Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the practices of information and communication technology (ICT) in modernizing the courts. In this context, this paper focuses on the usage of ICT in the Nepali judiciary system involving both judicial and court administration to automate judicial activities.

A narrative case study was conducted to identify the current status of technology in the judiciary system concerning court automation and administration. The information was gathered from justice, case registration officer, bench officer and admin personnel.

This study shows that technological intervention is made in the Nepali judiciary to automate judicial activities. The judicial activities, such as case registration, case automation, case hearing, the decision of cases and cause list, are of high priority and are managed through case management software. Furthermore, it demands an innovative learning environment within the judiciary to strengthen the capacity of the employees of the judiciary in the field of ICT.

This study anticipates the participant’s perception and practical aspects of technology to modernize the courts to provide better and more effective service to its stakeholders. This study carried out the perceptions of the justice, bench officer, case registration officer and admin personnel. The voice of the other stakeholders was not carried out.

This paper establishes the practical aspects of ICT in modernizing the courts to provide better services to its stakeholders. It also replicates the status of ICT in the Nepali judiciary.

This paper tries to establish the practical implications of ICT along with its importance in the judiciary of Nepal.

This paper is based on an empirical study undertaken between April 2014 to December 2014 that aims to investigate the Open Government Initiative in the Kenyan Judiciary and its contribution to Judiciary transformation for enhanced justice delivery.

The paper draws from both literature and data collected from representative professionals in the Kenyan Judiciary through interviews and questionnaires.

The findings indicated that the Kenyan Judiciary was at its initial stages of implementing its Open Government Initiative, and several strategies for the implementation were identified. Further, the findings revealed the benefits of opening up the Judiciary for public participation which pointed toward an improved justice delivery.

This paper presents findings of the investigation of Open Government Initiative in the Kenyan Judiciary as a contributory factor to the then on-going Judiciary transformation aimed at enhanced justice delivery. The paper provides a nexus between open government and records management and demonstrates the importance of sound records management for successful Open Government Initiative.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the status of independence of the judiciary in Bangladesh. It is recognized worldwide that an independent judiciary is the sin qua non of democracy and good governance. However, without separation of the judiciary from other organs of the state absolute independence of judiciary is not possible. An attempt has been made in this paper to sketch the brief historical background of judicial system in Bangladesh through analyzing the meaning and basic principles of judicial independence and to what extent these principles exists in Bangladesh. How did the judiciary finally separate from the executive? After separation of the judiciary, what is the status of executive interference over judiciary in Bangladesh has also been evaluated in this paper.

The study is qualitative in nature and based on secondary sources of materials like books, journal articles, government rules, newspaper reports, etc. Relevant literature has also been collected through Internet browsing.

In this study, it has been found that from time immemorial the judicial system of Bangladesh was not completely independent from the interference of the executive branch of the government. It has also been found that from the beginning of the British colonial rule, the question of separation of the judiciary from the executive had been a continuing debate. Presently, even after separation of the judiciary, the interference of the executive over the judiciary is still continuing.

This paper opens a new window for the policy makers and concerned authorities to take necessary steps for overcoming the existing limitations of the status of judicial dependence in Bangladesh.

The paper will be of interest to legal practitioners, policy makers, members of civil society, and those in the field of judicial system in Bangladesh and some other British colonial common law countries.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the role of the judiciary in ensuring legal accountability of government officials and its impact on governance in the context of Bangladesh. Although, the judicial system of Bangladesh comprises Supreme Court, subordinate courts and tribunals. However, this study focuses Supreme Court only to keep the study in a manageable extent.

The study is qualitative in nature and based on content analysis. Dhaka Law Report (DLR), which is a monthly published report on case laws[1] decided by the Supreme Court has been selected as content for this study. Some case laws selected from DLR (2004‐2008) were analyzed using purposive sampling method, with a view to evaluating the effectiveness of judiciary (as an external but formal mechanism of accountability) in accountability of government administration and management and its impact on overall governance.

The most important finding of this paper is that the judiciary is very effective for ensuring legal accountability of government officials, which ultimately contributes to human rights and good governance. However, a major problem found was that until and unless an affected person files a case against a government authority, maintaining the required procedures of judiciary, it (the judiciary) has no scope to settle any disputes. Though there is a provision of Suo Muto (by own initiative) rule of the Supreme Court, this practice is very rare in Bangladesh. Furthermore, the executive is responsible for implementing the verdict of the judiciary. Therefore, if the government has not enough respect for, or does not care to implement judiciary's verdict, justice and rule of law will not be ensured. This study also found some cases like this.

This work does not address detailed issues of governance and is not based on empirical data.

This is a mixed study of judiciary and public administration, which is very rare in Bangladesh. Therefore, it will be brought into line with current practice by the concerned researchers and policy makers in public administration and judiciary.

This paper will be of interest to legal practitioners, policy makers, academicians and those in the field of governance.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the practices of knowledge management (KM) by the Justices and bench officers of Judiciary of Nepal. The aim of this study is to explore the KM practices by the Justices and bench officers of the Supreme Court of Nepal during the process of the decision-making process and Judgmental preparing process.

The qualitative design and case study method was applied to this research. The information were collected from the Justices and bench officers of the Supreme Court of Nepal by using an interview of the participants.

It was essential to establish the KM in judiciary in the process of case hearing, decision-making and execution process. The KM tool and techniques help to make the employee of judiciary including justices to make a decision faster. It also establishes the values of the KM in judiciary from Judicial and administrative perspectives.

