Public Interest Litigation

O presente trabalho busca compreender o funcionamento prático dos Núcleos de Justiça 4.0 criados pela resolução n°385 de 6 de abril de 2021, bem como, explicar sua origem e fundamentação Constitucional. Além disso, buscamos analisar um caso recente de conflito de competência dos Núcleos a partir da pesquisa na jurisprudência na Segunda Instância do Tribunal do Rio de Janeiro e da análise dos dados fornecidos pelo CNJ, respectivamente.  O trabalho inicia-se com uma introdução com enfoque
histórico, no segundo tópico tratamos sobre os princípios constitucionais e no último tópico fizemos um estudo sobre as divergências quanto à questão da celeridade, da especialidade e da competência dos
núcleos a partir de uma análise de um caso da jurisprudência recente. Concluímos, que os núcleos podem ser benéficos mas é preciso proceder com cautela.

This paper explores the constitutional dynamics in Pakistan, focusing on its evolution, challenges, and the role of political institutions in maintaining governance and democracy. Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan's constitutional framework has undergone several transformations, reflecting the country's complex political, social, and economic landscape. From the early parliamentary system to the introduction of military regimes and the subsequent restoration of democratic governance, the evolution of Pakistan's constitution has been shaped by historical, ideological, and institutional factors. The paper examines the key constitutional changes and the challenges faced in ensuring the effective functioning of democracy, including issues of political instability, institutional inefficiencies, and constitutional amendments. Furthermore, it delves into the pivotal role of political institutions, such as the judiciary, legislature, and executive, in preserving constitutional order and promoting democratic values. The analysis highlights the need for a balanced constitutional structure that can withstand external and internal pressures while fostering a robust democratic system. By exploring the interplay between constitutional evolution and political institutions, this paper provides insights into the ongoing challenges and opportunities for strengthening governance and democracy in Pakistan.

Every functioning democracy rests on a singular promise-that power will not be exercised without limits, and that those limits will be enforced. In Pakistan, that promise finds its most concrete expression in the Constitution, the supreme legal instrument that governs every institution, policy, and public act. But a constitution is only as strong as the mechanisms that defend it. That is precisely where the judiciary steps in-not merely as a branch of government, but as the last line of accountability between citizens and unchecked authority. The courts do not govern. They do not legislate. What they do is something arguably more fundamental: they hold the line.

The rule against bias is an intrinsic component of the principles of natural justice. They are well settled rules, evolving from time immemorial and coursing from the common law of England, in order to put in check arbitrary actions of the state or its functionaries. Essentially, the principles apply to advance fair treatment in actions that are of administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial nature. This rule aim at securing justice and to avoid miscarriage of justice. Since the days of Lord Hewart, CJ, the rule against bias had formed a more fundamental bedrock of adjudication and just treatment of cases to give fair hearing to parties who appear before a tribunal and to ensure that no one goes away thinking that the judge favours one litigant against another, either for personal, pecuniary or familial gains. Incidentally, following a common law global norm, the Nigerian constitutional and administrative laws had gone a notch further to entrench this rule as a cardinal factor in deciding the fate of interested parties through strict fidelity to procedural compliance, with the sole aim of strengthening public confidence in the administration of justice. Using a doctrinal, library-based research methodologies and deploying both primary and secondary source materials, this seminar paper takes a dispassionate look at the scope of the bias rule within the framework of the doctrine of natural justice sagaciously embedded in the Constitution of Nigeria as well as her administrative processes, side by side with comparable common law jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States and India. The paper found that, in a preponderant of cases, where a decision-maker who serve in judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative capacity had been found to have interest in the subject-matter of the dispute, such an official is immediately or automatically disqualified. It is hoped that the suggestions and recommendations herein will serve as a call to action on the part of those who are saddled with administrative, judicial and quasi-judicial powers in ensuring that justice is not only done but manifestly and undoubtedly seen to have been done.

