Judicial Process question bank (solved)

 Judicial Process question bank (solved)

 

Note:-  All questions are solved for 20 marks you can write for 15 marks also. 

 Q. PIL has opened many gates for social justice explained in the light of case law .

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a unique concept of jurisprudence, which has not only given a new dimension to law but also has opened many gates for social justice. It was first introduced in India by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar in 1979. PIL is a type of litigation which is initiated in a court of law, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself or by any other public-spirited person for the enforcement of public interest or social justice. The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in the advancement and protection of rights of the vulnerable and marginalized sections of the society through PIL. PIL has been successful in achieving many objectives that are essential for social justice. It has given a powerful and an effective legal tool to individuals and groups who have been denied access to justice. PIL has been used to address the issues related to environmental protection, consumer protection, public health, labour and human rights, etc. The Indian Supreme Court has recognized the rights of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other marginalised communities by addressing various issues of discrimination and inequality. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) is one of the landmark cases in which the Supreme Court directed the state to take concrete steps to protect the environment. In the Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to protect women against sexual harassment at workplace. In the case of Laxmi Mandal v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court directed the state to formulate a scheme to provide free legal aid to indigent persons, who are unable to afford legal services. The PIL has also helped in ensuring accountability of the state in providing basic amenities like education, health care, and clean drinking water to the public. In the Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) case, the Supreme Court directed the state to provide free and compulsory education to all children. In the cases of Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) and State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1996), the Supreme Court directed the state to provide free medical treatment to the poor in government hospitals. The PIL has thus been instrumental in bringing about social justice in India. It has empowered the citizens to demand their constitutional rights from the state and become active participants in the process of governance. It has enabled the courts to take a proactive role in the protection of fundamental rights of the citizens and in the realisation of social justice.

Q. PIL is boon to the downtrodden people of the society. Discuss with the help of various judgments specifically for women and environment.

PIL or Public Interest Litigation is a potent tool to protect the fundamental liberties of the citizens, particularly the most vulnerable and underprivileged sections of the society who are not able to approach the courts for the redressal of their grievances. This is because the PIL is filed by any public spirited individual or organization on behalf of the aggrieved party who cannot approach the courts on their own. PIL has been used to protect the rights and interests of women, environment and other downtrodden people of the society. Various judgments of the Supreme Court of India have significantly enhanced the scope of PIL as it has been used to protect the rights of women and environment. In the case of Vishaka and others vs State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court declared ‘Sexual Harassment of Working Women at Workplace’ as a crime and laid down guidelines to be followed by the employers at the workplace. This judgment was widely hailed as a landmark judgment as it acknowledged the right of women to a safe workplace and made the employers accountable for providing a secure environment to the female employees. In the case of Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court, for the first time, invoked the principles of PIL to protect the environment and set a milestone by laying down the principles of ‘Polluter Pays’ and ‘Sustainable Development’. This judgment was a major breakthrough in environmental jurisprudence and set a precedent for the protection of environment in India. In the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India, the Supreme Court ordered the setting up of a Tribunal to look into the grievances of the people affected by the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the river Narmada. This judgment was a major victory for the human rights of the people affected by the dam as it was a classic example of the use of PIL to protect the rights of the people belonging to the weaker section of the society. Thus, it can be concluded that PIL is an important tool to protect the rights of the downtrodden people of the society and has been used to protect the rights of women and environment in particular.

