scholarly journals JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN INDIAN DEMOCRACY

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (47) ◽  
pp. 11477-11484
Author(s):  
L. Srishyla
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
World Population ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Letter Word ◽  
Black And White ◽  
Entire World ◽  
The Law ◽  
Changing Times

Judicial Activism is a powerful weapon, which the judges have to wield to Sub serves the ends of justice by making the law responsive to the felt necessities of the changing times. The scope of judicial activism varies with the courts power of Judicial Review. The judicial activism is use of judicial power to articulate and enforce what is beneficial for the society in general and people at large. Supreme Court despite its constitutional Limitation has come up with flying colors as a champion of justice in the true sense of The word .JUSTICE…this seven letter word is one of the most debated one sin the entire English dictionary. With the entire world population being linked to it, there is no doubt about the fact that with changing tongues the definition does change. The judicial activism has touched almost every aspect of life in India to do positive justice and in the process has gone beyond, what is prescribed by law or written in black and white. This article covers definition, Theories of judicial activism, development of Judicial Activism in India, Judicial Activism in various periods.

scholarly journals Penerapan Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem Pada Perkara Judicial review Di Mahkamah Agung

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Asep Syarifuddin Hidayat
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trial Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

Abstract.Article 13 paragraph 1 of Act Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power states that all court hearings are open to the public, unless the Act says otherwise. Therefore, a judicial review trial must be open to the public. If the trial process of the judicial review is carried out in a closed manner, it can be considered a legal defect, because it is contrary to Article 13 paragraph (3) of the Law. The Law of the Supreme Court is not regulated that the judicial review is closed, because in the judicial review there is a need for openness or principle of audiences of parties or litigants must be given the opportunity to provide information and express their opinions, including the defendant as the maker of Legislation invitation under the law, so that the impact of the decision will need to be involved.Keywords: Judicial Review, Audi Alteram Et Partem Principle, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court Abstrak.Pasal 13 ayat 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman menyebutkan semua sidang pemeriksaan pengadilan terbuka untuk umum, kecuali Undang-Undang berkata lain. Oleh karena itu,  judicial review persidangan harus dilakukan terbuka untuk umum. Apabila proses persidangan judicial review ini dilakukan secara tertutup, maka dapat dinilai cacat hukum karena bertentangan dengan Pasal 13 ayat (3) Undang-Undang tersebut. Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung pun tidak diatur bahwa persidangan judicial review bersifat tertutup, karena dalam judicial review perlu adanya keterbukaan atau asas audi alteram et partem atau pihak-pihak yang berperkara harus diberi kesempatan untuk memberikan keterangan dan menyampaikan pendapatnya termasuk pihak termohon sebagai  pembuat Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di bawah Undang-Undang sehingga akan terkena dampak putusan perlu dilibatkan.Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi.

Judicial Review: The Meaning of the Judicial Power

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy E. Barnett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The United States ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Contentious Issue ◽  
Judicial Supremacy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

This chapter applies the concepts of interpretation and construction to the contentious issue of judicial review and examines the originalist evidence that overwhelmingly supports the judicial power to nullify unconstitutional laws. According to Article III of the Constitution: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Constitution does not say explicitly that the “Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as may be established by Congress, shall have power to nullify a Law enacted by Congress and signed by the President if the Law is unconstitutional.” The absence of a clearly expressed grant of power has moved some critics of judicial review to question its legitimacy. The chapter also considers the concepts of judicial nullification and judicial supremacy as they relate to judicial review.

scholarly journals The Attempt to Human Rights Protection Through Judicial Review in Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 02006
Author(s):  
Riris Ardhanariswari ◽  
Muhammad Fauzan ◽  
Ahmad Komari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
State Government ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Stable State ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
Parliamentary Supremacy

The Constitutional Court is one of the perpetrators of judicial power, in addition to the Supreme Court as referred to in Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court is also bound to the general principle of an independent judicial power, free from the influence of other institutions in enforcing law and justice. The Constitutional Court is the first and last level judicial body, or it can be said that it is the only judicial body whose decisions are final and binding. The existence of the Constitutional Court is at the same time to maintain the implementation of a stable state government and is also a correction to the experience of constitutional life in the past caused by multiple interpretations of the constitution. Judicial review towards the constitution is one of the authorities of the Constitutional Court that attracted attention. This shows that there has also been a shift in the doctrine of the parliamentary supremacy towards the doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution. The law was previously inviolable, but now the existence of a law is questionable in its alignment with the Constitution. The authority to examine the Law towards the Constitution is the authority of the Constitutional Court as the guardian of the constitution. This authority is carried out to safeguard the provisions of the Act so that it does not conflict with the constitution and / or impair the constitutional rights of citizens. This shows that the judicial review towards the Constitution carried out by the Constitutional Court is basically also to provide protection for human rights.

