Related Research Articles
United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.
Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.
In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".
The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority of India and is the highest court of the Republic of India under the constitution. It is the most senior constitutional court, has the final decision in all legal matters except for personal laws, and also has the power of judicial review. The Chief Justice of India is the Head and Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, which consists of a maximum of 34 judges, and has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.
The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Action Litigation (SAL). Public interest litigation (PIL) refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati. It is a relaxation on the traditional rule of locus standi. Before 1980s the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases on the grounds of public interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring matters of public interest to the court. It is the court's privilege to entertain the application for the PIL.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the Philippines. The Supreme Court was established by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901 through the enactment of its Act No. 136, an Act which abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila, the predecessor of the Supreme Court.
Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging.
The Sandiganbayan is a special appellate collegial court in the Philippines that has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned and controlled corporations. The special court was established by Presidential Decree No. 1486. It was subsequently modified by Presidential Decree No. 1606 and by Republic Acts 7975, 8249 and 10660. It is equal in rank to the Court of Appeals, and consists of fourteen Associate Justices and one Presiding Justice. The Office of the Ombudsman owns exclusive authority to bring cases to the Sandiganbayan.
The Hindu Marriage Act is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted in 1955 which was passed on 18th of May. Three other important acts were also enacted as part of the Hindu Code Bills during this time: the Hindu Succession Act (1956), the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956).
Jagdish Sharan Verma was an Indian jurist who served as the 27th Chief Justice of India from 25 March 1997 to 18 January 1998. He was the chairman of National Human Rights Commission from 1999 to 2003, and chairman of the Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. He remains one of India's most highly regarded Chief Justices and eminent jurists.
The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is an Indian quasi-judicial body that hears appeals against orders and decisions passed under the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944 as amended from time to time. It was constituted as Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) under section 129 of Customs Act, 1962, as amended by section 50 and the Fifth Schedule of Finance Act, 1980. These amendments became effective from 11 October 1982 and the Tribunal was also constituted on the same date. Its initial mandate was under Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944 and Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Service tax was introduced by Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 and this also was added to the jurisdiction of CEGAT. Accordingly, the name of the Tribunal was changed to Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by amending section 129 of the Customs Act, by section 119 of Finance Act, 2003, effective from 14 May 2003.
The Curative Petition is the last chance available for the protection from the compensation of injustice in the court after the review petition is dismissed or has been exhausted. It is a concept that evolved by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Anr. (2002) in which the question was whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgement or order of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of a review petition. The Supreme Court held that to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice, it may reconsider its judgements in exercise of its inherent powers. For that purpose, the court has devised what has been termed as a curative petition in which the petitioner is required to aver specifically that the grounds mentioned therein had been taken in the review petition filed earlier and that it was dismissed by circulation, which must be certified by a senior advocate. The curative petition is then circulated to the three most senior judges and to the judges who delivered the impugned judgement if available. No time limit is given for filing curative petition. It is guaranteed under Article 137 of Constitution of India, which gives the power to the Supreme Court to review of its own judgements and orders.
The Indian Judicial collegium system, where existing judges appoint judges to the nation's constitutional courts, has its genesis in, and continued basis resting on, three of its own judgments made by Supreme Court judges which are collectively known as the Three Judges Cases.
Vishaka and Ors. v State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where various women's groups led by Naina Kapur and her organisation, Sakshi filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the state of Rajasthan and the central Government of India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition was filed after Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, was brutally gang raped for stopping a child marriage.
Lily Thomas was an Indian lawyer who initiated improvement and change to existing laws by filing petitions in India's highest court and regional courts. Thomas' petitions resulted in changes to laws to prevent convicted politicians getting elected, the addition of a new marriage law and protections for parliamentarians. Thomas was hailed most notably for petitioning to amend the Representation of the People Act.
Aman Lekhi is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India and is the former Additional Solicitor General of India in the Apex Court. He is named in the list of Top 100 Legal Luminaries of India by LexisNexis in May 2016.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy is an Indian retired judge of the Karnataka High Court who was also the original petitioner, challenging the Government of India over making Aadhaar mandatory. He had filed a writ petition in 2012 and over the last five years, 26 other petitions have been tagged along with his, challenging the scheme.
The writ of mandate is a type of extraordinary writ in the U.S. state of California. In California, certain writs are used by the superior courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to command lower bodies, including both courts and administrative agencies, to do or not to do certain things. A writ of mandate may be granted by a court as an order to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, both public and private. Unlike the federal court system, where interlocutory appeals may be taken on a permissive basis and mandamus are usually used to contest recusal decisions, the writ of mandate in California is not restricted to purely ministerial tasks, but can be used to correct any legal error by the trial court. Nonetheless, ordinary writ relief in the Court of Appeal is rarely granted.
Arnesh Kumar Guidelines or Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) is a landmark judgement of the Indian Supreme Court, stating arrests should be an exception, in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment. The guidelines asked the police to determine whether an arrest was necessary under the provisions of Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Police officers have a responsibility to guarantee that the principles established by the Supreme Court in its numerous decisions are followed by the investigating officers. Before authorising further detention, the judicial magistrate must read the police officer's report and make sure they are satisfied.
References
- ↑ "Special Leave Petitions in Indian Judicial System" (PDF). Lawsenate.com. Retrieved 2014-03-04.
- ↑ "Pritam Singh vs The State on 5 May, 1950". Indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2014-03-04.
- ↑ "Direct tax - Namewise Decisions". SITCInfo.com. Retrieved 2014-03-04.
- ↑ "Direct tax - Namewise Decisions". SITCInfo.com. Retrieved 2014-03-04.
- ↑ "N. Suriyakala vs A. Mohandoss & Ors on 12 February, 2007". Indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2014-03-04.
- ↑ "Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 21 April, 2004". Indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2014-03-04.