Shekhar Kumar, LL.M, Chanakya National Law University, Patna
ABSTRACT
Due process of law is an enduring cornerstone of liberal democracy. This doctrine has undergone a dramatic evolution over time. Whenever the government seeks to punish an individual without a proper trial, denies a same-sex couple the right to marry, or insists on disclosing private information as a condition to government employment, due process sensitivities and arguments surface. In the United States and India and all other developed legal systems subscribing to the rule of law, courts are called upon in a wide variety of contexts to determine whether a particular government action excessively impinges on settled expectations of fundamental justice individual autonomy. Many of these issues are policy matters that are more properly resolved by the legislative and executive branches. Courts have limited ability to gather and weigh empirical data, limited legitimacy in making complex policy choices, and limited power to enforce their judgments. Legislative and executive officials and private actors are the primary decision-makers, and they must be accorded substantial deference and allowed a considerable margin for error or difference of view. However, courts still can, and do, impose meaningful limits on these decisions. One of the most important and controversial limits is imposed by due process clause.
Through this paper, the researcher seeks to identify the historical underpinnings of due process clause from the early conceptions of the rule of law. The deep roots of due process are relevant and illuminating to its contemporary expressions. Moreover, the researcher shall chart the evolution of American due process doctrine and its inspirations.
Kommentare