A Curious Decision by Zambia’s Highest Court: Six Years Imprisonment for Civil Contempt?

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-138
Author(s):  
Christopher Phiri
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

Abstract On 23 November 2018, the Supreme Court of Zambia delivered a judgement which suggests that Zambian judges have virtually unbridled power to move on their own motion to punish for contempt of court anyone who criticises their judicial decisions. This article considers that judgement. It argues that whilst justice might well have been done in the case in question, it was certainly not seen to be done. Two main reasons are given for this argument. First, the judges appeared to have acted both as prosecutors and adjudicators in their own cause when it was neither urgent nor imperative to act immediately on their own motion. Second, the classification by the Court of the contempt in question as civil contempt rather than criminal contempt is alien to the common law world. The article culminates in a clarion call for the Zambian legislature to intervene and clarify the law of contempt of court to avert capricious and unbridled invocation of the judicial power to punish for contempt.

The Israeli judiciary-centered constitutionalism

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel L Bendor
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
The Law ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

Abstract The article argues that over the years a series of gradual developments has taken place in the judicial review policies of Israel’s Supreme Court, whereby the Court expanded its ad hoc discretion in determining the constitutional limits that apply to primary legislation. Israeli constitutionalism has become judiciary-centered. The article suggests that judicial discretion that the Israeli Supreme Court tends to exercise in constitutional matters is of two types: substantive judicial discretion, which concerns the interpretation or application of the law; and adjudicative discretion, which includes both the discretion to deny in limine petitions in which the Court does not deem it necessary to grant relief according to considerations such as standing or delay; and the Court’s discretion in the manner of the hearing. The article suggests three illuminations of Israeli judiciary-centered constitutionalism: expenditure of the justices’ awareness of their discretion; the decline of the rules structuring judicial discretion; and a re-rise of the justices’ recognition of legitimacy of adjudicative discretion due to the expansion of substantive judicial discretion.

scholarly journals Judicial Reasoning and Review in the Indonesian Supreme Court

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (01) ◽  
pp. 67-97
Author(s):  
Simon BUTT
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Government Power ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Law ◽  
Transparency And Accountability

AbstractThis article describes and critiques the judicial reasoning of Indonesia’s Supreme Court, through the lens of the Court’s reviews of subnational laws during 2011–17. The resulting picture is a negative one. Most of the Court’s decisions were critically flawed, with either very little or no reasoning, and inconsistencies with past decisions. Worse, the Court appears keen to avoid hearing important cases that raise difficult political issues, even though the law governing those issues is clear and easy to apply. These inadequacies are perpetuated by genuine uncertainty about the precise jurisdiction of the Court in judicial review cases. However, the Court has not sought to resolve this uncertainty. Indeed, these decisions appear to reflect a court paying little regard to judicial transparency and accountability, and unwilling or unable to act as an effective check on government power.

Whence and Whither the Burger Court? Judicial Self-Restraint: A Beguiling Myth

1979 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-37
Author(s):  
Alpheus Thomas Mason
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Burger Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
John Marshall

Every Court is the product of its time, reflecting predilections of fallible men in black robes. While wearing the magical habiliments of the law, Supreme Court justices take sides on controversial issues. From John Marshall to Warren Burger, the Court has been the guardian of some particular interest and the promoter of preferred values. Thus judicial activism, of whatever orientation, involves a paradox at the heart of constitutional orthodoxy—the Supreme Court considered as the mouthpiece of self-interpreting, self-enforcing law.

scholarly journals MENAKAR PROGRESIFITAS LEMBAGA PERADILAN DALAM MEWUJUDKAN DEMOKRASI BERINTEGRITAS

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 2102-2117
Author(s):  
Alda Rifada Rizqi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Positivism ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Law ◽  
Corrupt Behavior

