
The Human Rights Act (HRA) of the UK, 1998, unlike systems of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy, promised a new, 'balanced' model for the protection of rights, which conferred courts with limited power of review over legislation. This book examines the promise of the new model against its performance in practice by comparing judicial review under the HRA to an exemplar of the old model of judicial review, the Indian Constitution. Balanced constitutionalism is not achieved through the legislative rejection of judicial decision-making about rights. Instead, the nature of the remedy under the HRA enables British courts to assert their genuine interpretations of rights in situations in which Indian courts find it difficult to do so.
This book investigates whether the 'balanced' model of rights protection under the UK's Human Rights Act effectively reconciles parliamentary sovereignty with judicial review when compared to the Indian constitutional framework. Chintan Chandrachud, a legal scholar, utilizes a comparative methodology to analyze how courts in both jurisdictions navigate the interpretation and enforcement of rights. The author argues that the specific remedial structure of the UK's Human Rights Act allows for a distinct form of judicial influence that differs significantly from the Indian model of judicial supremacy.
What You Will Find
Scope Limits
Legal scholars and practitioners frequently cite this work as a rigorous contribution to comparative constitutional studies. Experts highlight the text for its analytical clarity and its nuanced approach to the intersection of legislative authority and judicial interpretation.
Page Count:
352
Publication Date:
2020-10-27
Publisher:
Oxford University Press
ISBN-10:
0190127678
ISBN-13:
9780190127671
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!