Chief Justice Research Articles

Judicial Activism and Comparative Analysis of Suo Motu Notices Taken by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar and Iftikhar Chaudhry

This research study explores the concept of judicial activism and conducts a comparative analysis of the Suo moto notices taken by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar and Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, two prominent Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Judicial activism refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in addressing societal issues and promoting social justice, often through the use of suo moto notices, where the court takes cognizance of a matter on its own initiative, The comparative analysis has focused on the similarities and differences in the approach, scope, and impact of the suo moto notices taken by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar and Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry during their respective tenures. This research study has examined the key areas of intervention, such as human rights, governance, public welfare, and accountability, This study has utilized a qualitative research methodology, including a comprehensive review of relevant literature, case analysis, and comparative examination of the judicial decisions and outcomes, This research study found that excessive and miss use of Suo moto power has badly affected political system of the country, This research study recommends that judiciary should play a balance role in order to have in effective federal parliamentary democratic system in the country

Judicial Activism in Pakistan: A Comparative Study of CJP Saqib Nisar and Umar Ata Bandial

This paper provides a detailed discussion of judicial activism in Pakistan, comparing the eras of two vastly different Chief Justices, Saqib Nisar and Umar Ata Bandial. This paper explores the core and contentious issues of activism on the court, the gains and pains of judicial activism, the impacts of activism on rights and freedoms, the impacts of activism on the executive, and the impacts of activism on social justice. Through discussion of the Mukhtar Mai and Blasphemy cases in the context of the cases, the study focuses on the additive role of the judiciary in common legal and social questions. In addition, the paper addresses the problems of caseload, public perception challenges, and security issues affecting the judiciary. For this reason, international views are incorporated to situate Pakistan’s judicial processes. Moreover, the paper compares the aggressive behaviour during the tenure of Chief Justice Nisar to the passive stance of the present Chief Justice Bandial and how they caused either favourable or unfavourable shifts in legal norms and society. Finally, the study provides specific suggestions for judicial reforms in the scenarios of case management, access to justice, and cooperation with international organizations in order to strengthen the judiciary as a result of Pakistan’s developing legal structure.

Science in a shifting policy system.

In June, the US Supreme Court overturned a 40-yearold legal principle known as the Chevron doctrine, which deferred to federal agencies on how regulations are interpreted in legal cases when the legislation enacted by Congress is unclear. Striking a blow against this precedent, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that Chevron was "fundamentally misguided" and that only the nation's courts have the prerogative to interpret the laws they administer. Judges across the United States now anticipate an onslaught of litigation seeking to overturn federal regulatory actions, and many of these lawsuits will turn on scientific evidence that guided those actions. Instead of deferring to the scientific and technical expertise of federal agencies, courts must now independently review the scientific record behind a challenged regulation for its persuasiveness, along with scientific findings produced by the litigating parties. It's too early to fully unpack the impact of overturning Chevron, but the scientific community must step forward to support the crafting of clear and evidence-informed legislation, and the use of scientific evidence in the courts.

THE IMPACT OF THE TRANSFER, APPOINTMENT, AND DISMISSAL OF JUDGES ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN LIGHT OF THE 2020 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Objective: The aim is to highlight the important role of the Supreme Judicial Council in the transfer, appointment, and dismissal of judges, particularly after the adoption of the justice sector modernization plan in Algeria. Additionally, it seeks to contribute to the strengthening of the Supreme Judicial Council through the 2020 constitutional amendment and its effectiveness. Theoretical Framework: The study is based on the field of appointing, transferring, promoting, and dismissing judges, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council according to the 2020 constitutional amendment. It also examines the council's authority in supervising judicial discipline, which entails criminal, civil, and disciplinary responsibility as stipulated in the organic law and the 2020 Constitution. Method: The objective analytical method was used, as the subject of this study is derived from legal texts and their analysis. Results and Discussion: The Supreme Judicial Council in Algeria continuously reviews its composition and institutions to adapt to the requirements of the constitution and the law. Its independence limits interference from any authority, including the legislative or executive branches, in the judiciary's professional path. This applies to the appointment, transfer, promotion, and dismissal of judges, and also encompasses all matters related to judges. Research Implications: The results indicate that the 2020 Constitution has made the Supreme Judicial Council more adaptable to current developments and strengthened its independence, particularly in relation to the appointment, transfer, promotion, and dismissal of judges. However, it is necessary to ensure that the composition of the Supreme Judicial Council is exclusively comprised of members of the judiciary, and that the position of President of the Supreme Judicial Council is assigned to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to support guarantees. Originality/Value: This study serves as a contribution to the field of judicial independence through the appointment, transfer, promotion, and dismissal of judges. It enhances this specialization and supports independence by referring to the 2020 constitutional amendment. The study is limited and has not been deeply explored before, providing valuable insights into the Supreme Judicial Council's efforts to strengthen judicial independence in light of the 2020 Constitution.

