Judicial Review of “Internal Parliamentary Proceedings”: The Dialogic and Non-dialogic Approaches
Year: 2021
Type: article
Abstract: This article compares the internal proceedings jurisprudence of the highest courts of the United Kingdom (UK), India, and Bangladesh. Though the Supreme Courts of Bangladesh and India have shown general deference to the debates in parliament, they have shown willingness to lift the veil of those “internal proceedings” that might have constitutional questions involved. It appears that the UK, India, and Bangladesh’s respective models of judicial review and parliament-judiciary relationship influence their internal proceedings jurisprudence. While the Indian and Bangladeshi Supreme Courts’ understandings of the internal proceedings doctrine are conditioned by their self aggrandised posture of guardianship over the Constitution, the British judiciary’s approach is largely dialogic and conciliatory. Indian and Bangladeshi Supreme Courts’ adversarial approach frequently places them in direct confrontation with the legislative and political branches. While the Indian Supreme Court does not shy away from such confrontation, Bangladesh Supreme Court usually tries to avoid it and, in the process, ends up taking fluctuating and self-contradictory positions in different cases. The author argues that the UK’s dialogic model of judicial review provides for a rather congenial basis for principled judicial consideration of the internal proceedings doctrine.
Author: Chowdhury, M Jashim Ali
Language: English
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7082415993