The study anticipated the participants’ perceptions and practices of KM during the process of case hearing, decision-making and decision execution process of the case. This research was not viewed from the perspectives of judicial administration. The research participants of this study were Justices and bench officers of the Supreme Court of Nepal. So, it reflects the scenario of practices of Supreme court of Nepal.

This paper provides support for the importance of KM practices and awareness in judiciary to enhance the decision-making process during the case hearing process by the Justices in court.

This paper tries to establish practical implication along with its importance in Judiciary of Nepal.

One of the most dramatic controversies over judicial independence in the United States occurred at the state level, in antebellum Kentucky, when two entirely different state high courts remained in operation, each claiming to be the only legitimate tribunal. This chapter describes Kentucky's two-court crisis, but focuses primarily on the constitutional convention of 1849, which followed it. Through the lens of modern scholarship about judicial independence, the lessons that antebellum Kentuckians drew from their own history seem quite counterintuitive. They did not view their project of judicial design as a matter of balancing judicial independence with accountability, a task that many modern scholars of American politics have posited as the central problem of judicial design. Instead, Kentucky's constitutional convention sought to structure an institution that would allow the state's courts to respond to popular sentiment without compromising their independence. Thus, these debates suggest frameworks for understanding judicial independence that do not pit independence against judicial accountability or popular politics, but attempt to discern which forms of politics threaten the independence of courts, and which forms may not.

This chapter addresses commentary about constitutional law and politics in this current era of a conservative domination of the judiciary.¹ Its primary concern is the different ways in which a working majority on the Court and its judiciary of appointees by Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush might be conservative,² and the different ways in which domination might take place.³ The frame for the chapter is what I call an “indifference thesis” for analyzing constitutional law and politics. Stated boldly, the thesis is that there should be a commentary distinguished by an interpretive attitude that distrusts, and intentionally resists, analysis based on preconceived notions about the strengths and weaknesses of any constitutional law and politics, be it conservative or left-liberal.⁴ Perhaps, to many readers, an indifference thesis for commentary appears methodologically odd, if not politically perverse. Therefore, the first order of business is to try to make the thesis less odd and perverse by explaining its provenance and attributes.⁵

This paper aims to examine the growing incidence of judicialisation of politics in Nigeria's democratisation experience against the backdrop of questionable judicial accountability.

The article draws on legal and political theory as well as comparative law perspectives.

The judiciary faces a daunting task in deepening democracy and (re) instituting the rule of law. The formidable challenges derive in part from structural problems within the judiciary, deficient accountability credentials and the complexities of a troubled transition.

Effective judicial mediation of political transition requires a transformed and accountable judiciary.

The article calls attention to the need for judicial accountability as a cardinal and integral part of political transitions.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the different performance-based budgeting models used in the judiciaries of three European countries: Italy, Finland and the Netherlands. In particular, this paper focusses on the criteria adopted by these three countries to fund the courts, and it analyses the effects of these criteria on the distribution of resources and performance variability among first instance courts.

This exploratory research is based on a literature review and data analysis of three case studies. Equity in resource distribution and equality in courts' performance are assessed using the coefficient of variation.

The preliminary findings suggest the following: (1) funding models with a close link between performance and budget better guarantee equitable allocation of resources among courts and, therefore, more equal performance among courts within a country; (2) unbalanced allocation of resources is associated with disparities among courts in terms of judicial efficiency and effectiveness and consequently, unequal treatment of/outcomes for citizens coming before the law.

This paper is part of a broader research project aimed at analysing the impact of performance budgeting on the efficiency, quality, organization and values of judiciaries. This study only considers quantitative aspects of performance, but it will be followed by further analysis that will explore performance and judicial budgeting from other perspectives.

This paper describes examples of three different models of performance-based judicial budgeting from other countries, which aim to reform the budgeting processes of the judiciaries in question. The paper emphasizes the importance of adopting rational and transparent funding criteria in order to ensure judicial independence and accountability and to balance courts' performance, guaranteeing the principle that every citizen must obtain the same treatment before the law.

This paper contributes to the existing performance-based budgeting literature by studying its application to the judiciary, which, due to its peculiarities, is an area that has been overlooked in previous studies and deserves further attention. This study contributes to the court administration literature by exploring the issue of budgeting, which, despite its importance, is still a neglected subject.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the legendary decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Apart from this, the author’s aim is to analyse the constitutional interpretation done by the Higher Judiciary of the Country. Another aim of this note is to simplify the decision of this case for the understanding of the mass people and law students.

To conclude this paper, both qualitative and analytical methods have been used.

In this paper, a summarized fact of the case has been presented. In addition to that, decision of the High Court Division in the Writ petition has been simplified with six simple points. Moreover, major arguments submitted by both the Appellant’s and Respondent’s Lawyers have been summarized. Decision of the Appellate Division has been simplified with 12 simple points along with the reasoning behind the judgement.

In this paper, only the case of Secretary, Ministry of Finance vs Md. Masdar Hossain and Others has been studied and analysed in depth.

This paper will mainly help the Law and Social Science students for simply understanding the decision and the reasoning behind the decision of the case. Apart from that, this case noting will help both academics and legal professionals to study this case within a short period.

This paper will help mass people who want to study about this case to simply understand the case in depth. In addition to that, people will get known about the procedure hoe the subordinate judiciary of Bangladesh became independent.

This conceptual paper is the original piece of work and is not under review in any other journal. This paper has not been published previously in any other journal.