THE REALITY OF PARALLEL TRADE IN CRIMINAL LEGAL TEXTS

Objective: The aim is to highlight the important role of the Supreme Judicial Council in the transfer, appointment, and dismissal of judges, particularly after the adoption of the justice sector modernization plan in Algeria. Additionally, it seeks to contribute to the strengthening of the Supreme Judicial Council through the 2020 constitutional amendment and its effectiveness. Theoretical Framework: The study is based on the field of appointing, transferring, promoting, and dismissing judges, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council according to the 2020 constitutional amendment. It also examines the council's authority in supervising judicial discipline, which entails criminal, civil, and disciplinary responsibility as stipulated in the organic law and the 2020 Constitution. Method: The objective analytical method was used, as the subject of this study is derived from legal texts and their analysis. Results and Discussion: The Supreme Judicial Council in Algeria continuously reviews its composition and institutions to adapt to the requirements of the constitution and the law. Its independence limits interference from any authority, including the legislative or executive branches, in the judiciary's professional path. This applies to the appointment, transfer, promotion, and dismissal of judges, and also encompasses all matters related to judges. Research Implications: The results indicate that the 2020 Constitution has made the Supreme Judicial Council more adaptable to current developments and strengthened its independence, particularly in relation to the appointment, transfer, promotion, and dismissal of judges. However, it is necessary to ensure that the composition of the Supreme Judicial Council is exclusively comprised of members of the judiciary, and that the position of President of the Supreme Judicial Council is assigned to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to support guarantees. Originality/Value: This study serves as a contribution to the field of judicial independence through the appointment, transfer, promotion, and dismissal of judges. It enhances this specialization and supports independence by referring to the 2020 constitutional amendment. The study is limited and has not been deeply explored before, providing valuable insights into the Supreme Judicial Council's efforts to strengthen judicial independence in light of the 2020 Constitution.

Judicial self fashioning: Rhetorical performance in Supreme Court opinions

Justices on the United States Supreme Court use rhetorical strategies to maintain institutional legitimacy. In the court opinion, a strategy called the monologic voice presents a flattering depiction of the Court. The monologic voice occurs through two tones, the individualistic and collective, which respectively maintain the Justices’ legitimacy through critique and the Court’s legitimacy through unification. We train large language models to identify these rhetorical features in 15,291 modern Supreme Court opinions, issued between 1946 and 2022. While the fraction of collective and individualistic tones has been relatively consistent between 1946 and 2022, the Rehnquist Court used the collective tone at a higher rate than any other Court. In recent terms, 2021 and 2022, we find suggestions of another rhetorical shift, as all Associate Justices of the Roberts Court, excluding Chief Justice Roberts, used the individualistic tone at a historically high rate.

Shortcomings of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: An Analytical Perspective

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was enacted on December 25, 2023, to supplant the Indian Penal Code of 1860, marking a significant reform in India's criminal justice system. This legislation, along with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita as well as Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, took impact on 1st July 2024. The changes signify a departure from colonial legal frameworks, aiming for a system aligned with contemporary rights and inclusivity. While the Chief Justice of India and various legal experts have praised the BNS as a transformative step, it still exhibits notable shortcomings. For instance, it fails to address necrophilia, leaving serious offences unregulated. Moreover, Section 69's treatment of "deceitful means" in sexual relations raises issues regarding consent, particularly in contexts involving job offers or promotions. Section 152, which deals with threats to national sovereignty, could lead to overly broad interpretations that impede free expression. Additionally, Sections 84 and 88 reveal gender biases and outdated perspectives on marital rights and women's reproductive decisions. These challenges highlight the urgent need for further review and reform to ensure BNS fulfils its goal of creating a just and equitable legal system.

