Le Quebec et la Cour Supreme

Pakistan's Law for Removal of Superior Courts Judges: Safeguards to Independence of Judiciary v/s Duty of Executive to Probe into Conduct of Judges

There was a conflict between the judgment of the lower court and the Supreme Court regarding the adequacy of the right of defense granted to public officials in disciplinary proceedings. In other words, the Supreme Court made a judgment 2022du33323 on July 14, 2022, which is against the original trial in the lower court (2020nu52759, sentenced by Seoul High Court, on January 13). the Supreme Court judged that there is a reason not to disclose the victim's personal information and that The disciplinary agency fully guaranteed the right to defend. Also, the Supreme Court judged that the plaintiff knew who the anonymous victims were and there was no problem with the plaintiff's exercise of defense rights. However, the Supreme Court’s judgement, 2022du33323 has the following problems. First of all, it was used as a basis for judging that there was no problem in guaranteeing the plaintiff's right to defense during the disciplinary process due to the fact that there was no objection that the victim was not specified during the disciplinary process. Secondly, It was wrong to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim, citing the situation in which the plaintiff was already aware of the victim while allowing the anonymous treatment of the witness due to the victim's secondary damage. Lastly, It is unfair to cause the plaintiff to fundamentally lose the opportunity to deny his or her disciplinary charges. For this reason, it is thought that a disciplinary agency, the defendant violated the plaintiff's right to defend, and that the Supreme Court's judgment ignored the principle of due process in this case. Paradoxically, 2022du33323 demonstrated the need for institutional supplementation in the following areas of the disciplinary process. Among them, this paper presents three supplementary points. ① First of all, the administrative agency sufficiently informs the person of the right to participate in an attorney until the time of disciplinary action, so that the person subject to disciplinary action is given an opportunity to utilize it. ② Next, The Appeal Review Committee shall facilitate the submission of data by both parties apart from keeping the victim confidential. ③ Lastly, in disciplinary action, the victim's personal information, reasons for disciplinary action, and the contents of disciplinary action must be disclosed to the parties, and the Defendant Administrative Agency must faithfully prove the contents of the disciplinary action. In the end, such institutional improvements are necessary to ensure the principle of due process. by improvements, it is expected that the person subject to disciplinary action will exercise the right to defend more effectively in the disciplinary process and that an appropriate level of relief will be achieved.

This study examines the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Indian judiciary system, focusing on its potential to address environmental sustainability and climate change challenges while improving judicial efficiency. The Indian courts’ traditional paper-based operations contribute significantly to environmental degradation, necessitating technological solutions for a greener justice system. The research analyzes the current state of AI implementation in Indian courts through examination of three major initiatives: SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency), SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), and various e-Court projects. The study evaluates both environmental impact data and technological implementation reports from the Supreme Court’s E-Committee and Ministry of Law and Justice. The implementation of AI-driven systems has shown promising results, with SUVAS successfully translating over 36,271 Supreme Court judgments into Hindi and 17,142 judgments into 16 regional languages by 2024. Virtual hearings between 2020 and 2023 prevented an estimated 50,000 metric tons of carbon emissions through reduced travel. While AI integration shows significant promise in reducing environmental impact and improving judicial efficiency, the study identifies key challenges including the need for comprehensive legislation governing AI use in judiciary, substantial infrastructure requirements, and data privacy concerns. The recent allocation of ₹1,500 crore for Phase III of the e-Courts Project and the implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act demonstrate strong governmental commitment to technological advancement in judiciary while addressing legal and privacy concerns.

Article 24 paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution "Judicial power is an independent power to administer justice to uphold law and justice". Will However, Article 24A paragraph 3 makes a provision that candidates for Supreme Court judges are proposed by the Judicial Commission to the DPR for approval and subsequently appointed as Supreme Court justices by the president and the Supreme Court Law states that the appointment of Supreme Court Judges is carried out by the President at the proposal of the DPR or the dismissal of the Chair, Deputy Chairperson. , Junior Chairmen, and Member Judges of the Supreme Court are dismissed by the President at the suggestion of the Supreme Court, so that the President has loopholes that can later affect the psyche of judges in making decisions. This study aims to determine the independence of judicial power in Indonesia in the perspective of Islamic law. This study uses a normative and juridical approach. The authors conclude that the proposal for the appointment and dismissal of Supreme Court judges by the Judicial Commission, the DPR and the President may affect the psychology of a judge in making a decision so that This can eliminate the meaning of Article 24 paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution which shows the lack of independence of the judicial power in upholding justice in accordance with the ideals of the 1945 Constitution. Indeed, in the history of the Islamic judiciary, it is the Caliph (President) who has the authority to appoint and dismiss a judge/qhadi. judges have a fear of Allah so that judges decide cases based on Islamic law.