Q. Explain in detail various aspects of judicial accountability.

Judicial accountability is a concept that deals with the duties and responsibilities of judges to the public, and their ability to explain their decisions. It is an integral part of a justice system, as it ensures that judges are held to a certain standard of conduct, and that their decisions are based on the law, not on personal bias or prejudice. Judicial accountability is a major part of maintaining the public’s trust in the judicial process and in the legal system as a whole. 1. Independence: One of the essential aspects of judicial accountability is judicial independence. Judges must remain independent from any external influences, including the legislature, the executive, and public opinion. This ensures that judges are making decisions based solely on the facts and the law, and not on their personal beliefs. Judicial independence is key to ensuring that justice is served and that the judicial system is fair and impartial. 2. Transparency: Another important aspect of judicial accountability is transparency. Judges must be transparent in their reasoning and decision-making, so that the public can understand the basis for their decisions. This allows the public to hold the judiciary accountable and to ensure that the law is being applied fairly. Judges should also be transparent in their own personal lives, so that questions of bias or prejudice do not arise. 3. Accountability: Judicial accountability also involves judges being held accountable for their decisions. This means that judges must be able to explain why they made a particular decision, and must be open to criticism and feedback from the public. This ensures that the judiciary is being held to a high standard and that justice is being served. 4. Reporting: One of the most important aspects of judicial accountability is the requirement for judges to report their decisions. This allows for a record of the judge’s decisions to be kept, which can be used to review the judge’s performance and to ensure that justice is being served. 5. Ethics: Another important aspect of judicial accountability is the requirement for judges to adhere to ethical standards. Judges must adhere to certain ethical standards, such as avoiding conflicts of interest, in order to ensure that they are making decisions based on the law, not on personal bias or prejudice. This helps to ensure that justice is being served and that the public can trust the judicial system. These are just a few of the aspects of judicial accountability that are essential to ensure that the judicial system is fair and impartial. Judicial accountability is an essential part of maintaining the public’s trust in the legal system, and it is important for judges to adhere to these principles in order to ensure that justice is served.

Q. judicial review is a two-edged sword in the hands of judiciary explain in detail.

Judicial review is a two-edged sword in the hands of the judiciary. On one hand, it is an effective tool for the judiciary to check the constitutionality of governmental actions, protect individual rights and promote democracy. On the other hand, it can be used to undermine the legitimate power of the government and limit its ability to make policy decisions. Judicial review is a tool used by the judiciary to review laws, regulations, and other government actions to ensure they comply with the U.S. Constitution and laws. It is a check on the power of the other branches of government, and it helps ensure that they remain within the bounds of the law. It is a powerful tool that has been used to protect civil rights and liberties, as well as to expand them. One of the primary benefits of judicial review is that it allows the judiciary to ensure that the laws and regulations passed by the government are constitutional. This is important because it ensures that the government is not infringing on individual rights, and that laws are not being passed that violate the Constitution. Judicial review also helps to ensure that the government is not overstepping its authority by making laws that are not authorized by the Constitution. The downside of judicial review is that it can be used to limit the power of the government. When the courts strike down a law or regulation, the government must either revise it or pass a new law. This can be a lengthy process and can be used to delay or obstruct the implementation of a law or policy. Additionally, the courts may interpret the law in ways that are contrary to the intentions of the government, making it difficult for the government to pass laws that are in the best interest of the people. Judicial review is a two-edged sword. It is an essential tool for the judiciary to ensure that the government is not infringing on individual rights or overstepping its authority. However, it can also be used to limit the power of the government and impede its ability to make policy decisions.

Q. Independence of judiciary is a landmark or hallmark of democracy explained with the help of constitutional provisions.

Judiciary independence is one of the fundamental features of a democracy. It is essential for the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizens and for the proper functioning of the democratic system. It ensures that the court is not influenced by any external pressure or interference and can decide the cases without fear or favour. The Indian Constitution enshrines the principle of judicial independence in various forms. The Indian Constitution in Article 50 provides that the State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. In addition, the Indian Constitution in Article 124(2) provides for the appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court by the President in consultation with such of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President may deem necessary. The Indian Constitution also provides for the security of tenure of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. It is provided in Article 124(2) and Article 217 respectively that the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts shall hold office until they attain the age of sixty-five years. The Indian Constitution also provides for the conditions of service and remuneration of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Article 125 and Article 221 respectively provide that the salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts shall be determined by the Parliament by law and shall not be varied to their disadvantage. The Indian Constitution also provides for the independence of the judiciary from the executive. Article 233 and Article 235 respectively provide that the executive power of the State shall not be exercised in respect of the appointment of judges of the High Court and the control of judicial work in the High Courts shall be vested in the High Court itself. In addition, the Indian Constitution also provides for the independence of the judiciary from the legislature. Article 122 provides that the proceedings of the Parliament shall not be liable to be questioned in any court. Thus, it can be seen that the Indian Constitution provides for a number of measures to ensure the independence of the judiciary from the executive, legislature and other organs of the State. This ensures that the judiciary can exercise its powers without any external pressure or interference, thus protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens and ensuring the proper functioning of the democratic system.

