Courts can only declare law, it cannot create law
Introduction
What is law?
Law refers to set of standardized rules that are binding over the community of people living in a territory over which it is applicable. Laws are enforceable by the authority of the sovereign.
What is a court of law?
A court is a meeting where judgments, that are legal in nature, are pronounced. The courts refer to sessions presided by an official who is authorized to take legal decisions and to settle disputes.
A court of law is the one that sits upon to hear the legal cases. They deliver their rulings on the basis of the legal statutes.
What is declaration of law?
The phrase “declaration of law” pertains to the actions undertaken by a court that settle what is acceptable
…show more content…
Childish fiction of Austin
But Austin has obstinately stated that the judges do create laws. In his work Lectures on Jurisprudence: Or, The Philosophy of Positive Law, Volume 2, he denied the misconception of the judges that they do not create laws. He wrote:
“The childish fiction employed by our judges, that judiciary or Common Law is not made by them, but is a miraculous something made by nobody, existing, I suppose, from eternity, and merely declared from time to time by the judges.” (Emphasis added.)
The judges do create the law in the “hard cases”. These “hard cases” are those wherein inexistence of well-defined law creates a situation of uncertainty. And these principles direct the manner in which the statutes could be interpreted by the judges. The existence of ambiguity in the common law and the acts passed by the legislature creates scope for the courts to create laws. The same is exercised upon feeling that the existing laws have become inconsistent with current times. It may happen when the existing laws become incompatible with the changed context.
The views of legal
…show more content…
They fill in the gaps present in the existing legislation, and uphold the democratic values, human dignity and fundamental rights. But it is important for the courts not to get involved with adventures beyond the acceptable limits. Such activisms should ideally be ratified by a legislative action to put the people’s will behind the judgment.
The virtues of creation of law by courts of law
The legislature is inherently slow-paced, especially in the contemporary times. It is easier and faster for the courts to create, amend, or repeal law, compared with the Parliament.
Further, what if the court finds that a law is ambiguous, inconsistent, or has certain gaps in its applicability? Would it be fair for the courts of law to refer every such deficiency to the legislature?
Thus, creation of law by the courts at appropriate times enhances the efficiency of governance, and brings-in stability and peace in the society. It also attempts to put a check on the populist measures adopted by the legislature to woo the masses.
Thus, creativity on the part of the courts helps us continue our administration in the changing times. And, at the same time, the courts also attempt to uphold what is correct and beneficial for the country in the long
The Hollow Hope examines the following research question: when can judicial processes be used to produce social change? (Rosenberg 1). Rosenberg starts out the book by describing the two different theories of the courts. The first theory, the Dynamic Court view, views the court as being powerful, vigorous, and potent proponents of change (Rosenberg 1). The second theory, the Constrained Court view, views the court in the complete opposite way. With this view the court is seen as weak, ineffective, and powerless (Rosenberg 3). In this view there are three different constraints that restrict the courts from producing effective political and social change. These constraints include: limited nature of constitutional rights, lack of judicial independence, and the lack of tools the courts need (Rosenberg 35). Even though there are constraints on the court there are conditions where the court is able to overcome the constraints.
Laws are objects that dictate how people act every single day, but laws are not just made easily with a flick of a wand, there is a specific and tough process to go through if a bill wants to become a law, which
The courts’ crucial function of upholding individuals’ rights, keeping the executive in line, and defining the meaning of laws relies on a decision making process and judicial review wholly independent from outside forces and considerations... ... middle of paper ... ... significant reason for the feasibility of unwritten laws and conventions United Kingdom in maintain law and order is the “culture of gentlemen”. Reference Hartley, T., Griffith, J. “Government and Law.” Second ed.
Case law/Common law – body of law developed over time by higher courts. Laws are c...
In every society around the world, the law is affecting everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect existent to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities.
Law is a system of rules that are implemented throughout social establishments to govern behavior. A principle for judging acts as reasonable or unreasonable and they may seem objective, universal, and knowable, which dispositions are guide. Our function is rational activity, and our rational nature gives us dispositions when we are naturally disposed to seek to know, understand, and be
In this essay I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this is essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach my conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil.
Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has an unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many. We must consider whether they are “authoritarian law-makers, or if their profession makes them mere declarers of the law” . In this essay, I will argue the ways that judges do make law as well as discussing the contrary.
In conclusion, I would say I disagree with the quote. Within the legal system there exists numerous ways for the judicracy to induce change in law, whilst not as directly as parliament, this is obviously a nessacary in democracy. Law-making can be de facto done in the courts. Their descisions when not contrary to parliament set predicedent, which might be legislated. The courts are able to react ahead of legislation as social, technological and politcal trends change and enforce clarifications in further similiar cases using predicedent set before them. So whilst Parliament does technically make the laws, the judicracy, as any other part of a democratic society is able to effect changes in the law.
A major impediment of the common is the tendency to lead to perpetuity of bad decisions once a precedent has been set. If there is no amendment and the same ruling is applied, that bad decision will be subsist and will be perpetuated. Since the common law system revolves around following antecedents, it usually takes a long while for change to occur. Unfortunately, before this change is effected, the bad decision will be upheld as long as the change does not come into effect. This is one area where the codified system of law has an advantage as it is rules based approach to law making designed to provide a comprehensive code of laws for the area in question.
Today, we find Indian society finds itself governed by a codified set of laws heading the list of which is the Constitution of India. Law, as a tool of social engineering has transformed the boundaries of India thus bringing it on the par with the norms of other countries.
According to Reference.com (2007), law is defined as: "rules of conduct of any organized society, however simple or small, that are enforced by threat of punishment if they are violated. Modern law has a wide sweep and regulates many branches of conduct." Essentially law is the rules and regulations that aid in governing conduct, handling disputes, and dealing with criminal actions.
The Rule of Law means that the state should govern its citizens, in a way which works with the rules that have been agreed on. The Rule of Law is simply a fundamental principle of our constitution. Britain and other Western democracies are different in that Britain has an unwritten constitution, meaning that our constitution is not found in a certain document but that we actually have a constitution from the rules about who governs it, and about the powers they entail and how that power can be passed or even transferred. The Constitution includes; Acts of Parliament, Judicial decisions and Conventions.There are three main principles around the Rule of Law being the separation of powers, the supremacy of Parliament and the Rule of Law. The
In the mouth of a British constitutional lawyer, the term the rule of law seems to mean primarily a corpus of basic principles and values, which together lend some stability and coherence to the legal order.
Law is one of the most important elements that transform humans from mere beasts into intelligent and special beings. Law tells us what is right and wrong and how we, humans, should act to achieve a peaceful society while enjoying individual freedoms. The key to a successful nation is a firm, strong, and fair code of high laws that provides equal and just freedom to all citizens of the country. A strong government is as important as a firm code of law as a government is a backbone of a country and of the laws. A government is a system that executes and determines its laws. As much as fair laws are important, a capable government that will not go corrupt and provide fair services holds a vital role in building and maintaining a strong country.