司法行为监管:印度内部机制是否维护司法独立并有效执行司法问责制?

Shivaraj S. Huchhanavar
{"title":"司法行为监管:印度内部机制是否维护司法独立并有效执行司法问责制?","authors":"Shivaraj S. Huchhanavar","doi":"10.1080/24730580.2022.2068887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In India, judicial discipline is exclusively enforced by the judiciary through in-house mechanisms, except for the constitutional removal procedure. The founding justification for in-house mechanisms is that they are indispensable to uphold judicial independence. In this milieu, the paper attempts to answer the following question: do in-house mechanisms in India uphold judicial independence and effectively enforce judicial conduct? The study, by analysing quantitative and qualitative data from 110 subject experts (judges, lawyers, and academics), offers an initial assessment of the implications of in-house mechanisms on judicial independence and judicial conduct regulation in India. The study lays special emphasis on the efficacy of in-house mechanisms in upholding “individual” and “internal” judicial independence. It also assesses the effectiveness of in-house mechanisms in enforcing judicial conduct. It concludes that in-house mechanisms, for both higher and subordinate judiciary, undermine individual and internal judicial independence. They are also ineffective in enforcing judicial conduct.","PeriodicalId":13511,"journal":{"name":"Indian Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial conduct regulation: do in-house mechanisms in India uphold judicial Independence and effectively enforce judicial accountability?\",\"authors\":\"Shivaraj S. Huchhanavar\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24730580.2022.2068887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In India, judicial discipline is exclusively enforced by the judiciary through in-house mechanisms, except for the constitutional removal procedure. The founding justification for in-house mechanisms is that they are indispensable to uphold judicial independence. In this milieu, the paper attempts to answer the following question: do in-house mechanisms in India uphold judicial independence and effectively enforce judicial conduct? The study, by analysing quantitative and qualitative data from 110 subject experts (judges, lawyers, and academics), offers an initial assessment of the implications of in-house mechanisms on judicial independence and judicial conduct regulation in India. The study lays special emphasis on the efficacy of in-house mechanisms in upholding “individual” and “internal” judicial independence. It also assesses the effectiveness of in-house mechanisms in enforcing judicial conduct. It concludes that in-house mechanisms, for both higher and subordinate judiciary, undermine individual and internal judicial independence. They are also ineffective in enforcing judicial conduct.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2022.2068887\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2022.2068887","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在印度,除了宪法免职程序外,司法纪律完全由司法部门通过内部机制执行。建立内部机制的基本理由是,它们对于维护司法独立是不可或缺的。在这种背景下,本文试图回答以下问题:印度的内部机制是否维护司法独立并有效地执行司法行为?该研究通过分析来自110名学科专家(法官、律师和学者)的定量和定性数据,初步评估了内部机制对印度司法独立和司法行为监管的影响。该研究特别强调了内部机制在维护“个人”和“内部”司法独立方面的功效。它还评估内部机制在执行司法行为方面的有效性。报告的结论是,高级和下级司法机构的内部机制破坏了个人和内部司法独立。它们在执行司法行为方面也是无效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Judicial conduct regulation: do in-house mechanisms in India uphold judicial Independence and effectively enforce judicial accountability?
ABSTRACT In India, judicial discipline is exclusively enforced by the judiciary through in-house mechanisms, except for the constitutional removal procedure. The founding justification for in-house mechanisms is that they are indispensable to uphold judicial independence. In this milieu, the paper attempts to answer the following question: do in-house mechanisms in India uphold judicial independence and effectively enforce judicial conduct? The study, by analysing quantitative and qualitative data from 110 subject experts (judges, lawyers, and academics), offers an initial assessment of the implications of in-house mechanisms on judicial independence and judicial conduct regulation in India. The study lays special emphasis on the efficacy of in-house mechanisms in upholding “individual” and “internal” judicial independence. It also assesses the effectiveness of in-house mechanisms in enforcing judicial conduct. It concludes that in-house mechanisms, for both higher and subordinate judiciary, undermine individual and internal judicial independence. They are also ineffective in enforcing judicial conduct.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Interpreting without bannisters? The abstraction problem afflicting the basic structure doctrine Courts, mining conflicts, and Adivasi rights: a case study from central India (2000–2022) “ Mutated Sumangali Scheme ”: challenges in enforcement of labour laws in spinning mills of Tamil Nadu Protection of stakeholders’ interests in the Indian corporate landscape: examining the “ifs and buts” The maze of interpretation: abortion laws and legal indeterminacy in Indian courts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1