Q. "Independence of judiciary is important to secure democracy," explain.

Independence of the judiciary is essential to secure democracy. The judiciary is an integral part of a democracy, as it is responsible for protecting the rights of citizens and ensuring that the laws of the land are upheld. Without an independent judiciary, the rule of law would be compromised and the democracy itself would be in jeopardy. The independence of the judiciary is essential for ensuring that the decisions of the courts are impartial and free from any political interference. This ensures that the individual rights of citizens and the rule of law are respected and upheld. An independent judiciary allows for the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, ensuring that each branch of government is accountable for its actions and decisions. The independence of the judiciary also ensures that the courts are able to make decisions objectively and without any bias. This allows for fair and impartial decisions which are in the best interest of the citizens of the country and in accordance with the rule of law. The independence of the judiciary also helps to protect the rights of citizens, as it ensures that the courts are free to make decisions that are in line with the law, rather than those that are politically motivated. Furthermore, the independence of the judiciary helps to ensure that the government is held accountable for its actions. If the judiciary is not independent, it may be susceptible to political influence, which would undermine the rule of law and compromise the rights of citizens. With an independent judiciary, citizens can be assured that the decisions made by the courts are not influenced by political interests, but are instead based on the rule of law. In conclusion, the independence of the judiciary is an essential component of a democracy. It ensures that the government is held accountable for its actions, that the rule of law is upheld and that the rights of citizens are protected. An independent judiciary is essential for ensuring that democracy is secure.

Q. Judicial process is an instrument of social ordering discussed.

The judicial process is an important instrument of social ordering. It is the legal system through which conflicts between individuals and between the state and individuals are resolved. It can be used to protect civil rights and liberties, to ensure fair and impartial treatment of all parties, to ensure respect for the rule of law, and to promote social justice. The judicial process begins with the filing of a complaint or petition. This may be done by an individual or an organization. The complaint is then evaluated by the court to determine if there is a valid legal basis for the court to hear the case. Once a case is accepted, the court will then consider the evidence presented and make a ruling. The court may also consider arguments from both sides, as well as any relevant legal precedents. This helps the court determine the best course of action to resolve the dispute. The court may also issue an order or injunction, which may require the parties to take action or refrain from taking action in order to resolve the dispute. The judicial process also provides a forum for resolving disputes through mediation or arbitration. Mediation is a voluntary process in which a neutral third party helps the parties to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. Arbitration is a more formal process in which an arbitrator hears both sides of the dispute and makes a binding decision. Finally, the judicial process may be used to enforce the law. This is done through the courts, which have the power to issue orders to those who violate the law. These orders may require the violator to pay a fine, do community service, or even go to jail. In summary, the judicial process is an important instrument of social ordering. It provides a forum for resolving disputes, protecting civil rights and liberties, and enforcing the law. It also helps ensure that individuals are treated fairly and that justice is served.

Q. Discuss the relation of Justice and Law with the help of various Theories. (or)
Q. Explain the relationship between law and justice with the help of various case laws.

Justice and Law are closely related concepts. Justice is a concept derived from the idea of fairness and equality, while law is a set of rules and regulations used to govern a society. The relationship between justice and law is complex and can be viewed from different perspectives, depending on one's philosophical beliefs. One popular approach to understanding the relationship between justice and law is the 'natural law' theory. This theory suggests that justice exists independently of law, and that law is simply a reflection of the natural justice that exists in the universe. This theory states that justice is an inherent part of the universe, and that laws merely serve to codify this justice. It suggests that laws should be consistent with the pre-existing sense of justice within a society, and should not be used to create new forms of justice that are not in line with a society's preconceived notions. The 'positive law' theory is another approach to understanding the relationship between justice and law. This theory suggests that justice is derived from the laws that are in place in a society. This theory suggests that laws are created by a higher power, and that the laws should be followed in order to achieve justice. This theory is often used to explain why some laws are seen as being more just than others, as well as why certain laws are enforced more heavily than others. The 'utilitarian' approach to understanding the relationship between justice and law is based on the idea that laws should be designed to maximize the overall utility of the society. This theory suggests that laws should be designed in such a way that they produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. This theory suggests that laws should be created in such a way that they create the most benefit for society, while also taking into account the rights of individuals. Finally, the 'legal realist' approach to understanding the relationship between justice and law suggests that laws should be viewed as tools to be used in order to achieve justice. This theory suggests that laws should be used in such a way that they take into account the social, economic, and political realities of a society in order to create a just society. This approach suggests that laws should be used to address problems in society, rather than simply to enforce the status quo. Overall, the relationship between justice and law is complex and can be viewed from many different perspectives. Depending on one's philosophical beliefs, different theories can be used to understand the relationship between justice and law.

