| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
100202
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
122385
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
096283
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 2006, President Bush publicly stated that, in relation to the same-sex marriage issue, "activist judges" were thwarting the preferred policy of the elected representatives and the expression of popular will embodied in popular initiatives and constitutional amendments. Notwithstanding the philosophical discussion of the constitutionally assigned role of courts in the political system and the idea of judicial independence, President Bush's statement raises an interesting empirical question: In the case of same-sex marriage, have state and federal courts really acted in direct opposition to the expressed policy preferences of current or recent legislative majorities or overturned popular initiatives and constitutional amendments? Using evidence from state and federal legislative and judicial action around same-sex marriage primarily from the fifteen years preceding President Bush's 2006 statement, I argue that, with some rare exceptions, judges can not easily be identified as "activist" on the issue of same-sex marriage even if we assess their actions according to President Bush's criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
163291
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues that the far-reaching changes in the jurisprudence of Israel’s Supreme Court during the 1980s and 1990s need to be understood in the context of the 1977 upheaval (or mahapach). This momentous event signalled the decline of the hegemony of the Labour movement that had led Israel for over four decades, as well as the resurgence of the ‘war of cultures’ (kulturkapmpf) that had been part of the history of the Jewish people since the rise of Jewish Enlightenment in the second half of the eighteenth century, namely the struggle between secular, pro-Western, liberal Jews and their religious counterparts over the nature and characteristics of Jewish public life. This article argues that the short time between the unprecedented developments in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the mahapach invites an explanation that connects the two together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
100200
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
100203
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
100201
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
140461
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Highlighting legal–governmental techniques by which the public is conceptualised as the market and market activity as public agency, this article poses India as a key site for a globalised analysis of neo-liberal governance. It opens a genealogy for India's ‘emerging market’ governance that extends back to colonial modernisation, highlighting ties between a coercive state, its benevolent performance and the making of a market society. Such a long view challenges the free market vs. strong state opposition so central to contemporary neo-liberal thought. It also calls attention to the nexus between powers of emergency and emerging markets. Elaborating, the essay engages Foucault's analysis of neo-liberal political economy to read recent Indian jurisprudence on financial markets, the rule of law, and public interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
100205
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
141379
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The judiciary has been on the upswing and taking suo-moto notice of executive failures or malafide intent on the part of governments. Whether we take the VYAPAM scam in Madhya Pradesh, the landmark National Green Tribunal crackdown on environmental degradation through mining activities, deforestation and other forms of pollution; the Neer Mahal case of Tripura where the court has ordered the Government of Tripura not to encroach on heritage property which is also a private property and many more, the courts have played a pro-people role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
100204
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
087514
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, occupies an everincreasing
presence in the Indian landscape. The Court not only plays
an important adjudicatory role in a host of areas, but also actively
intervenes and shapes public policy and governance. Indeed, it has
waded into a bewildering variety of issues from the micro to the macro
level. In a remarkable judgment delivered in 2007 by a two-judge
bench of the Supreme Court, Justices A. K. Mathur and Markanday
Katju deviated from the case before them and pronounced:
Recently, the Courts have apparently, if not clearly, strayed into
the executive domain or in matters of policy. For instance, the
orders passed by the High Court in recent times dealt with subjects
ranging from nursery admissions, unauthorized schools, criteria for
free seats in schools, supply of drinking water in schools, number
of free beds in hospitals on public land, requirements for establishing
a world class burns ward in the hospital, the kind of air
Delhites breathe, begging in public, the use of sub-ways, the
nature of buses we board, the legality of constructions in Delhi,
identifying the buildings to be demolished, the size of speedbreakers
on Delhi roads, auto-rickshaw over-charging, growing frequency
of road accidents and enhancing of fines etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|