Convincing Features
Assignment Type
Subject
Uploaded by Malaysia Assignment Help
Date
The idea of judicial activism entails the judges taking an active role in making sure that the rights and liberties of the people are protected. He continued by saying that the court transcends its typical function as a merely neutral arbitrator of disputes and becomes an active participant in the nation’s system. Judicial activism describes judicial rulings or pronouncements that are thought to be based more on unwritten law than on personal, political, or other considerations.
Judicial restraint restricts judges to strictly interpreting the law. Encourage their judges to exercise restraint in their use of authority. In some cases, it is thought that judges obstruct the drafting of laws. There might be circumstances where the judge needs to make laws. especially when there is an obvious legal gap or when there are issues that parliament was unable to resolve. Such in the case of Indra Ghani, in which the judge was granted authority to rule on child conversion cases. There are many cases in
Malaysia where judges did have to make law rather than interpret the law.
In the case of Badan Peguam Malaysia v. Kerajaan Malaysia, the Malaysian Bar argued that it was unconstitutional and in violation of Article 123 of the Federal Constitution that a UM law lecturer who had only 10 years of experience teaching law had been appointed as a judge. Dr. Badariah Sahamid earned a first–class law degree from UM and a master’s degree in law from the London School of Economics. In 1977, after completing her pupillage, she was admitted to the bar. She never applied for or was granted a practising ertificate, which would have allowed her to work as a lawyer and advocate.
So, the question was whether “advocates of the courts” under Article 123 require a person to have been practising for ten years prior to the appointment, and if so, whether Dr. Badariah was qualified in law to hold the position. The Federal Court ruled that her appointment was legitimate after defining the term “profession” to include the “teaching profession.” The term “practising law” was interpreted broadly and actively because the Federal Constitution should be interpreted more liberally than other laws.
Stuck in This Assignment? Deadlines Are Near?
After the tun Salleh Abbas case, where the judicial power of the courts was eliminated and judges were given the authority to extend federal law only as far as what federal law confers upon them, Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution was amended. The purpose of this clause is to deny judges any prerogative (absolute) or inherent power to restrain the government. those who favour judges taking an active role in order to restrain the government.
According to the Constitution, the primary function of the legislature is to make law, that of the executive is to execute law and that of the judiciary is to translate the law. The issue is whether Judicial Activism against the separation of power could not be true this is because judicial activism happens when both the executive and the legislature fail to carry out their respective duties effectively, and their respective areas of administrative power overlap. The democracy of the nation is harmed when the legislature fails to pass laws to address the rapidly changing conditions and demands of society and when the government fails to carry out its administrative duties. Consequently, this is one widely acknowledged explanation for the rise in judicial activism. Futhermore, the citizen of Malaysia look to the nation’s judicial system to uphold their freedom and fundamental rights or to determine whether other citizen rights are being violated. The judiciary cannot merely stand by and watch as wrongdoing against the people takes place. The judges in such cases are required to act as responsible citizens and address the complaints.
Therefore, activism is accepted in order to obtain proper relief. Indeed it is not a threat to the doctrine of separation of powers but the social transformation if the executive and the legislature couldn’t cope up and fail to provide the pathway in the current situations due to lack of understanding or negligence, incompetence of the other organs. Hence, the judicial activism has emerged to avoid the non–activism of the legislature and the executive. In conclusion, Separation of power is the essential feature established under our Constitution by division of powers between the three important wings of Legislatures, the Executive and the Judiciary.
However there is absence of specific provisions in the Constitution exclusively vesting legislative powers in the legislature and judicial powers in the judiciary but can be filled with judicial activism where the judicial decision making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions. Thus, judicial activism is not against the doctrine separation of power as it remain the essence of the Constitution in Malaysia.
Achieve jurisprudential excellence with our dedicated support for Malaysian students in LAW511. As the top Final Year Project Help and Assignment Helper in Malaysia, we specialize in ensuring success in your Jurisprudence final examination. With expert guidance, Malaysian students can confidently prepare comprehensively and gain a deep understanding of jurisprudence concepts. Choose our seasoned experts to pave the way for excellence in LAW511, turning your academic goals into achievements.
