Download Free Justice Versus Judiciary Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Justice Versus Judiciary and write the review.

The book is meant to elucidate the concept of justice and its dictates in the various fields of life as well as the implications of injustice. Human rights, the rule of law and democracy are the offspring of justice. The Judiciary is the agent of justice, the persona of justice, trusted to uphold justice in the ever-changing circumstances of life. Of old, justice was perceived as encompassing all virtues. It has a pananthropic character charting the way for symmetry in life and the ascent of man. The book has a lego-philosophical character of interest to every anthropological and societal discipline.
There can be no dispute that the judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court of India wield tremendous powers. However, power comes with a price which bestows huge responsibility and calls for strict adherence to dos and don'ts. This book builds upon this narrative and advocates that judges must be made accountable not only in respect of their personal conduct and integrity, but also in respect of the judicial verdicts they deliver. The work emphasizes that the need for judicial accountability has increased in recent times as the judiciary is, nowadays, performing not only judicial functions, but virtually executive functions also, for which the government is accountable to the people. The author, in particular, critically discusses Articles 141, 142, and 144, which make the Supreme Court the most powerful institution in the country, and Articles 32 and 136, which also confer wide powers on it. Using these powers, the apex court sometimes, unmindful of the budgetary and other vital implications, passes orders which are simply not implementable. For example, the intervention of the Supreme Court in the matter of the interlinking of rivers, a policy decision which falls clearly in the domain of the Executive. The book advocates the need for judicial accountability to save the institutions of justice from turning autocratic and narcissistic.
Revealing analysis of how judges work as individuals and collectively to uphold judicial values in the face of contemporary challenges.
This book explores concrete situations in which judges are faced with a legislature and an executive that consciously and systematically discard the ideals of the rule of law. It revolves around three basic questions: What happen when states become oppressive and the judiciary contributes to the oppression? How can we, from a legal point of view, evaluate the actions of judges who contribute to oppression? And, thirdly, how can we understand their participation from a moral point of view and support their inclination to resist?
A sitting justice reflects upon the authority of the Supreme CourtÑhow that authority was gained and how measures to restructure the Court could undermine both the Court and the constitutional system of checks and balances that depends on it. A growing chorus of officials and commentators argues that the Supreme Court has become too political. On this view the confirmation process is just an exercise in partisan agenda-setting, and the jurists are no more than Òpoliticians in robesÓÑtheir ostensibly neutral judicial philosophies mere camouflage for conservative or liberal convictions. Stephen Breyer, drawing upon his experience as a Supreme Court justice, sounds a cautionary note. Mindful of the CourtÕs history, he suggests that the judiciaryÕs hard-won authority could be marred by reforms premised on the assumption of ideological bias. Having, as Hamilton observed, Òno influence over either the sword or the purse,Ó the Court earned its authority by making decisions that have, over time, increased the publicÕs trust. If public trust is now in decline, one part of the solution is to promote better understandings of how the judiciary actually works: how judges adhere to their oaths and how they try to avoid considerations of politics and popularity. Breyer warns that political intervention could itself further erode public trust. Without the publicÕs trust, the Court would no longer be able to act as a check on the other branches of government or as a guarantor of the rule of law, risking serious harm to our constitutional system.
An assessment of how the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts is significantly influencing the nation's laws and reinterpreting the Constitution includes in-depth analysis of recent rulings and their implications.
Philip Hamburger’s Law and Judicial Duty traces the early history of what is today called "judicial review." The book sheds new light on a host of misunderstood problems, including intent, the status of foreign and international law, the cases and controversies requirement, and the authority of judicial precedent. The book is essential reading for anyone concerned about the proper role of the judiciary.
This timely book explores the expansion of the role of judges and courts in the political system and the mixed reactions generated by these developments. In this comprehensive book, Carlo Guarnieri and Patrizia Pederzoli draw on a wealth of experience in teaching and research in the field, moving beyond traditional legal analysis and providing a clear, concise and all-encompassing introduction to the phenomenon of the administration of justice and all of its traits.
In this original, far-reaching, and timely book, Justice Stephen Breyer examines the work of the Supreme Court of the United States in an increasingly interconnected world, a world in which all sorts of activity, both public and private—from the conduct of national security policy to the conduct of international trade—obliges the Court to understand and consider circumstances beyond America’s borders. Written with unique authority and perspective, The Court and the World reveals an emergent reality few Americans observe directly but one that affects the life of every one of us. Here is an invaluable understanding for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
In "Judicial Reputation: A Comparative Theory, "Tom Ginsburg and Nuno Garoupa mean to explain how judges respond to the reputational incentives provided by the different audiences they interact with--lawyers and law professors; politicians; the media; and the public itself--as well as how legal systems design their judicial institutions to calibrate the locally appropriate balance among audiences. Making use by turns of careful empirical work and penetrating conceptual insights, Ginsburg and Garoupa argue that any given judicial structure is best understood not through the lens of legal culture, origin, or tradition, but through the economics of information and reputation.