印度司法审查制度研究

发布时间：2018-05-06 22:14

本文选题：印度 + 司法审查　；参考：《山东大学》2009年硕士论文

【摘要】： 印度是一个有着悠久历史的国家,古印度法的基本内容是以种姓制度为核心,与宗教紧密结合的,种姓制度贯穿于印度法的始终,成为印度法的精髓。随着殖民主义的入侵,印度受到了以英国为代表的西方法治的影响,并以此为契机拉开了印度法制现代化的序幕。英国统治时期颁布的一系列的法案奠定了独立之后印度的政府形式以及司法体制的初步框架。在结合了本土特色的基础之上,印度也实行三权分立,独立之前的印度就存在类似于司法审查的活动;独立之后,原来的联邦法院经过一些变动成为印度的最高法院。印度的法院系统是单一的,同时采取了英国式的议会主权制度,但是在司法审查的模式选择上却逐步走向了美国式的司法审查,这与当初的制宪者们的初衷是不相吻合的,因为他们看中的是英国威斯敏斯特模式的司法审查,议会主权是不容挑战的,这与建国之初的经济改革是紧密联系的,这一背景要求议会有足够的权威来推行新的改革尤其是土地政策。同时英国式的法学教育模式也使得印度的法官以一种十分实证的方式来解释宪法,因此建国之后的二十年中,印度的司法审查是十分消极的,表现为一种亲立法的倾向,法院与国会之间的冲突不是很明显。 1967年的Golak Nath vs.Punjab案中,最高法院以6:5的微弱多数作出判决,判决指出,国会不能通过修改宪法来剥夺或者克减公民的基本权利。作为报复,国会马上对宪法进行修改,做出了第24宪法修正案,明确表示国会修宪的权力是不受限制的。到了1973年的Kesavananda Bhaxati vs.State of Kerala案中,法院则认为虽然国会有权修改宪法的任何条款,但是其修改不能改变宪法的基本结构,正式提出了宪法的基本结构原则,这是司法权对立法机关修宪权的限制。这一原则的提出成为印度司法审查史上一个非常重要的事件,也正是这一理论使得印度法院的角色受到诸多的争议,司法能动主义开始被广泛讨论。法院开始以积极的作为形式来行使其司法审查权。 80年代的司法审查集中表现为对公民基本权利的保障,如生命自由权、平等权以及法律的正当程序等;进入90年代后,日益增长的社会公益诉讼是印度司法机关所面临的问题,通过借助对公益诉讼案件的审查来行使司法审查权是这一时期的一个特点。因此,在印独立之后的不同阶段,司法审查的力度又是不同的,并且其理论也是不断丰富的。本文试图对印度的司法审查作一个系统的分析和阐述,从理论基础到发展阶段,从审查对象到审查方式以及审查依据,印度的司法审查既有一般的司法审查的理论,同时又具有自身的特点,如上所述的基本结构原则就是印度司法机关在行使司法审查权的过程中发展出来的一种理论。同时在司法审查的对象方面,一般国家对于政治行为都不进行审查,目的是为了保持权力的分立与制衡,但是印度的法院却可以对政治行为进行审查;对于如何协调国家的政策指导性原则与公民基本权利之间的关系也是印度司法机关在行使司法审查权过程中要考虑的。这些都体现了印度司法审查的特点。同样是议会主权制的国家,中国的司法审查制较之印度有很大的差距,这就为我国的司法审查制度的进一步完善提供了一些可以借鉴的东西。
[Abstract]:India is a country with a long history. The basic content of the ancient India law is the core of the caste system and the close combination with religion. The caste system runs through the India law and becomes the essence of the law of India. With the invasion of colonialism, India was influenced by the rule of law in the west, represented by the United Kingdom, and took this opportunity to open. The prelude to the modernization of India's legal system. A series of bills issued during the period of British rule laid a preliminary framework for the form of government and the judicial system of India after independence.
On the basis of combining the local characteristics, India also implemented the separation of the three powers. Before independence, India had an activity similar to the judicial review; after independence, the original federal court had become the Supreme Court of India after some changes. The system of the court of India was single, while the British parliamentary sovereignty system was adopted, but in the same time, the system of British parliamentary sovereignty was adopted. The mode of judicial review has gradually moved towards the American judicial review, which is not consistent with the original intention of the original constitution makers, because they have seen the judicial review of the British Westminster model, and the parliamentary sovereignty is not challenging, which is closely related to the economic reform at the beginning of the founding of the people's Republic of China. There will be enough authority to carry out the new reform, especially the land policy. Meanwhile, the British law education model also makes the judges of India explain the Constitution in a very positive way, so in the twenty years after the founding of the people's Republic of China, the judicial review of India is very negative, and it appears to be a pro legislative tendency, between the court and the Congress. The conflict is not very obvious.
In the Golak Nath vs.Punjab case of 1967, the Supreme Court made a verdict by a weak majority of 6:5. The decision pointed out that Congress could not deprive or derogate the basic rights of citizens by amending the constitution. As a retaliation, the Congress immediately revised the Constitution and made a twenty-fourth constitutional amendment, making it clear that the power of the constitutional amendment was unrestricted. In the case of Kesavananda Bhaxati vs.State of Kerala in 1973, the court held that although Congress had the right to amend any provisions of the constitution, its revision could not change the basic structure of the Constitution and formally put forward the basic structural principles of the constitution, which was the limitation of the constitutional right to the legislature by the judicial power. This principle was proposed to be the India division. It was a very important event in the history of law review, and it was the theory that made the role of the court in India many disputes, and the judicial activism began to be widely discussed. The court began to exercise its judicial review in a positive form.
The judicial review in 80s was concentrated on the guarantee of the basic rights of citizens, such as the right to freedom of life, the right to equality and the due process of law. After the 90s, the growing social public interest litigation was a problem faced by the judicial organs of India, and the right to exercise judicial review through the review of public interest litigation cases was the moment. A characteristic of the period.
Therefore, in different stages after the independence of India, the intensity of judicial review is different, and its theory is also constantly enriched.
This article tries to make a systematic analysis and exposition of the judicial review in India, from the theoretical basis to the stage of development, from the object of examination to the mode of examination and the basis of the review. The judicial review in India has both the theory of general judicial review and its own characteristics, such as the basic structure principle described above is the judicial organ of India. A theory developed in the process of exercising the right of judicial review. At the same time, in the object of judicial review, the general state does not examine the political behavior, in order to maintain the separation and balance of power, but the courts in India can examine the political behavior, and how to coordinate the guiding principles of the country's policy. The relationship with the basic rights of citizens is also considered in the process of exercising judicial review in the judicial organs of India. These all reflect the characteristics of the judicial review of India.
As a country with parliamentary sovereignty, China's judicial review system has a big gap compared with India, which provides some useful lessons for the further improvement of the judicial review system in China.

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：DD916;D935.1

【参考文献】