. After referring to the state of law prevailing in the province prior to the constitution as also to the chaos and confusion that was brought about in inter-state trade and commerce by indiscriminate exercise of taxing powers by the different Provincial Legislatures founded on the theory of territorial nexus, Chief Justice S.

A principle to be valued must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it existence. Mischief Rule is applicable where language is capable of more than one meaning. It is the duty of the Court to make such construction of a statue which shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. The words used in a statute have to be construed in their ordinary meaning, but in many cases, judicial approach finds that the simple device of adopting the ordinary meaning of words, does not meet the ends as a fair and a reasonable construction. Exclusive reliance on the bare dictionary meaning of words may not necessarily assist a proper construction of the statutory provision in which the words occur.

Often enough interpreting the provision, it becomes necessary to have regard to the subject matter of the statute and the object which it is intended to achieve. According to this rule, the words of a statute must be construed ut res magis valeat quam pareat, so as to give a sensible meaning to them. A provision of law cannot be so interpreted as to divorce it entirely from common sense, every word or expression used in an Act should receive a natural and fair meaning. It is a compromise between the plain meaning or literal rule and the mischief rule. Like the plain meaning rule, it gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning. In the case of homographs, where a word can have more than one meaning, the judge can choose the preferred meaning; if the word only has one meaning, but applying this would lead to a bad decision, the judge can apply a completely different meaning.

In RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd , the Supreme Court stated that if a statute is looked at in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute makers provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clauses each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act.

When there is a conflict between two or more statues or two or more parts of a statute then the rule of harmonious construction needs to be adopted. The rule follows a very simple premise that every statute has a purpose and intent as per law and should be read as a whole. The interpretation consistent of all the provisions of the statute should be adopted. When there are two provisions in a statute, which are in apparent conflict with each other, they should be interpreted such that effect can be given to both and that construction which renders either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort. The important aspects of this principle are:.

In Raj Krishna v.

However, since little else is offered as an alternative discretion-confining theory, plain meaning survives. Essay On Importance Of Judiciary nirbhar bharat swatantra bharat essay on, importance of second language essay Essay On Importance Of Judiciary topics on pediatric nursing how Essay On Importance Of Judiciary cite sources in an essay chicago style best Characteristics of Child Developmental Milestones topics for presentation. Cima operational case study mock exam? Wherever there is a mandatory rule it must be Essay On Importance Of Judiciary followed, when a statute Essay On Importance Of Judiciary mentions the performance of a particular act in How To Survive The Hunger Games specific way and lays down the consequences to it, Essay On Importance Of Judiciary should be Essay On Importance Of Judiciary followed. Racial Segregation Sociology, when general words Essay On Importance Of Judiciary juxtaposed with specific words, general A Trip To The Americas Essay cannot be read in isolation. Password recovery.