The Supreme Court of the United States under John Marshall and the competence of federal authorities (McCulloch v. Maryland)

The purpose of the article is to present the activities of the Supreme Court of the U.S. in the context of the development of the first phase of Americandual federalism (1789–1865), specifically considering the Supreme Court under John Marshall’s judicature. Particular emphasis is placed upon the powers of the federal and state planes of government, and the limitations upon these powers. Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, the SupremeCourt established its role as the interpreter of constitutional questions (Marbury v. Madison). The Court continued to reinforce its position as a nationalarbiter in McCulloch v. Maryland, where it was discussed the question of the national government’s preeminence. The Supreme Court embraced the “implied powers doctrine”, assuming that many of the national powers of government were implied by the language of Articles I and VI of the Constitution. The Court under Marshall in the early years of the republic set two standards, namely “judicial review” and a strong national government.

Contradictions of Culture and Oppression

Abstract Few early eighteenth-century Caribbean paintings survive. Among them is an important pair of previously unpublished Jamaican portraits of Chief Justice Thomas Fearon Jr., of Clarendon, and of his wife, Mary Peters Fearon, with their oldest son, Thomas Peters Fearon, from the 1730s. Colonial reflections of London art and society, although distorted by distance, occupied unique spaces where fantasies and realities collided. This article examines the historical context, provenance, and interpretation of the large, three-quarter-length paintings by an unidentified artist as well as the little that is known about the Jamaican art world at the time. Two unpublished drawings by Pierre du Simitière of Black West Indian women—one enslaved, one free—provide a counterpoint, as do other colonial depictions. The Fearon portraits form a rare pictorial record of a family at the apex of a transatlantic human pyramid of visible privilege and unseen pain, a century before that world ended.

ADVOCATES EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT: OPENING OF A PANDORA BOX OF EXEMPTIONS?

A two-Judge Bench of Honourable Supreme Court (SC) of India in Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr (2024).[1] held that professional services rendered by advocates fall under “contract of personal service” as opposed to a “contract for service” and accordingly, advocates are exempt from liability for deficiency in services under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019. The judgement brings the contentious issue of advocate’s liability as ‘service providers’ under the Act back to focus. The case arose out of challenge to a ruling by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in D.K. Gandhi PS v. M. Mathias (2007) [2]. The NCDRC made advocates liable as service providers under CPA. The apex court, in fact, also went on to opine that the landmark SC ruling by three-judge bench in Indian Medical Association v. V P Shantha (1995)[3] delivered almost 3 decades ago needs reconsideration and referred it to the Chief Justice for determination by a larger bench. This article seeks to uncover the liability of advocates as service providers in light of landmark supreme court judgements and the implications of recent judgement on other professions.

Problematika Kejurusitaan dalam Menangani Perkara Pada Kantor Pengadilan Agama Kabupaten Bangli

The legal system in Indonesia is based on colonial, ethnic and religious law. This regulation forms the basis for all court decisions, including general courts, state administrative courts, and religious courts. As for the problems: 1) How is the process for implementing jurors based on article 103 of the Republic of Indonesia Law Number 7 of 1989 concerning Religious Courts at the Bangli Regency Religious Court office? 2) What are the inhibiting factors for adversity in handling cases at the Bangli Regency Religious Court office? The purpose of this study is to understand the implementation of jursita based on article 103 of Law No. 7 of 1989 concerning the Religious Courts at the Bangli District Religious Court and to understand the supporting and inhibiting factors of slump at the Bangli Religious Courts, to then find a solution. This study uses empirical methods. Empirical method used by the writer based by the data obtained by the writer from those people whom directly connected with the case matters written on the subject of this study. The bailiff must comply with the direction of the Chief Justice and submit announcements, reprimands, and court decisions in accordance with statutory provisions. If the parties do not provide accurate information, bailiffs may experience difficulties in carrying out their duties. However, they can still be informed about subpoenas by the local village head.

DEMYSTIFYING THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE

The doctrine of Basic Structure is a constitutional principle which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Indian Constitution cannot be amended by the Indian Parliament, even if the amendment process provided in the Constitution is followed. This principle has been a subject of much debate and controversy in the legal and political circles of India. This paper seeks to demystify the doctrine of Basic Structure by providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment delivered in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The paper examines the various elements that constitute the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution, including the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, democracy, secularism, federalism, and the protection of fundamental rights. Furthermore, the paper highlights that there was no common ground on the grounds for limitation on the power of amendment between on one hand Chief Justice Sikri, Justices Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea and Reddy and on the other Justice Khanna and that the question “what is the ratio of the Kesavananda judgment?” has never been answered.

