Judicial power in India has been in flux in recent years with the Supreme Court and the apex court all having different interpretations of the word.
But the word, which stands for judicial administration, has remained relatively stable over the years, with the courts having a wide variety of interpretations.
The court has said the word should be defined in two ways, as “judicial” and “judicial administration.”
The word has come under strain, however, as some argue that the word “judicial,” while it sounds the same, has no connotations, so it should be removed.
The word is a word that has come to symbolize the power of the state.
It is a part of the vocabulary of the country and a part that we use.
In this sense, the word has been a part and parcel of the political discourse.
But that is no longer the case, according to the Supreme Judicial Tribunal of India.
The Supreme Court said the term should not be considered synonymous with “judicial.”
Justice A.S. Mehta, who is a senior advocate, said it should not.
“It is a matter of semantics and a matter that is being decided by the Supreme court and I would say that the Supreme judicial tribunal has no power to define judicial power,” he told NDTV.
The Supreme Court also clarified that the definition should not imply that the judiciary is part of state administration.
“We should not think that the courts are in the same category as government departments or departments of government,” Justice Mehtam said.
However, a group of lawyers from the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR) called on the Supreme Supreme Court to remove the word because of its ambiguous connotations.
“If the word is not defined as judicial administration then what we have is the definition of a state department,” said CCR chief lawyer G.K. Narayanan.
“That is the word and there is no doubt that the court is wrong to accept the word as being synonymous with the word.”
The Supreme Judicial Commission has been tasked with drafting a dictionary of the words, with a final draft due in February.
The commission has a list of 4,000 words used in the Indian lexicon.
The term ‘judicial’ has been around for centuries, but the word ‘judicial administration’ is the latest in a string of attempts by the state to redefine the word through word-by-word definitions.
In 2015, the Supreme Commission for India Dictionary (SCID) asked for the definition to be changed to ‘judicial, administrative’.
In 2016, it asked for a new definition of ‘judicial’, with a more inclusive definition of “judicial authority.”
The SCID also asked for more specific definitions of “judiciously”.
In March, the SCID issued guidelines for the dictionary that called for more specificity in defining the word: “the term should be applied to the role of a government department, as distinct from the role that the government plays in the economy.”
The commission also clarified: “The word judicial should not mean ‘judiciary’ or ‘judge.'”
The court also clarified, however: “It should not have a connotation of a person, agency, institution or authority.”
A new definition for ‘judicial power’The Supreme Council for Legal Education (SCLEE) has said that the term ‘judicious’ should be changed because it is “unclear how it can be applied.”
“This term is used to describe a person or institution which is exercising judicial discretion, such as the judiciary, the legislature or any other body, and which is empowered to issue orders or to take decisions on matters of law or equity, to declare or to determine the law, and to declare the facts and the law,” the SCLEE said in its guidelines.
The word has no meaning in English, it added.
The SCLEe guidelines also clarified what constitutes ‘judicial power’: “Judicial power is an inherent right and a right not conferred by the law.”
In a recent opinion piece in The Hindu newspaper, Justice J.
S Mohan said that “judicially appointed judges” should not interpret laws by “reading the language” but should rather use “word-by word definitions” in order to decide on whether a law violates the rights of the individual.
“Judicial authority” should instead be defined as “political authority,” Justice Mohan wrote.
“Political authority is conferred by law.”
The case for ‘judicious’Supreme Court chief justice, J. Chelameswar, has repeatedly said that he would not change the definition, arguing that it is the “language of the constitution.”
“I think the word judicious, if we look at the Constitution, it is clearly in the context of the concept of judiciary,” he said in February 2015.
“The word judicially, in its broad sense, is a concept which is intended to define political power,” Justice Chelameswari said. “If you