Q. Discuss various problems of judicial accountability and judicial law making.

Judicial Accountability and Judicial Law Making are two important issues which have been a subject of much debate in the legal fraternity and in the public domain. 1. Judicial Activism: Judicial Activism is a term used to describe judges who take a more active role in making decisions, often in the form of making public policy. This is seen as a threat to the traditional separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Judicial Activism can also lead to judicial overreach, where the judiciary oversteps its authority and encroaches upon the other branches of government. 2. Judicial Appointments: The process of judicial appointments is often seen as being subject to political interference. This can lead to the appointment of judges who lack the necessary qualifications and experience, who may not be impartial, or who may be chosen for reasons other than their merit. This can lead to a lack of public confidence in the judiciary and the legal system, and can lead to criticism of the judiciary and its decisions. 3. Judicial Independence: Judicial independence is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, and is essential for the proper functioning of the judiciary and the legal system. However, judicial independence is often threatened by political interference, either through the appointment of judges who are not impartial or who lack the necessary qualifications and experience, or through the use of political patronage or the threat of removal from office. 4. Judicial Overreach: Judicial overreach occurs when the judiciary exceeds its authority and encroaches upon the other branches of government. This can lead to a lack of public confidence in the judiciary and in the legal system, as well as criticism of the judiciary and its decisions. 5. Judicial Accountability: Judicial accountability is essential for ensuring that judges are held responsible for their decisions and for upholding the rule of law. However, there is a lack of accountability mechanisms in many countries, and judges are often not held responsible for their decisions. This can lead to a lack of public confidence in the judiciary and in the legal system, as well as criticism of the judiciary and its decisions. 6. Judicial Law Making: Judicial Law Making refers to the process by which judges make laws by their decisions. This can lead to controversy and criticism, as it can be seen as a form of judicial activism, as well as a threat to the traditional separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

Q. Write the note on theories of justice.

Theories of justice are moral principles that govern the distribution of resources and benefits in a society. These theories seek to answer the question of what is fair and just in the distribution of benefits and burdens. There are four major theories of justice: utilitarianism, rights theory, fairness, and equity.

Rawls’ theory of justice, known as ‘Justice as Fairness’, proposes that justice is derived from a hypothetical social contract between all members of society. This contract is based on the idea of the ‘veil of ignorance’, where each person is unaware of their own identities and interests when making decisions. This means that everyone will make decisions in a way that is beneficial to society as a whole, rather than in a way that benefits only a particular individual or group.

Nozick’s theory of justice, known as ‘Entitlement Theory’, argues that people have a right to the property they have acquired through their own efforts. He argues that governments should only interfere with private property when absolutely necessary, and only with the permission of the individual. He believes that taxation and welfare should be kept to a minimum, as they are seen as a form of coercion and a violation of individual rights.

Michael Walzer's Theory of Justice is based on the idea of social justice. Walzer argues that a just society should be organized so that it benefits all members of society, not just the privileged few. He believes that social, economic, and political resources should be distributed in a way that takes into account the needs of all members of society.. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of justice that focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number. Under this theory, actions and policies are judged based on their outcomes in terms of benefits and harms to the greatest number of people. Rights theory is a deontological theory of justice that focuses on the rights of individuals and the obligations of society. This theory holds that all individuals have certain inalienable rights that must be respected and protected by society. Fairness is a procedural theory of justice that emphasizes the importance of fairness in decision-making and distribution of resources. This theory holds that decisions should be made in a fair, impartial, and unbiased manner, taking into consideration the interests of all parties involved. Equity is a distributive theory of justice that focuses on the equitable distribution of resources and benefits. This theory seeks to ensure that everyone receives their fair share of resources, regardless of their social or economic status. In sum, theories of justice seek to answer the question of what is fair and just in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Each theory has its own strengths and weaknesses, and none of the theories provide a perfect solution. Ultimately, it is up to individuals and society to decide which principles of justice are most applicable and beneficial in any given situation.

