(1) One who enjoys power to make law and execute such law is real ruler of law. In this sense, legislature as mother of law and executive as child of such mother empowered to put law in motion are real rulers of law.
(2) It is debatable whether the judiciary is father of law. The judiciary has been assigned with basic role of only checking and declaring only two things viz. (a) whether legislative law is real law in terms of supreme law called constitutional law, which supreme law is also made by founding legislature called constituent assembly and (b) if yes to declare such law as real law, then whether executive action of executive is really correct action in terms of such real law.
(3) But if whole reality of law itself lies within domain of legislative mother and executive child as aforesaid, what will judicial father do just by his checking and declaratory role as aforesaid? Let people understand this reality of judicial father and catch the neck of legislative mother and executive child, who have truly dominated the whole show of democracy as real rulers of law, for their justice than running after judicial father for their justice.
(4) It is pertinent to note that legislature, executive and judiciary are only representative agencies of people and only people are their principal authority. The agent should never be allowed to supersede the original authority of principal. But what is happening is that principal is made to run after his agent for his justice. This is nothing but humiliation of principal by his agent. Is this the true meaning of rule of law? Who is real ruler of law in democracy, people as principal or legislature, executive and judiciary as agents of such people? -Adv.B.S.More
कोणत्याही टिप्पण्या नाहीत:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा