Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR)’s Post

After receiving a notice from NCSC, the Trust alleged political vendetta and moved the high court under Article 226 seeking a writ of prohibition Read more - https://t.co/epiKxNPm3t #legalnews #indianlegalupdates #indianlegalnews #indianlawupdates #indianlaws #indiancourts #indianlegalsystem #trending #viral #viralcontent

The principle of separation of powers is a fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution. It divides the government into three branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Each branch has its own separate powers and functions, and the branches are supposed to check and balance each other. The legislature has the power to make laws, the executive has the power to implement laws, and the judiciary has the power to interpret laws and settle disputes. When the legislature retrospectively amends a law, it is essentially overturning a judgment of the judiciary. This can be seen as an encroachment on the judiciary's power. It is important to strike a balance between the principle of separation of powers and the legislature's power to amend laws. On the one hand, the legislature must have the flexibility to amend laws in response to changing circumstances. On the other hand, the judiciary must be able to exercise its power to interpret laws and settle disputes independently of the legislature.

Supreme Court hearings on Article 370 is such a delight to read everyday. Sometimes one wonders , why would seasoned opposition politicians, make such a blunder and oppose scrapping of 370. Apart from the flimsy legal ground, taking the matter to the Supreme Court is a mis-calculation of public sentiment and almost political suicide. In the remotest-of-the-remote chance that the abrogation is scrapped, it's still a lost battle in the eyes of the public. There can be many ways to oppose the ruling govt. Putting your might behind, undo-ing abrogation of Article 370 was the worst possible political choice.

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear petitions made against the amendment to Basic Law: The Government on the issue of incapacitation, a term that refers to a situation in which a government official is unable to perform their duty. According to this amendment, the grounds for incapacitation are limited to physical or mental ill health only, but petitioners argue that the Knesset has “misused its constituent power” to legislate a law on personal grounds. The focus of the hearing will be on the question of whether the amendment should be interpreted as being valid only from the next Knesset, removing the appearance of personal gain. For the complete explainer by Dr. Amir Fuchs: https://bit.ly/3Zv7Ipj #incapacitation #supremecourtofisrael #israeldemocracyinstitute #judiciary #basiclaws #knesset

Interesting times.. With the forthcoming local elections and following the recent terrible stories of knife crime . Attempting to improve engagement and keep up to date with current affairs, I asked the following question to a group of students at a recent university workshop. "With the in creasing incidence of knife related crimes what would you or are you doing about preventing it..?" I also asked a number of potential councillors (from different parties) the same question.. Their answers being predictable and also some what frustrating.. Ranging from discussions about the current legal system failures, Parental and educational failures,various political policy breakdown... Very little substance about what the political future plans will be.. Just pontificating and repeated rhetoric.... Meantime the workshop reply being.. Some believe it's not their problem. (being up to previous generations to sort) Some suggesting that they too should carry weapons for protection(just in case?) It appears we have a big challenge going forward?

Helpful article by Jane Talbot about the recent Supreme court case of Jones v Birmingham City Council confirming the standards of proof for gang and ASB injunctions. In short no change but now clearly confirmed. Civil standard (on balance of probabilities) applies to the application stage for either injunction. Criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) applies when seeking to prove a breach. As always, need to prepare the evidence in support with the burden of proof in mind.

Are there instances in which the court may resort to trial-within-trial? Explore the recent case of Suleiman v. State [2023] 6 NWLR, where the court provided exposition on this issue. #caseoftheweek #mootandmocksocietyuniversityofibada

I strongly condemn brutal violence by the police on peaceful procession of lawyers for a lawful cause and for upholding Rule of Law. Biggest problem of our country is not economy but bad governance. Bad governance can not be tackled unless there is Rule of Law. Lawyers are most sane voice to make Pakistan a great country when we raise voice for supremacy of Constitution and Rule of Law. Only Rule of law can bring certainty and investment through which our country will progress. It is our fundamental right to peacefully protest against division of courts and illegal application of 7 ATA on Lawyers. It is the same right that should be ensured to teachers, doctors and farmers when they peacefully protest against injustice and incompetence. The Rulers of the country should allow fair criticism and peaceful protest to strengthen the democracy and rule of law. It will certainly pay back. They should now be able to differentiate between a violent mob and peaceful association for a just cause. State cannot paint them with same brush. Use of force on peaceful protestors seriously damage the goodwill of law enforcement agencies in eye of general public. I am absolutely certain that no individual or bunch of people can beat our country's institutions, if running those institutions allow freedom and fair criticism which all Pakistanis are guaranteed by the constitution. If we would not allow democracy to prosper and bring supremacy of Constitution with accountability through due process of law, then violent forces will continue to manipulate the situation. I strongly urge to Chief Justice of Pakistan to take notice of Lahore today's incident and resolve the matter amicably with consultation to all stakeholders.

“If you didn’t vote you can’t complain.” “If you voted and your candidate won, you can’t complain because you got what you voted for.” “If you voted and your candidate lost you can’t complain because by voting you agreed to support the outcome.” Are you seeing the pattern yet? You can’t complain. Democracy: 2 wolves and 1 lamb voting on what to have for lunch Republic: A democracy where 200 wolves and 100 lambs elect 2 wolves and 1 lamb to vote on what to have for lunch Consititutional Republic: A republic with a constitution guaranteeing lamb is not on the lunch menu. The Supreme Court rules (5 wolves to 4 lambs) that mutton is not the same as lamb.