Q. Write an essay on various theories of justice in liberal utilitarian tradition.

Justice is an important concept in liberal utilitarian tradition, which seeks to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This essay will discuss various theories of justice and their application in this tradition. The first theory of justice is the distributive justice theory. This theory is concerned with how resources are distributed and seeks to ensure that everyone receives a fair and equal share of resources. This could include things like money, resources, education and opportunities. This theory promotes the idea that people should be given what they need to be able to have a good quality of life and to be able to pursue their own goals. The second theory is the corrective justice theory. This theory focuses on correcting the wrongs that have been done. It seeks to make sure that those who have done wrong are held accountable for their actions and that the victims of the wrongs receive appropriate compensation or reparations. This theory emphasizes the importance of fairness, accountability and restitution. The third theory is the retributive justice theory. This theory is focused on punishing those who have done wrong and not necessarily on making sure that the wrongs are corrected. It holds that those who have done wrong should be punished in order to deter others from doing the same. This theory is often used in criminal justice systems to hold people accountable for their actions and to act as a deterrent to future criminal activities. These theories of justice can be used to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the liberal utilitarian tradition. Distributive justice, for example, can be used to ensure that everyone has access to the resources they need to have a good quality of life. Corrective justice can be used to ensure that those who have wronged others are held accountable and that victims are compensated for their suffering. Retributive justice can be used to punish those who have done wrong and to act as a deterrent to future crimes. In conclusion, justice is an important concept in the liberal utilitarian tradition and there are a number of theories of justice which can be used to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. These theories include distributive justice, corrective justice and retributive justice. Each of these theories has its own merits and can be used to promote fairness, accountability and restitution.

Q. Justice in liberal utilitarian tradition discuss.

Liberal utilitarianism is a moral and ethical theory that is based on the idea that the greatest good should be the primary goal of all moral and ethical decisions. This theory states that if an action produces the greatest good for all affected by it, then it is the morally and ethically correct course of action. It is a form of consequentialism, where the moral worth of an action is judged by its utility in producing a good result. In terms of justice, liberal utilitarianism holds that justice should be based on the principle of utility: the greatest good for the greatest number. This means that the law should be structured in such a way as to maximize the total utility for a given population, by promoting the greatest degree of happiness and satisfaction for the greatest number of people. The aim of the justice system should not be to punish wrongdoers or to exact revenge, but rather to ensure that the greatest good is achieved for the most people. In order to achieve this aim, liberal utilitarianism requires that the justice system be structured so as to promote fairness and equality. This means that all people should be treated equally and fairly under the law, regardless of their race, gender, or other factors. Furthermore, the justice system should be designed to ensure that all people have access to the same opportunities and resources, and that legal rights are upheld and respected. In addition to this, liberal utilitarianism also requires that justice be structured in such a way as to promote the common good. This means that the law should be structured in such a way as to ensure that the benefits of any particular action are felt by the entire community, not just a select few. The justice system should also be structured to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society are protected and their rights respected. Thus, in a liberal utilitarian framework, justice should be structured in such a way as to promote the overall well-being of society, by ensuring that the greatest good is achieved for the greatest number of people. This means that justice should be structured to ensure fairness and equality, and to promote the common good.

Q. Judicial process is a very good technique of social ordering. Explain every aspect of judicial process.

Judicial process is a system of legal proceedings by which an individual or group has their dispute decided by a court of law. It involves a series of steps, from filing a complaint to the final ruling by a judge. The judicial process is an integral part of the criminal justice system, as it ensures that alleged criminals are given a fair trial and their rights are respected. The first step of the judicial process is filing a complaint. This is when a person or group brings a grievance to court. The complaint outlines the allegations against another party and is presented to the court. The second step is the pretrial conference. This is when the judge or magistrate hears arguments from both sides and assesses the evidence. Depending on the severity of the case, the judge or magistrate may issue a ruling at the end of the conference or may set a date for the trial. The third step is the trial itself. During the trial, both sides present their evidence and make their arguments. The judge or jury will then make a decision based on the evidence presented. The fourth step is sentencing. If the defendant is found guilty, the judge will impose a sentence. The sentence could include fines, probation, or incarceration. The fifth step is appeal. If either side does not agree with the verdict, they may appeal the ruling. The appeal process is a lengthy process and is usually heard by a higher court. The judicial process is an important part of the criminal justice system. It ensures that all accused individuals are given a fair trial and their rights are protected. It also allows for an impartial decision to be made in disputes between two parties. This is important for ensuring justice is served and that all parties are treated fairly.