Democracy with integrity will be realized if carried out in accordance with the will of the people as holders of sovereignty, the KPU (Komisi Pemilihan Umum) as the election organizer has the authority to make regulations that support a better democracy. KPU (Komisi Pemilihan Umum) Regulation No. 20 of 2018 as evidence that the KPU is committed to participating in preventing corrupt behavior. It was considered to have been considered as an effort to protect the interests of the people, but the regulation was submitted to a judicial review at the Supreme Court. Then, based on legal-formal considerations and based on the legal positivism of the Supreme Court, the request for the test is granted. The decision distanced itself from progressive legal values that justified the denial of what was regulated in legislation in order to put forward the values of public justice, because basically the law was made to fulfill human interests, accommodating the will of the people for the sake of order.

scholarly journals Analisis Yuridis terhadap Legalitas Qanun Aceh No. 6/2014 tentang Hukum Jinayat

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-148
Author(s):  
Endri Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Criminal Justice Reform ◽  
Unitary State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

Penelitian ini berupaya memaparkan legalitas Qanun Aceh Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Hukum Jinayat (Qanun Jinayah) dalam konstruksi hukum tata negara Indonesia. Untuk menganalisis hal tersebut, penelitian ini akan meninjau legalitas Qanun Jinayah dari dua sudut pandang, yaitu formalitas pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan dan konsep negara kesatuan. Qanun Jinayah menuai banyak perdebatan disebabkan kedudukannya sebagai peraturan daerah (perda) namun bermateri muatan pidana Islam (jinayah) yang sama sekali belum diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di level nasional. Tahun 2015, Qanun Jinayah dilakukan uji materiil ke Mahkamah Agung oleh Perkumpulan Masyarakat Pembaharuan Peradilan Pidana (ICJR) namun permohonan uji materiil ini dinyatakan tidak dapat diterima dengan alasan prematur (belum waktunya). Analisis yuridis dari perspektif hukum ketatanegaraan ini penting dilakukan mengingat legalitas sebuah peraturan perundang-undangan menentukan validitas dan kekuatan berlakunya. Yuridical Analysis of the Legality of Qanun Aceh Number 6 Year 2014 on Jinayat Law This research attempts to describe the legality of Qanun Aceh Number 6 Year 2014 on Jinayat Law (Qanun Jinayah) in the construction of Indonesian constitutional law. To analyze it, this study will examine the legality of Qanun Jinayah from two perspectives, those are the formality of the formulation of legislation and the concept of a unitary state. Qanun Jinayah gets  a lot of debate because of its position as a Regional Regulation (Peraturan Daerah), but the material of Islamic criminal content (Jinayah) which has not been regulated in national legislation. In 2015, Qanun Jinayat is subjected to a judicial review to the Supreme Court by the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), but this petition is declared unacceptable on a premature reason (unspecified). Judicial analysis from the perspective of constitutional law is important to do due to the legality of a legislation determines the validity and strenght of the law.

EKSISTENSI LEMBAGA QUASI JUDISIAL DALAM SISTEM KEKUASAAN KEHAKIMAN DI INDONESIA : KAJIAN TERHADAP KOMISI PENGAWAS PERSAINGAN USAHA

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Muh Risnain
Keyword(s):  
Moral Hazard ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Legal Policy ◽  
Abuse Of Power ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Supporting Functional

Based on Indonesian Constitution 1945 the existence of quasi-judicial institution as a part of judicial power.Article 24 subsection (3 ) of the constitution of the republic of indonesia 1945 and the law number 48 / 2009 about judicial power admitting quasi-yudicial institutionshas judicial powers. For maximalize exercising of the quasi-judicial institutions are needed legal policy for supporting functional-constitusional relations between Commison for Supervion of Bussiness Competition and Supreme Court as top judicial power organization. Besides that needs to be done an effort to control the behavior commissioner of Commison For Supervion of Business Competition in avoiding abuse of power and moral hazard. These controlling must as part of power of Judicial Commission and Supreme Court. Keywords: Judicial Power, quasi-Judicial, Functional-constitutional and supervision

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document