Balanced Constitutionalism

Description

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.

About the Author

Chintan Chandrachud is an associate at the London office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. He holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge, UK.

Table of contents

List of Tables and Figures
Table of Legislation
Table of Cases
Acknowledgement
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Introduction

1. Balancing Decision-making amongst Courts and Legislatures
2. Judicial Review and Political Responses
3. Comparing Political Responses in India and the United Kingdom
4. Judicial Review in the Shadow of Remedies
5. Collateral Institutions to Judicial Review

Conclusion
Appendix A: Political Responses to Judgments Striking Down Legislation in India
Appendix B: Political Responses to Declarations of Incompatibility in the United Kingdom
Index
About the Author