The Imperative to Promote Diversity Post-Students for Fair Admissions Analyzing the Effects of Student-Body Diversity on Attrition, GPA, and Bar Passage in Law Students and Graduates

ABSTRACT In June 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts declared the consideration of race in university admissions unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Now, as the era of race-conscious admissions draws to a close, this study examines whether the educational benefits that flow from racial and ethnic student-body diversity acknowledged in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) persist in a law school context. Using data from the American Bar Association (ABA), the U.S. Census Bureau, and institutional partnerships with 21 law schools, we model student racial/ethnic diversity on law school campuses as a predictor of law-school-level attrition (n = 183), law-student-level GPA (n = 5,129), and law-student-level first-time bar passage (n = 4,808) among underrepresented law students of color. Campus diversity is operationalized as a Blau’s Diversity index. Our findings demonstrate modest benefits associated with racial and ethnic student-body diversity for student retention and first-time bar passage among underrepresented law students of color.

Analisis Yuridis Pelanggaran Etik pada Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023

Judges who function as executors and spearheads the justice system and liaise with the community, are expected to have high expertise in considering and making legal decisions about cases. A judge must abide by the applicable code of ethics while performing his duties. A judge will be punished based on a violation of his professional code of ethics. The latest case regarding violations of the code of ethics is the case of Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman, who has been proven to have violated the judge's professional code of ethics related to Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023. This study aims to determine how accountable a judge who violates the code of professional ethics and how the Honorary Panel of the Constitutional Court (MKMK) acts in handling cases where constitutional judges violate the code of ethics. Normative juridical methods were used in the study. This method refers to applicable laws and regulations, as well as community standards. This approach refers to applicable laws and regulations, which include principles, principles, and doctrines.

Lover’s Joy for Being Named with a Self–Associated Authored by the chief justice Jamal al-Din Abi Al-Mahasin Muhammad Bin Ali Bin Abi Bakr al-Qurashi Al-abdiri Al-Shibi Al-Makki Al-Shafi'i, who died in (837 AH/1433 AD) (Investigation and Study)

The present study deals with the investigation and study of the book “Lover’s Joy for Being Named with a Self–Associate”, by the chief justice Jamal al-Din Abu Al-Mahasin Muhammad Bin Ali Bin Abi Bakr al-Qurashi Al-abdiri Al-Shibi Al-Makki Al-Shafi'i, who died in (837 AH/1433 AD). The book is delicate in its size, rare in its field, The author distinguished it by getting it translated by more than twenty famous figures who had nicknames related to their bodies either for a congenital defect in one of them, or for a congenital advantage that distinguished them from others, it is as well a second-to-none analog in our Arab heritage. The nature of the research required it to come in two sections, first: the study; it came in two chapters, where in the first one the author was highlighted, and in the second we studied the book. The second section is the verified text, followed by a list of sources and references to which we have returned.

VOTING PROTOCOLS AS INFORMAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS: THE POLITICS OF ENFORCEABILITY AND STRATEGIC BREACHING

AbstractConstitutional courts operate under a framework of formal and informal rules. While formal rules have been extensively studied, our understanding of informal rules remains limited. Courts often rely on internal practices, traditions and unwritten customs developed over time, posing a significant challenge due to their hidden nature. Numerous constitutional courts lack detailed voting protocols in their statutes and internal regulations, leaving essential aspects to the court's discretion, such as, inter alia, the voting order, deliberation style, outcome versus issue voting and tie-breaking protocols. By employing a case study of strategic breaching of informal voting protocols in the Mexican Supreme Court, this article highlights the complexity of enforcing informal voting rules given that external actors may be unaware of them, along with other factors. Even when informal rules are broadly known, certain circumstances may diminish the efficacy of informal sanctions addressing their breach. Thus, key judicial players, such as chief justices or judge-rapporteurs, may take advantage of the informal rules of voting protocols to advance their policy preferences.

BLOOD DONATION BAN POLICIES AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF LGBTQI COMMUNITY: DOES IT NEED A POTENTIAL SOCIO-LEGAL REFORMS FOR INCLUSIVITY?

The current debate on the subject has drawn ample attention of the civil society towards a case pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court comprising of a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud who has also sought responses from the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) and the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC). In his petition, Sharif D. Rangnekar, represented by attorneys Rohit Bhatt and Ibad Mushtaq, contested the legality of Clause 12 of the "Guidelines for Blood Donor Selection & Blood Donor Referral, 2017" that were published on October 11, 2017, by the National Aids Control Organization and the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC). Thus, Rangnekar requested that the SC order the Centre to create rules permitting homosexual and LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex) individuals to donate blood, subject to appropriate limitations based on "screen and defer" or "assess and test" regulations. The petitioner challenge the ban stating that “It is presumed that a particular group of persons may be suffering from sexually transmitted diseases. Medical technology and education, especially in the field of haematology, has progressed tremendously. The screening of donors is conducted for every donation before a transfusion,” further, it was also claimed by the petitioner that “Today, a blanket prohibition does not stand to reason.

