Wednesday, 29 October 2014

Law, fundamental vis a vis interpretative

Fundamental law as contained in any specific provision is an invariable thing until otherwise upset, either by legislation or by a judicial virdict. So, that is the most reliable plank to stand on.
The other plank is interpretation. Interpretations are of two kinds, broadly speaking. One is that which citations contain. The other is that which citations do not cover, at least directly. The latter kind are only potential concepts which ultimately get approved or disapproved by courts. 
The former kind supported by citations carry force to carry a case to its logical target.
The latter is always susceptible. It is here that litigant's own fortune works either way, especially because such interpretations are not handled single handedly. In district court it is handled by one who would be unavailable in the higher courts. Mere peripheral presence is not enough. To know how, and why, you have to further endure me, as i may cite my personal experiences that lead me to opine despairingly with regard to serious depravities that the legal segment unfortunately accosts at every level.
I write these details, because these lines are mere preludes to the exhaustive one from me , still in a formative stage.
I am also testing, whether these lines are fathomable or repugnant to a smooth reading of a discerning reader in some serious search.

No comments:

Post a Comment