From Executive Appointment to the Collegium System: The Impact on Diversity in the Indian Supreme Court

The criminal liability of the President for acts committed in the exercise of his office covers a complex of issues related to all areas of the legal system. Indeed, the criminal law aspects of the grounds and manner of criminal liability are complemented by constitutional elements. The special position and powers of the President co-determine the scope of responsibility. The President’s actions that fall within the limits of his powers and duties remain, for obvious reasons, outside the scope of repressive responsibility. The scope of presidential responsibility is also co-determined by institutions categorised as instruments of corrective justice, including states of necessity and circumstances excluding fault. This issue can be analysed from a purely penal perspective or it can also take into account elements of constitutional regulation. The US Supreme Court’s approach was based on yet another perspective. The elements that determine the limits of the President’s criminal liability for acts committed in the exercise of his office are sought by the Supreme Court in its reconstruction of the principle of separation of powers. Pointing to the presidential powers set out in Article II of the US Constitution, it assumes that they delimit the area of independent and exclusive powers, within the scope of which Congress may not interfere by means of legislation. By virtue of the will of the legislature thus reconstructed, Congress lacks the authority to enact laws providing for the criminal liability of the President in this respect. Consequently, the courts also lack the competence to oversee such cases. The above assumptions form the basis for the US Supreme Court to reconstruct from the US Constitution the absolute immunity of the President in terms of the exclusive and preclusive competences set out in the US Constitution. In addition, the Supreme Court also derives from the US Constitution the construction of presumptive immunity, which covers presidential actions in the area of shared powers with Congress. Although, in this respect, the Constitution does not deprive Congress of the power to legislate, including the power to define the grounds for the President’s criminal liability, the bring to criminal charges against the President is contingent on a demonstration that this will not unduly interfere with the efficiency and authority of the executive branch. By locating the grounds for the reconstruction of presidential immunity at the level of constitutional provisions relating to the principle of separation of powers, the approach presented by the Supreme Court transforms criminal law analyses into systemic constitutional considerations. In this way, the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity is part of the debates concerning the nature of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, the court’s competence to rule on constitutional issues, the delimitation of the scope of competences of the authorities, and, finally, the disputes concerning the scope of the Court’s cognition in the sphere of matters that are strongly entangled politically and morally. The US Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity was based to a significant extent on the jurisprudential concept (doctrine) of the separation of powers. The essential line of argumentation is based on the Supreme Court’s reconstruction of the content, meaning and function of the principle of separation of powers, which forms the basis for the position relating to the scope and type of presidential immunity. At the same time, in the sphere related to absolute immunity, one can see in it a reference to the concept (doctrine) of the republican separation of powers. The exclusion of the possibility of the courts’ interference in the area of competence regulated by Article II of the US Constitution means that the assessment of the President should take place at the level of constitutional responsibility in the impeachment procedure. In the area covered by the construction of impeachment, by confirming the competence of the courts to carry out a criminal assessment, it supplements the prerequisites for liability with elements reconstructed from the Constitution. It thus expresses restraint in the sphere of judicial competence on matters relating to constitutional and political aspects. It does not decide the question of immunity unequivocally, leaving a considerable area of discretion, leaving a space that can be filled by subsequent decisions of the federal courts on this issue.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the American reform movements tried to match American ideals with the challenges of the times. Progressive attitudes highlighted the necessity of reforms. The Chinese issue, often risen in the public dialogue, was the subject of deliberation of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the federal executive branch of government. Chae Chan Ping v. United States and subsequent cases established the doctrine of consular noneviewability referring to immigration law and delineating the scope of judicial review for decisions concerning the admission of immigrants to the United States. They also strengthened the plenary power doctrine. We may ask if the Supreme Court judgments were in conformity with the ideas of American Progressivism. Unfortunately, the Chinese Exclusion Cases were not compatible with the visions of progressive reformers and reflected anti-Chinese sentiment rather than an aspiration for reforms.

This note examines the UK Supreme Court's judgment in the Brexit case, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The case upheld the decision of the High Court, which rejected the claim that the foreign affairs prerogative provided a legal basis for giving notice to EU institutions of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU. But the Supreme Court's preferred basis for dismissing that claim rested on the more general proposition that significant constitutional change can only be effected by statute. This position offers the germs of a jurisprudence of constitutional change and was substantiated by means of an analysis of Parliament's dual capacity as legislator and constituent agent. Miller also includes important and potentially innovative dicta on the relationship between international and domestic sources of law.