Q. Judicial Review is the strongest weapon in the hands of judiciary. Explain in detail.

Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to review the legality of the decisions and actions of the executive and the legislature. It is a process whereby the decisions of the executive and the legislature are examined judicially and declared to be invalid if they are found to be in violation of the constitution, the law or the public policy. Judicial review is an important part of the judicial system and is considered to be the strongest weapon in the hands of the judiciary. The concept of judicial review is based on the principle of separation of powers. It is an important feature of the rule of law. It ensures that the power of the executive and the legislature are subject to legal scrutiny by the judiciary. It ensures that the decisions of the executive and the legislature are in accordance with the law and public policy. This helps to promote the rule of law and prevents the abuse of power. Judicial review is a powerful weapon in the hands of the judiciary. It allows the judiciary to declare the decisions of the executive and the legislature to be invalid if they are found to be in violation of the constitution, the law or the public policy. This ensures that the power of the executive and the legislature are not abused and are subject to legal scrutiny. The power of judicial review also allows the judiciary to protect the rights of individuals. It allows the judiciary to declare the decisions of the executive and the legislature to be invalid if they are found to be in violation of the rights of individuals. This ensures that the rights of individuals are protected and not infringed upon. The power of judicial review also helps to promote democracy. It allows the judiciary to review the decisions of the executive and the legislature and to determine if they are in accordance with the principles of democracy and the rule of law. This helps to ensure that the people are governed in accordance with the law and public policy. In conclusion, judicial review is an important feature of the rule of law. It is the strongest weapon in the hands of the judiciary. It ensures that the power of the executive and the legislature are subject to legal scrutiny and that the rights of individuals are protected. It also helps to promote democracy and the rule of law.

Q. Elaborate the concept of Dharma as a foundation stone of present legal system .

Dharma is an ancient concept which has been a key philosophical, religious, and legal foundation stone of Indian society since time immemorial. It is a Sanskrit term which can be translated to mean “duty”, “moral law”, “righteousness”, or “right way of living”. In Hinduism, Dharma is the law which governs all aspects of life, from personal morality to social ethics, professional ethics, and even the order of the universe. The concept of Dharma has been a major influence on the development of the Indian legal system. Dharma is the basis for the Indian legal system, and its principles and norms are the basis for the legal system of India. In the Indian legal system, Dharma is the source of authority for all laws, regulations, and decisions. The Indian legal system is based on the principles of Dharma, which are based on the moral laws of truth, justice, duty, and equity. The concept of Dharma has been used in the Indian legal system to assess the validity of laws. According to the principles of Dharma, all laws must be consistent with the principles of justice, truth, and duty. Laws that are inconsistent with these principles are deemed invalid. For example, a law that prohibits the practice of certain religious beliefs would be considered invalid under the principles of Dharma. The concept of Dharma is also used in the Indian legal system to assess the validity of contracts. A contract must be made in accordance with the principles of Dharma in order for it to be considered valid. Contracts that are not made in accordance with the principles of Dharma are deemed invalid. The concept of Dharma is also used in the Indian legal system to assess the validity of judgments. According to Dharma, a judgment must be made in accordance with the principles of justice, truth, and duty in order for it to be considered valid. Judgments that are not made in accordance with the principles of Dharma are deemed invalid. The concept of Dharma is also used in the Indian legal system to assess the validity of evidence. According to Dharma, all evidence must be presented in accordance with the principles of justice, truth, and duty in order for it to be considered valid. Evidence that is not presented in accordance with the principles of Dharma is deemed invalid. In conclusion, the concept of Dharma is a fundamental foundation stone of the Indian legal system. It is used to assess the validity of laws, contracts, judgments, and evidence. By following the principles of Dharma, the Indian legal system is able to ensure that all laws, contracts, judgments, and evidence are valid and just.

