Judicial Behaviour in India: Doctrinal Reasoning or Behavioural-Institutional Determinants? Introduction Traditional accounts of adjudication treat judicial decisions as the mechanical product of legal texts and prior precedents. More recent literatures in judicial politics—attitudinal, strategic, and institutionalist—contest that view by stressing the influence of judges’ preferences, socialisation, organisational incentives and political environment on outcomes (Segal & … Continue reading How far can judicial behaviour in India be explained through behavioural-institutional determinants rather than purely doctrinal reasoning? Evaluate the influence of personal ideology, professional socialisation, institutional constraints, and political context on judicial decision-making.
Tag: Public Interest Litigation
Compare the Indian experience of PIL with Public Law Litigation in the United States and Actio Popularis in Latin America. How do cultural and institutional contexts shape their effectiveness?
Public Interest Litigation in Comparative Perspective: India, the United States, and Latin America’s Actio Popularis I. Introduction: Public Law and the Global Rise of Participatory Justice The evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, Public Law Litigation (PLL) in the United States, and Actio Popularis in Latin America represents distinct trajectories of juridical democratization … Continue reading Compare the Indian experience of PIL with Public Law Litigation in the United States and Actio Popularis in Latin America. How do cultural and institutional contexts shape their effectiveness?
How does the debate over judicial activism in India reflect the evolving balance between constitutionalism, democratic accountability, and the role of the judiciary in shaping socio-political transformation?
Judicial Activism in India: Constitutionalism, Democratic Accountability, and Socio-Political Transformation The debate over judicial activism in India reflects one of the most profound dilemmas of modern constitutional democracies: how to reconcile the supremacy of the Constitution with the principles of democratic accountability, while simultaneously addressing structural deficits in governance and social justice. The trajectory of … Continue reading How does the debate over judicial activism in India reflect the evolving balance between constitutionalism, democratic accountability, and the role of the judiciary in shaping socio-political transformation?
How has Public Interest Litigation evolved as a judicial mechanism in India, and to what extent has it shaped the trajectory of constitutional governance, democratic accountability, and rights-based jurisprudence?
Public Interest Litigation in India: Evolution, Constitutional Governance, and Rights-Based Jurisprudence I. IntroductionThe emergence of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India represents one of the most transformative developments in post-independence constitutional adjudication. Initially conceived as a judicial innovation to address systemic inequities, PIL has evolved into a robust instrument for expanding access to justice, advancing … Continue reading How has Public Interest Litigation evolved as a judicial mechanism in India, and to what extent has it shaped the trajectory of constitutional governance, democratic accountability, and rights-based jurisprudence?
How does the concept of judicial activism shape the dynamics between the executive and judiciary in India, and what have been its broader implications for the constitutional balance of power?
Judicial activism in India represents a transformative jurisprudential development that has significantly altered the dynamics between the executive and the judiciary, leading to both expansions in judicial power and contestation over constitutional boundaries. It embodies the proactive role assumed by the judiciary, particularly the higher courts, in not merely interpreting laws but in shaping policy … Continue reading How does the concept of judicial activism shape the dynamics between the executive and judiciary in India, and what have been its broader implications for the constitutional balance of power?
To What Extent Can the Directive Principles of State Policy Be Considered More Fundamental than Fundamental Rights in Realizing the Constitutional Vision of Socio-Economic Justice?
Introduction The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Rights (FRs) are two essential pillars of the Indian Constitution, enshrined in Part IV and Part III, respectively. While Fundamental Rights are justiciable and enforceable through the courts, the Directive Principles are non-justiciable but intended to guide the State in crafting policies aimed at promoting … Continue reading To What Extent Can the Directive Principles of State Policy Be Considered More Fundamental than Fundamental Rights in Realizing the Constitutional Vision of Socio-Economic Justice?