For strengthening the legal system of justice against the menace of bribery, a highly cogent and sensitive forensic technique has been developed using an indicator dye of triphenylmethane group---Bromocresol green (BCG)---as corruption marker. By means of BCG, a bribe-seeker can be so firmly trapped that not only his/her hand or finger(s) get colored blue upon treatment with water, that even the shirt's pocket as well as some of the coercively-received currency notes also get tainted with deep blue color. The new technique replaces the age-old use of phenolphthalein for trapping the bribe-seeker wherein, when bribe-taker's hand is dipped in sodium carbonate solution a pink color is produced. The necessity for a new and cogent technique has become desirable because owing to several procedural deficiencies and techno-legal lacunae as pointed out in various High Courts’ and Supreme Court's judgments, and also because of the instability of the pink color generated by phenolphthalein and alkali, the trapped-and-convicted persons are quite often set free upon appeals. But the sturdy blue color produced by BCG is of highly stable in nature which firmly and truly ratifies the “Locard's Exchange Principle” of forensic science. The strong blue spots specially on the hand or fingers and the blue-spotted shirt pocket along with the blue-tinted currency notes, can all act collectively as strong incriminating legal evidence(s) against the trapped person. Unlike phenolphthalein, sodium carbonate is not required in the BCG method to generate the color (blue) either in water or on other (hard) objects. Moreover, any additional stabilizer like hydroquinone, etc., is also not required either for storing the blue solution, or for safekeeping the blue-spotted hard materials like shirt, handkerchief, or currency notes for showing them in the court of law at appropriate stage. Since the BCG-produced blue color on the currency notes is of utmost stability and can not be wiped away by ordinary means, a special method has also been reported to safely remove (conceal) the blue spots from the currency notes used in the ‘Operation BCG’. Having all these (hard) bluish objects in the hands of anti-corruption bureau (ACB) as irrefutable evidences against the accused, there is hardly left any need for safekeeping the blue-colored water solution (the liquid obtained after dipping trapped person's hand in water).

여기에서는 사법경찰관 작성 피의자신문조서에 대해 매우 엄격하게 증거능력 인정 하는 것과 검사 작성의 피의자신문조서와 차별을 두는 형사소송법 규정과 당해 피의자는 물론 피의자와 공범관계에 있는 자에게 까지 이러한 차등을 연계하여 인정하는 대법원의 해석의 합리성에 대해 검토하였다. 사법경찰관 작성 피의자신문 조서의 증거능력을 다루고 있는 우리 형사소송법 제312조 제3항은 그 증거 가능성을 매우 제한적으로 규정하고 있다. 그것은 사법경찰관 그 자체의 불신이라기 보단 수사기관 입 장에 몰입된 수사편향성과 인권침해적 위험성을 염두에 둔 것으로 보인다. 같은 수사기관 임에도 검사작성의 피의자신문조서의 그것과 비교하여 더 염격한 이유는 검찰 그자체에 대한 법적 신뢰라기 보다는 인권옹호자와 객관 의무를 전제로한 차이를 반영한 것이라고 할 수 있다. 그런데 영상녹화제도와 조사자 증언제도의 등장한 이러한 기존의 법체계와 대법원 해석과 곳곳에서 충돌하고 있다. 이러한 충돌을 기존 체제에 다소 무리하게 도입된 이 두제도를 중심으로 혹은 전제로 해서 해석하기 보다는 인권침해 소지를 줄이고 지나치게 수사전략에 매몰되지 않는 입법적 정리와 법정책이 요구된다.I searched in to interpretation and legal policy and case law of supreme court about protocol of interrogation prepared by judicial police officer rules the admissibility very limitedly. According to Korean Criminal Procecdure Law Protocol concerning interrogation of a criminal suspect, prepared by any investigative institution other than a prosecutor, shall be admissible as evidence, only if it was prepared in compliance with the due process and proper method and the defendant, who was the suspect at the time, or his/her defense counsel admits its contents at a preparatory hearing or a trial(Article 312 (3)). This is applied to Protocol of accomplice interrogation prepared by judicial police officer according to Supreme Court judgment. It seems that it is rather minding the risks of human rights abuse as an investigative agency. Existing legal system appeared in Video Recording of criminal Suspect s statements and testimony by interrogating police officers are conflicting with the Supreme Court judgment occassionally. Rather than interpretating these two systems which are introduced by force or presupposing, reducing violation of human rights possession and it also requires legislative order and legal strategy which do not overly buried into the investigation strategy.