Q. An active role played by the judges under judicial activism in the adjudication process.

Judges play an active role in the adjudication process under judicial activism. They are empowered to take proactive steps to provide a remedy to a situation in dispute. This includes the power to interpret the law, make rulings on novel issues, and make decisions that are not bound by precedent. Judges can also exercise the power to craft remedies that go beyond what is prescribed by the law. This includes issuing injunctions or orders to prevent or correct a problem or to implement a policy that has been established by the court. Judges can also issue orders to require the government or other parties to take an action, such as launching an investigation or initiating a lawsuit. Judges also have the power to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. Through this process, judges may replace or modify existing laws or executive actions to better serve the public interest. This is an example of judicial review, in which the court determines whether a law or executive action is in compliance with the Constitution. Similarly, judges may also review the actions of lower courts to determine if they were appropriate or if they violated the law. This is known as appellate review. Judges also have a role in determining the outcome of a case. The judge can decide which parties will be victorious in a dispute and how the dispute should be resolved. This includes determining the amount of damages awarded, issuing an injunction to prevent a party from taking a certain action, ordering a party to take a specific action, or dismissing a case. Finally, judges are also empowered to craft remedies that are not available under the law. This includes ordering a party to make restitution or to pay a penalty. Judges may also order a party to take specific actions or to refrain from taking certain actions in order to resolve a dispute. This is known as equitable relief. By playing an active role in the adjudication process, judges are able to craft remedies that are tailored to the circumstances of the case and that serve the public interest. This is the essence of judicial activism.

Write note on any two
1. locus standi.
2. precedent
3. Legal Reasoning
4. Judicial Activism
5. law and justice
6. Justice and Mercy
7. Dharma
8. social action legislation or PIL

1. locus standi.

Locus standi is Latin, meaning ‘right to stand’. It is a legal term referring to the right of a party to bring an action or other legal proceeding before a court. The concept is based on the idea that only those who have a sufficient interest in a matter are able to bring it to court. In practical terms, locus standi usually refers to the standing of a party to bring an action or challenge a law before a court. The right to bring a case before a court is known as the right of access to justice. In order to have locus standi, a party must have a sufficient interest in the matter. This interest must be more than just a belief that the law is wrong or another party is wrong. The interest must be a legally protected one. In order to determine if a person or organisation has locus standi, the court must look at the following factors: • The nature of the interest in the case; • Whether the interest is affected by the outcome of the case; • Whether the interest is of a kind that requires protection; and • Whether the interest is similar to the interests of others who have been allowed to bring the case in the past. The concept of locus standi is important because it ensures that only those who are directly affected by the outcome of a case are able to bring it before a court. This ensures that the court’s time is spent on cases which are of genuine concern to the parties involved, as well as the public interest. It also helps to ensure that cases are brought before the court in a timely manner, as it is not necessary for the court to hear cases which do not affect the rights of the parties in the case.

2. precedent

Precedent is a legal principle or rule established in a court of law by a judge's decision in a particular case. It is a principle or rule established in a court of law that is used as a guide in deciding similar cases in the future. India follows the doctrine of precedent which is a basic feature of the Indian legal system. This doctrine of precedent means that the decision of a higher court is binding on the lower courts and they must follow the same. The concept of precedent has been derived from the English legal system and has been adopted by the Indian legal system. The Indian judiciary follows the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that the decisions of the higher courts are binding on the lower courts. The lower courts are bound to follow the decisions of the higher courts in cases that have similar facts or issues. This helps in maintaining uniformity in the judgments passed by the Indian courts. The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of the land and its decisions are binding on all the lower courts. The judgments of the Supreme Court of India are considered as precedents and must be followed by all the lower courts. The Supreme Court of India is the final interpreter of the Constitution of India and all its judgments must be followed by all the lower courts. The Indian judiciary also has a system of High Courts and District Courts. The judgments of the High Courts are binding on the District Courts and the judgments of the District Courts are binding on the subordinate courts. This system of hierarchical courts ensures uniformity in the judgments passed by the Indian courts. Thus, the Indian legal system follows the doctrine of precedent which is based on the English legal system. All the lower courts are bound to follow the decisions of the higher courts and this helps in maintaining uniformity in the judgments passed by the Indian courts.

