THE NEO-JURISPRUDENCE OF PIL IN SUPERIOR COURTS OF PAKISTAN: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRE AND POST LAWYERS’ MOVEMENT WORKING OF SUPERIOR COURTS

Hatim Aziz Solangi
{"title":"THE NEO-JURISPRUDENCE OF PIL IN SUPERIOR COURTS OF PAKISTAN: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRE AND POST LAWYERS’ MOVEMENT WORKING OF SUPERIOR COURTS","authors":"Hatim Aziz Solangi","doi":"10.46568/jssh.v60i1.444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The dynamics of the superior judiciary in Pakistan have undergone a drastic transformation in its approach and working in post 2007 emergency followed by a landmark movement of civil and legal fraternity for restoration of constitutional supremacy. The neo-jurisprudence is being applauded and criticized at the same time.  The excessive use of Suo-motto and public interest litigation at one hand and frequent judicial review of executive and legislative action on other have been the main source of contention between judiciary and other two pillars of state, legislature and executive. The Superior Court is being recognized as the ultimate savior of fundamental rights and guardian of the constitution as well as rights of the people. At the other extreme, the criticism like activist judiciary; disrespect for popular will and making rather interpreting law are most commonly attributed to Superior Judiciary. The study is qualitative in nature and presents a comparative analysis of trends in Superior Court before and after Lawyers’ movement. The study also aims in justifying the proactive approach especially in providing social justice on failure of state organs to respond to the exigency of time.","PeriodicalId":93162,"journal":{"name":"American journal of social sciences and humanities","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of social sciences and humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46568/jssh.v60i1.444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The dynamics of the superior judiciary in Pakistan have undergone a drastic transformation in its approach and working in post 2007 emergency followed by a landmark movement of civil and legal fraternity for restoration of constitutional supremacy. The neo-jurisprudence is being applauded and criticized at the same time.  The excessive use of Suo-motto and public interest litigation at one hand and frequent judicial review of executive and legislative action on other have been the main source of contention between judiciary and other two pillars of state, legislature and executive. The Superior Court is being recognized as the ultimate savior of fundamental rights and guardian of the constitution as well as rights of the people. At the other extreme, the criticism like activist judiciary; disrespect for popular will and making rather interpreting law are most commonly attributed to Superior Judiciary. The study is qualitative in nature and presents a comparative analysis of trends in Superior Court before and after Lawyers’ movement. The study also aims in justifying the proactive approach especially in providing social justice on failure of state organs to respond to the exigency of time.
巴基斯坦高等法院公益诉讼的新法理学:高等法院前后律师运动工作的比较分析
巴基斯坦高级司法机构的动态在2007年后的紧急情况下,其方法和工作发生了巨大变化,随后发生了具有里程碑意义的民事和法律兄弟运动,以恢复宪法至上。新法理学在受到赞扬的同时也受到批评。司法机关与立法机关、立法机关这两大国家支柱之间的争论,一方面是对“索义”和公益诉讼的过度使用,另一方面是对行政机关和立法机关行为的频繁司法审查。大法院被认为是基本权利的最终救星,是宪法和国民权利的守护者。在另一个极端,批评像激进的司法;对民意的不尊重和对法律的不合理解释是最高司法机构最常见的原因。本研究本质上是定性的,并对律师运动前后高等法院的趋势进行了比较分析。该研究还旨在证明主动方法的合理性,特别是在国家机关未能及时应对紧急情况时提供社会正义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信