Judicial system is a wholesome service rendering enterprise wherein several stake holders have to play their respective roles.
Justice is sought competitively, envyingly , compellingly,and many a times cunningly.
Justice sought has different shapes, sizes and dimensions for different stake holder and the quantity and quality of justice is also dependent on efficiency, vision, objectivity, benchmarks stipulated , limitations created and above all is ultimately controlled to a extent by subjectivity of the stake holders including the service-provider and law at the relevant moment.
The whole system while in action passes several acid tests and has to fare through several phases of risks.
One of the risk is the process itself being misused, abused.
Those responsible to channelise this JDS must consciously and eagerly watch the journey of each litigation so that the journey may not become meaningless or fruitless or a tool of sheer oppressiion.
The inbuilt rigidity in codified law some times become an obstacle in the pathway of justice and this rigidity having been perceived by cunning stake holders is used as a tool to abuse JDS.
At the same time the discretion vested in various service providers , or the inherent operational hazards, communication gaps, geographical constraints, conflicting time and speed more than often tend to block the path of Justice and makes the whole purpose of JDs irrelevant .
The inadequate investment of resources, the sub-standard resources invested or intentional use of this resource -starving- technique or forcing the JDS to stick to the wall or be subjected to law of diminishing its at-least marginal utility are other reasons whereby this JDS may be grossly abused or can be rendered meaningless.
What is exactly meant by 'abuse of process'. In fact this phrase is used even in statute governing the procedures in court.
Does it mean just bending the law in a case where a strict and literal interpretation of a statute would do injustice to the case at hand.
No. It does not amount to abuse when flexibility is invested with a view to bring the real meaning and content of the word and phrases in the enactment.
The legislative intnt is the thing the judge is after.
Interpretation is a judicial skill.
When a word means one thing in the colloquial sense but has acquired a different import in legal sense, the judge has to carefully find out which meaning was meant to be conveyed bythe author when the judge is called upon to interpret the writing.
So plurality of meanings of the same word presents a risk a judge has to manage in addition to many other risks.
Justice is sought competitively, envyingly , compellingly,and many a times cunningly.
Justice sought has different shapes, sizes and dimensions for different stake holder and the quantity and quality of justice is also dependent on efficiency, vision, objectivity, benchmarks stipulated , limitations created and above all is ultimately controlled to a extent by subjectivity of the stake holders including the service-provider and law at the relevant moment.
The whole system while in action passes several acid tests and has to fare through several phases of risks.
One of the risk is the process itself being misused, abused.
Those responsible to channelise this JDS must consciously and eagerly watch the journey of each litigation so that the journey may not become meaningless or fruitless or a tool of sheer oppressiion.
The inbuilt rigidity in codified law some times become an obstacle in the pathway of justice and this rigidity having been perceived by cunning stake holders is used as a tool to abuse JDS.
At the same time the discretion vested in various service providers , or the inherent operational hazards, communication gaps, geographical constraints, conflicting time and speed more than often tend to block the path of Justice and makes the whole purpose of JDs irrelevant .
The inadequate investment of resources, the sub-standard resources invested or intentional use of this resource -starving- technique or forcing the JDS to stick to the wall or be subjected to law of diminishing its at-least marginal utility are other reasons whereby this JDS may be grossly abused or can be rendered meaningless.
What is exactly meant by 'abuse of process'. In fact this phrase is used even in statute governing the procedures in court.
Does it mean just bending the law in a case where a strict and literal interpretation of a statute would do injustice to the case at hand.
No. It does not amount to abuse when flexibility is invested with a view to bring the real meaning and content of the word and phrases in the enactment.
The legislative intnt is the thing the judge is after.
Interpretation is a judicial skill.
When a word means one thing in the colloquial sense but has acquired a different import in legal sense, the judge has to carefully find out which meaning was meant to be conveyed bythe author when the judge is called upon to interpret the writing.
So plurality of meanings of the same word presents a risk a judge has to manage in addition to many other risks.
No comments:
Post a Comment