Nilisema hakuna jaji wa ku-handle kesi ya Spika et al. Hakuna mwenye intellect wa ku-handle kesi kama hiyo! Kulita alikuwa juzi Magistrate courts anatoa hukumu za hovyo, leo unampa kesi inayohitaji high power mental reasoning faculties, hawezi hata kidogo! Angalia wenzao Kenya, level of reasoning in the attachment below.
Angalia argument za high power mental thinking India kuwa Speaker has to abide by constitution.
First, India has a written constitution. All organs of the state (including the Speaker) must abide by the Constitution. Any violation is liable to be struck down by the courts. This separation of powers is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Allowing the Speaker to violate the constitution without any recourse to judicial review impinges upon this basic feature of the Indian Constitution.
Second, Britain does not have a written constitution. Therefore, it is impossible for the British Speaker to violate the constitution. The British Speaker can only violate the rules made by either Houses of the British Parliament or procedural laws enacted by both of them. These being 'internal matters' of the Houses, such violations are immune from judicial review.
In contrast, India has a written constitution. Certain law making procedures are prescribed by the Indian Constitution (like the money bill procedure), while some other procedures are prescribed through rules by both the Houses of the Indian Parliament (like voting on bills and resolutions). Similar to Britain, the rules made by the Indian Parliament are treated as 'internal matters' of the Houses and hence cannot be immune from judicial review. This explains why the Indian constitution framers did not explicitly bar judicial review of the Speaker's decision as is the case in Britain.
Final’ Decisions Have Been Questioned By Supreme Court Decisions of various authorities have been given "final" status under the Indian Constitution. Yet the Supreme Court has on multiple occasions exercised judicial review over such decisions. For instance, in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (AIR 1993 SC 412), the "final" decision of the Speaker regarding disqualification of members of the House disqualification of members of the House under Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, has been held to be a judicial decision subject to judicial review. This suggests that the “final” status given by the Indian constitution does not automatically immune the Indian Speaker's decision or certificate from judicial review
RIP Mwalusanya, Lugakingira, Katiti! Bold spirits!
Angalia argument za high power mental thinking India kuwa Speaker has to abide by constitution.
First, India has a written constitution. All organs of the state (including the Speaker) must abide by the Constitution. Any violation is liable to be struck down by the courts. This separation of powers is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Allowing the Speaker to violate the constitution without any recourse to judicial review impinges upon this basic feature of the Indian Constitution.
Second, Britain does not have a written constitution. Therefore, it is impossible for the British Speaker to violate the constitution. The British Speaker can only violate the rules made by either Houses of the British Parliament or procedural laws enacted by both of them. These being 'internal matters' of the Houses, such violations are immune from judicial review.
In contrast, India has a written constitution. Certain law making procedures are prescribed by the Indian Constitution (like the money bill procedure), while some other procedures are prescribed through rules by both the Houses of the Indian Parliament (like voting on bills and resolutions). Similar to Britain, the rules made by the Indian Parliament are treated as 'internal matters' of the Houses and hence cannot be immune from judicial review. This explains why the Indian constitution framers did not explicitly bar judicial review of the Speaker's decision as is the case in Britain.
Final’ Decisions Have Been Questioned By Supreme Court Decisions of various authorities have been given "final" status under the Indian Constitution. Yet the Supreme Court has on multiple occasions exercised judicial review over such decisions. For instance, in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (AIR 1993 SC 412), the "final" decision of the Speaker regarding disqualification of members of the House disqualification of members of the House under Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, has been held to be a judicial decision subject to judicial review. This suggests that the “final” status given by the Indian constitution does not automatically immune the Indian Speaker's decision or certificate from judicial review
RIP Mwalusanya, Lugakingira, Katiti! Bold spirits!
