Abstract
Asian courts have mitigated the individual harms and institutional uncertainties associated with the judicial use of delayed remedies by incentivizing the government to comply with the court’s ruling or putting in place judicial safeguards against any legislative delinquency. Expedited remedies like remedial reinterpretation and judicial directives in certain contexts may also be necessary or desirable, even if the judicially imposed result may not be what the enacting legislature had originally intended. Insofar as the legislature can respond and amend these judicial reinterpretation or directives by ordinary legislation, the judiciary does not have the final word and has merely facilitated a constitutional dialogue on rights with the current legislature.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