"Reflecting back" on public participation in the judicial appointment of the South African Chief Justice?

After more than two decades of South Africa's democracy, the significance of the reform of the judiciary is grounded in the process of judicial appointments to restore its public credibility from South Africa's tainted past. Such reform is now constitutionalised through the establishment of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) which serves as a focal point in the restoration of such confidence in the judiciary. The JSC's processes seek to ensure the rebuilding of public confidence which entails, amongst others the legitimacy of judicial appointments that should be reflective of gender and racial composition as envisaged in the Constitution 1996. However, the public has since weighed heavily on the criteria and discretion exercised by the JSC on its judicial appointment processes. The debates were intensified by President Ramaphosa's unprecedented reform to involve public participation and establishment of the advisory panel in his constitutional role of the nomination process of the Chief Justice. The President opened an opportunity for a pool of eligible candidates to be recommended for his consideration after they were determined and sifted by the advisory panel. The last four candidates were recommended by the panel and after their interviews, the JSC recommended Justice Mandisa Maya as Chief Justice for appointment by the President. Instead, the President appointed Justice Raymond Zondo as Chief Justice and Justice Maya as Deputy Chief Justice which raised debates and questions on the exercise of this constitutional discretion. The purpose of this article and its focus and limitation is to examine the role of public participation and the establishment of the advisory panel in the nomination process of the Chief Justice. It raises questions about whether public participation does not amount to the representative form of democracy in judicial appointments. In addition, it will restore trust, credibility, and confidence and extend the protection of the judiciary from unjustified attacks from the members of the public. In turn, the value of the credibility of the recommendations of the JSC as a constitutional structure in the judicial appointment processes. Therefore, the paper argues that public participation in the nomination of the Chief Justice is an indirect intrusion of the representative form of democracy in judicial appointments. Public participation is also unlikely to make a significant contribution to the protection accorded to the judiciary by the Constitution. If the President could "water down" the JSC's recommendation, there is uncertainty towards the strive for the attainment of transformative ideals of the new democracy.

A Critical Review on Composition of the Constitutional Court of Korea

The composition of the Constitutional Court is a crucial aspect for the realization of constitutionalism. While the Constitutional Court has been praised for its significant contributions to the establishment of constitutional democracy in Korea, there have been criticisms regarding the composition of the Court in both its institutional structure and operational practices. The Constitutional Court of Korea consists of nine justices. Although these nine justices are formally appointed by the President of Korea, three are elected by the National Assembly, and three are designated by the Chief of the Supreme Court. This means that the President, the majority of the National Assembly, and even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can each choose three justices on their own without any consent or approval from other branches. This raises concerns about the lack of democratic legitimacy, judicial independence and the expertise of the Constitutional Court. Additionally, there are constitutional issues such as the relatively short term of office, the reappointment, the absence of a specified term for the Chief Justice, and the potential for prolonged vacancies of seats.

Analysis Of Opportunities For Implementing The Amicus Curiae Concept As A Form Of Public Participation In The Judicial System In Indonesia

This research uses the normative juridical method, and it aims to determine the amicus curiae mechanism in the Indonesian legal system. The research results show that the implementation of amicus curiae in the judicial system in Indonesia still needs a common perspective among judges, where there are still judges who accept or reject this concept or do not even consider it at all. The concept of amicus curiae in the Indonesian legal system has yet to be a significant consideration because no explicit regulations accommodate it. Still, it is often stated that the position of amicus curiae is embodied through Article 5 of Act Number 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, which mandates judges to explore, follow, and understand legal values and a sense of justice that lives in society. In line with these provisions, the judge has the authority to provide space and open up the broadest possible information and opinions from various groups who pay special attention to a case being examined. Judges using amicus curiae in their considerations, both from a philosophical, sociological, and juridical perspective, aim to prioritize legal certainty and provide justice with the participation of society. The research then provides a suggestion that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia can issue a Policy Circular or through a Decree of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding guidelines that judges can use to implement amicus curiae and how to assess the quality of information in amicus curiae.