Philosophy of the Expository and Censorial Justice
The first question that comes to the mind is that, what is jurisprudence? Is it the science of law, philosophy of law or knowledge of law? The axiomatic question which arises is that what is the relationship of expositorial and censorial jurisprudence and justice. In other words what are the dynamic contents and propositions of the expositorial legal theory, and how it can be differentiated from the censorial philosophy of rights. Therefore the task of the judiciary is to interpret the converging and diverging phenomena of varied interfaces and semantic constructions. The courts have to resolve the dispute between and among the parties through a unanimous decision and consensus of majority rule. At the same time it is pertinent to mention here that our behaviour should conform to the rule of the fundamental values and principles. Society needs good people, as good goes up and as we should explain the nature of our activities on the basis of the foundational principles of the secularism, and on the parameters of the constitution and the constitutionalism.
Based on this idea a society based on the normative framework of transparent and responsible standards will be accountable in its actions and movements. It is the deontic standards that should be utilized to form the precise balance of requirements for the people with varied aspirations and varied cultural and traditional backgrounds. The society needs ideal and good governance standards, mechanism, architecture and infrastructure. All this is encompassed in the contours of the censorial jurisprudence, however the contents of the expositorial jurisprudence rests on the fact, that law is the command of the sovereign. Therefore it is the sovereign who will be the sole judge to determine the welfare of its people, through the laws and parameters which the sovereign feels as genuine.
The fact is that people will like credible and democratic sources of social power. In order to perform its functions properly and efficiently, the legislature has therefore thought it proper and appropriate to delegate its power of lawmaking through the workable paradigm of delegated legislation to the administrative agencies and the bureaucracy, in the form of rules, regulations, byelaws, notifications and the like. The judiciary must also preserve and protect its autonomy, independence and public accountability, in the age of modern media and multimedia. Therefore what seems to be overarching and ideal is that justice should not only be done, but it should seem to be done. The interpretations by the judiciary should be cherished on the ideal values and parameters of the constitution and the bedrock of constitutionalism.
There is no scope for charade, the proper procedure is that we must accept the mandate of the constitution in letter and spirit and we shall carry out our obligations to protect the environment and the heritage according to the values of the directive principles of state policy. We as citizenry should fulfil our role and obligations sincerely and allow the judiciary to channelize its energies for the disadvantaged sections of the society, the weaker and the vulnerable groups. This will streamline the society according to the horizons which the constitution has visualized according to the deontic principles and exemplars. Accordingly the properties of the adjudication will remain unbiased and the process of interpretation will remain novel and innovative to the judiciary.