Is IPC or BNS a more Relevant Statutory Framework for Judicial Review?
constitutional clat_ug advanced poll_styleDude, I'm completely stuck on this CLAT UG ques. It's asking about the relevance of IPC and BNS in the context of judicial review. Now, my prof said IPC (Indian Penal Code) is the mother of all codes and deals with penal laws, while BNS (Bombay Nursing Home case) is all about the limits of judicial review. But honestly, which one is more relevant for JR?
Option A: IPC is more relevant because it forms the basis of penal liability and indirectly affects the exercise of judicial review.
Option B: BNS is more relevant because it directly addresses the scope and limits of judicial review in India.
So, guys, please tell me which one is correct and why? I'm too confused to even think straight anymore!
2 Comments
Main mazaak hai, I think IPC is more relevant. Judicial review is all about checking executive powers, and IPC provides a solid framework for doing so. BNS is more focused on bureaucracy, nahi IPC deals with substantive rights and liberties that are directly implicated in judicial review. So, IPC it is!
Hey guys, let's get real - IPC (Indian Penal Code) isn't directly relevant to JR (Judicial Review). It's more about criminal liability than administrative actions. BNS (British North America Act) might have historical significance, but it's not a statutory framework we use in practice. We should focus on Indian Constitution and JR rules for a more relevant framework, imo.