Legal discourse is characterised by unique grammatical, lexical and stylistic features which are meant to enhance clarity and precision in the legal content. However, from a critical perspective, some of the discursive and stylistic features used alienate the common person and elevate judges and lawyers to an ideological pedestal. This study undertook a Critical Discourse Analysis of Kenya Supreme Court judgements on election petitions and civil cases with a view to investigate the discursive features used to represent legal ideology. The study was guided by Critical Discourse Analysis theory and a qualitative research design was used. The population for this study comprised the judgements made by the Kenya Supreme Court since its inception in 2010. Purposive sampling was used to identify five judgements on election petitions and civil cases. Guided by the CDA theory, features representing legal ideology were explored and discussed. The features include use of lexical stylistic features, performative verbs, legitimation, presuppositions, argumentation, interrogative forms, metaphors, precedence and predication. These features were meant to create precision and authority in the Supreme Court judgements. However, from a critical perspective, it was imminent that the features led to elevation of judges and lawyers as custodians of justice while the ordinary person was excluded from the legal process. The insight from this study is applicable to Forensic Linguistics and legal drafting. Judges and lawyers ought to use language in such a way that the common person is not excluded. Technical terminology should be used when necessary more so in contexts that involve only the legal personnel. In legal contexts that involves the ordinary person, plain language should be used.

There are many different types of chemicals and depending on their characteristics, even a small amount of exposure can result in death. Furthermore, if a chemical leak leads to fire or explosion, it results in many casualties. The Occupational Health and Safety Act stipulates the levels of management by investigating the hazardous nature of chemicals to prevent occupational accidents, and imposes duties on the employer. If a corporation fails to implement various safety measures to prevent such accidents, it will be punished through the Joint Penalty Provisions under Article 71 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. However, in order to apply the Joint Penalty Provisions, a natural person’s violation of the law must first be confirmed. This natural person is called a violator, and in specific cases, the key issue is to determine who is the violator. The Supreme Court judges that the person who carries the “concrete and direct duty” is the violator. It means that the violator is the person who has not fulfilled the obligations set out in the each clause of the Act “in person”. However, this article critically reviews the Supreme Court’s judgment and asserts that the violator is “the general manager of health and safety” in contracted projects.

This research is motivated by the fact that in recent years, many defendants from Corruption Crime cases have used Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, as evidenced by many Judges in the District Court (first instance) who granted the request, but many were also Supreme Court Judges who annulled it. The problems in this study include (i) What are the provisions of the position order contained in Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code that can eliminate errors and accountability for corruption in the bureaucracy? (ii) How is the legal application of the office order in Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code in determining the guilt and responsibility of corruption crimes in the Supreme Court Decision No. 685 K/PID/2005 and No. 1393 K/Pid.Sus/2014. This research is a normative research with juridical approach methods and analytical descriptive. The data was come from secondary data, primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary with literature data collection. The method of analysis used is a qualitative analysis. The results of the study First, there are (2) two conditions that must be met in order for an executor of an order to escape the noose, namely subjective conditions and objective conditions. Secondly, in Supreme Court Decision No. 685 K/PID/2005, judges apply the law normatively without judging more deeply and fundamentally, as in Supreme Court Decision No. 1393 K/Pid.Sus/2014, judges are more deeply assessed regarding the condition that a person can be given Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.

Removal of judges Historically, judges appointed by the English monarch held office at the pleasure of the Crown ( durante bene placito ). Thus, it was possible for judges to be dismissed peremptorily and without cause. The struggle between the English Parliament and the Crown, which ultimately led to the subjugation of the latter to the former, also led to the advancement of judicial independence. Judicial independence of the Crown was eventually secured by Article III, s 7 of the Act of Settlement 1701 (Eng), which provided as follows: The judges’ commissions be made quamdiu se bene gesserint [during good behaviour] and their salaries ascertained and established; but upon the address of both Houses of Parliament it may be lawful to remove them. At the federal level, judicial independence was given constitutional protection in s 72(ii) of the Commonwealth Constitution . This provides that federal judges (that is, Justices of the High Court and judges of the other courts created by the Commonwealth Parliament) ‘[s]hall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity’. In the case of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, it is simply provided that it would be lawful to remove judges of the Supreme Court upon the address of both Houses of Parliament, although the Supreme Court judges in South Australia and Western Australia are stated by a separate provision to hold and remain in office ‘during good behaviour’. The grounds of ‘proved misbehaviour’ or ‘incapacity’ are expressly specified in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The standard mode of removal is an address of both Houses of Parliament in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia, or an address of the Legislative Assembly in Queensland (the only State with a bicameral parliament), the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. In addition, Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory all provide for the convening of ad hoc bodies where an allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity has been made to the designated authority. These bodies are tasked with determining whether on the facts the misbehaviour or incapacity of the judge warrants his or her removal as a step prior to an address in Parliament to remove the judge.

Multilevel Ambivalence…Providers, Systems, and Now the Courts