They began at 9. Das - took their seats. Along with the Attorney General for India, M. Present too, were Prime Minister, other Ministers, Ambassadors and diplomatic representatives of foreign States, a large number of Senior and other Advocates of the Court and other distinguished visitors. Taking care to ensure that the Rules of the Supreme Court were published and the names of all the Advocates and agents of the Federal Court were brought on the rolls of the Supreme Court, the inaugural proceedings were over and put under part of the record of the Supreme Court.
After its inauguration on January 28, , the Supreme Court commenced its sittings in a part of the Parliament House.
The Court moved into the present building in It is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor to convene a selection commission: this is usually done by way of a letter to the President of the Court who chairs the selection commission.
Under changes introduced through the Crime and Courts Act the Deputy President is no longer a member of a selection commission.
Instead the President has to nominate a senior judge from anywhere in the United Kingdom, but that judge cannot be a Justice of the Supreme Court.
At least one of those representatives has to be a lay person. Under changes introduced in the Crime and Courts Act , if a commission is convened for the selection of a person to be recommended for appointment as President of the Court then the out-going President may not be a member of the commission.
In those circumstances the commission is to be chaired by one of its non-legally qualified members. The Crime and Courts Act also includes provisions in relation to diversity where candidates for judicial office are of equal merit. Under Section 9 of Schedule 13 of the Act, for appointments to the Supreme Court, where two persons are of equal merit Section of the Equality Act does not apply, but this does not prevent the commission from preferring one candidate over the other for the purpose of increasing diversity within the group of persons who are judges of the Court.
The legislation does not prescribe a process that a selection commission has to follow, although under Section 27 9 the commission must have regard to any guidance given by the Lord Chancellor as to matters to be taken into account subject to any other provision in the Act in making a selection.
In practice each selection commission determines its own process. Share This -. Your free access to Live Law has expired. Premium account gives you:. Justice J. Justice B. Nagarathna, Judge, Karnataka High Court 6.
After a criminal or civil case is tried, it may be appealed to a higher court — a federal court of appeals or state appellate court. A litigant who files an appeal, known as an "appellant," must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the outcome of the case. An appellate court makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency — it does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. It may also review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a trial outcome on factual grounds if the findings were "clearly erroneous.
Federal appeals are decided by panels of three judges. The appellant presents legal arguments to the panel, in a written document called a "brief.
On the other hand, the party defending against the appeal, known as the "appellee" or "respondent," tries in its brief to show why the trial court decision was correct, or why any errors made by the trial court are not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case.
The court of appeals usually has the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc — that is, by a larger group of judges of the court of appeals for the circuit. A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case.
The Supreme Court, however, is not obligated to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves a new and important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently.
There are also special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal. When the Supreme Court hears a case, the parties are required to file written briefs and the Court may hear oral argument. The Judicial Branch.
The Judicial Process Article III of the Constitution of the United States guarantees that every person accused of wrongdoing has the right to a fair trial before a competent judge and a jury of one's peers.
These include: A guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law Protection against being tried for the same crime twice "double jeopardy" The right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury The right to cross-examine witnesses, and to call witnesses to support their case The right to legal representation The right to avoid self-incrimination Protection from excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments Criminal proceedings can be conducted under either state or federal law, depending on the nature and extent of the crime.
0コメント