3. Legal Reasoning

Legal reasoning is a process of analyzing legal issues and making decisions based on the available legal authority. It is a form of legal analysis that involves the interpretation of laws and statutes, in order to determine the applicability of legal principles to a given set of facts. Legal reasoning is a powerful tool that lawyers use to develop arguments and support their theories. Legal reasoning is a fundamental part of the legal profession and is used in all aspects of legal practice, from civil litigation to appellate practice. Legal reasoning involves the application of legal principles to a particular set of facts. It includes the use of analogies, logic, and prior decisions to arrive at a conclusion. Legal reasoning involves the use of legal doctrines, such as stare decisis, to determine the outcome of a case. Legal reasoning is important for lawyers and judges, as it allows them to apply the law to a particular situation. It is also a key component of legal writing, as it allows the author to provide a logical argument in support of their position. Additionally, legal reasoning is an essential part of legal research and analysis, as it allows the researcher to determine the applicable law and analyze the legal implications of a particular issue. Legal reasoning is also important in the courtroom, as attorneys use legal reasoning to support their arguments and persuade the court.

4. Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is a term used to describe the role of the judiciary in exercising judicial review and making decisions on constitutional matters. It refers to the decision-making process of judges who take a more active approach in addressing the issues before them, rather than simply applying the laws as they are written. Judicial activism has been used to address some of the most pressing issues in society. It has been used to ensure that the rights of individuals, minorities and disadvantaged groups are respected, and to ensure that the laws are applied fairly and equally. It has been used to protect the rights of individuals from government interference, to overturn laws that are deemed to be unconstitutional, and to protect the environment from harm. Judicial activism has also been used to expand the scope of human rights, to ensure that the government does not overstep its authority, and to ensure that the government is held accountable for its actions. It has been used to address a variety of issues, including civil rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights, minority rights, and the rights of the disabled. In recent years, judicial activism has come under fire from some who argue that it is excessive and undermines the rule of law. Critics argue that it allows judges to make laws, rather than simply interpret the laws as they are written. However, proponents of judicial activism argue that it is necessary to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, to ensure that laws are applied fairly and equally, and to uphold the rule of law.

5. law and justice

Law and justice are two of the main pillars of a just society. The law is the system of rules that a society or government enacts and enforces to govern behaviour. It is composed of statutes, regulations, and other legally binding rules that set out the rights, duties and obligations of all citizens. Justice is the concept of fairness, ensuring that all individuals are treated equally and with respect. It is the active pursuit of fairness and equality, as well as the punishment of those who violate the law. Justice also involves ensuring that all people are treated fairly and that their rights are respected. It is an essential component of any just society, as it is the only way to ensure that all people have access to fundamental rights and freedoms.

6. Justice and Mercy

Justice and mercy are two important concepts in law, morality, and ethics. Justice is the concept of fairness and equality. It is the idea that people should be treated equally and be held accountable for their actions. Mercy is the concept that individuals deserve leniency, compassion, and understanding. It is the idea that people should be forgiven and given a second chance, even when they have made mistakes. Together, justice and mercy can help create a society where everyone is treated fairly, while still providing a system of mercy and forgiveness when needed.

7. Dharma

Dharma is an important concept in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. It can be defined as a moral code of conduct, which serves as a guide for living a virtuous life. In Hinduism, Dharma is also used to describe the universe's spiritual order. Dharma includes the laws of nature, laws of morality, laws of social order, and laws of justice. Dharma emphasizes that all living beings have a duty to maintain harmony with the world around them. This includes respect for others and the environment, as well as living a life of truth and righteousness. Dharma is based on the idea that each individual has a duty to fulfill the cosmic order. In Hinduism, Dharma is the foundation of both individual and social life. The concept of Dharma is also related to the concept of Karma. Karma is the result of an individual's actions, and Dharma is the set of moral principles that guide one’s actions. Therefore, one's Dharma is determined by their Karma. In Hinduism, Dharma is seen as an essential part of life, as it is believed that living a life that adheres to Dharma brings happiness and peace. Dharma also serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining balance, both internally and externally. It is believed that if one follows their Dharma, they will be rewarded with health, wealth, and spiritual fulfillment.

8. social action legislation or PIL

Social Action Legislation or Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a form of litigation in India which is designed to promote public interest and bring justice to the disadvantaged and underprivileged sections of society. It enables any person, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to file a case in court on behalf of the public, without having to prove that he or she has been personally affected by the issue. PIL is meant to provide access to justice for those who cannot afford it, as well as to bring about social change. It has been used to challenge the abuse of power, corruption, environmental degradation and human rights violations. The Supreme Court of India has played a major role in promoting PIL, and has laid down guidelines to ensure that its use is not abused. PIL has been used to bring about far-reaching changes in the Indian legal system and has been instrumental in protecting the rights of the underprivileged and marginalized sections of society.