Volume : 2, Issue : 3, MAR 2016

THE CHIEF DUTY OF JUDICIARY TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA

Dr.R. RAJARAJAN

Abstract

Judicial Process is an important armor of judiciary. However, when exercised to protect human rights guaranteed under international law and the treaties to which state is a party, and in the absence of proper executive, legislative action to uphold the rights guaranteed by constitution, it attracts a stern amount of criticism. AThis paper subtly attempts to examine the concept of judicial process or judicial activism employed by Indian judiciary, especially, upholding fundamental human rights of citizens. It further delineates, the limitations within which the judges need to exercise due caution to avoid such criticisms, and, to provide the sought remedial mechanism without crossing the limitations as advocated by the constitution.

Keywords

Indian Judiciary, International Law, Judicial Process, Human rights.

Article : Download PDF

Cite This Article

Article No : 9

Number of Downloads : 161

References

[1] Antaki, C. (2008). Discourse analysis and conversation analy-
sis. P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen, The SAGE Handbook
of
Social
Research
Methods,
431-447.

[2] Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language
usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and politeness:
Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University
Press.

[3] Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of
pragmatics, 32(10), 1439-1465. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language
as
social
semiotic.

[4] Arnold: London. _______. (1989). Spoken and written language.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press.
[5] Hertog, E. (2015). Looking back while going forward: 15 years
of l egal i nterpreti ng i n the EU. TRANS: Revi sta de
Traductología, (19), 15-31.
[6] Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements

in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213-231.
_______, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania
Press.
[7] Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer's meaning and intention. The
philosophical review, 147-177.
[8] Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies (Vol. 1). Cambridge
University
Press.

[9] Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, Linguistics. Narrative
Inequality. Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing interpreting
studies. Routledge.
[10] Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest
systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.
Language,
696-735.

[11] Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). 18 Critical discourse analysis. In The
handbook of discourse analysis, 349- 371. Wadensjo, C. (1998).
Interpreting as interaction. Longman.