This study examines the integration of law and the humanities as a transformative approach to enhance policymaking and advocacy by drawing on the foundational constitutional values of human dignity, equality, and freedom. In the context of South Africa's evolving democracy, the research examines how humanistic reasoning, grounded in ethics, history, philosophy, and culture, can enrich legal interpretation and governance practices. Using a qualitative research design, the study draws upon case law analysis, policy review, and academic literature to demonstrate how moral imagination and critical reflection enhance the realization of social justice. Findings reveal that law, when guided by the humanities, transcends mere legal formalism to become a vehicle for empathy, inclusion, and moral responsibility. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that judicial reasoning informed by ethical values and Ubuntu principles contributes to more humane governance. Furthermore, integrating humanistic insights into policymaking promotes participatory democracy, enabling policymakers to design interventions that are historically informed and socially responsive. The study concludes that a legal system divorced from the humanities risks becoming technocratic and detached from human realities. Therefore, it recommends embedding humanities-based approaches in legal education, policy formulation, and advocacy training.

The environmental protection laws and the Constitution of India have developed significantly over the decades as per national and international needs. As the need of the protection and preservation of the environment has been a gradual process, the constitutional frameworks in relation of environmental protection also shaped through a series of amendments, judicial interpretations, and policy initiatives in light of international as well as national developments. The primary objective of providing a constitutional mandate for environmental protection was to ensure the preservation of natural resources and ecological balance, with time which had become an issue of serious concern. Although notions of environmental preservation can be traced back to ancient Indian traditions but constitutional and legal measures gained prominence only in the latter half of the twentieth century but came in full-swing after Stockholm Conference which took place in 1972 and two key provisions Article 48A in part IV and Article 51A(g) in Part IV ‘A’ were incorporated in the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act ,1976 where the Indian Constitution obligates the “State through DPSPs” as well as “Citizens through FDs” to “Protect and Promote” the environment. This constitutional recognition elevated environmental protection from a mere policy concern to a fundamental constitutional duty, forming the basis of modern environmental jurisprudence in India. In this scenario this paper attempts to critically examine the administration of environmental justice under the Constitution of India, emphasizing its evolution through constitutional amendments particularly the 42nd Amendment and judicial transformative interpretation of various Articles of the constitution highlighting the role and responsibilities of the State, citizens, and judiciary in safeguarding the environment.

This study presents a comparative analysis of constitutionalism, democratic governance, and judicial review in India and Sri Lanka, examining how constitutional structures shape the protection of rights, institutional accountability, and the rule of law. Both countries inherited elements of British constitutional traditions, yet they adopted significantly different constitutional trajectories after independence. India embraced constitutional supremacy, federalism, judicial review, and an extensive framework of enforceable fundamental rights, whereas Sri Lanka evolved through a constitutional framework characterized by stronger parliamentary traditions, executive centralization, and comparatively limited judicial intervention. The research explores key themes including the historical foundations of constitutionalism, constitutional supremacy versus parliamentary sovereignty, the role of fundamental rights, judicial review, the Basic Structure Doctrine, executive power, separation of powers, judicial independence, minority rights, and contemporary constitutional challenges. Particular attention is devoted to the role of courts in preserving constitutional governance. India’s judiciary has emerged as a powerful guardian of constitutional values through judicial review and the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to alter the Constitution’s essential features. In contrast, Sri Lanka relies more heavily on procedural safeguards, parliamentary processes, and pre-enactment constitutional review mechanisms.The study further demonstrates that constitutional democracy depends upon a careful balance between effective governance and constitutional limitations. Issues such as executive expansion, constitutional amendments, minority protection, judicial independence, and democratic accountability continue to challenge both constitutional systems. Despite institutional differences, both countries remain committed to constitutional governance, democratic legitimacy, and the rule of law. The comparative findings reveal that constitutional resilience is strengthened by effective institutions, independent judiciaries, robust rights protection, and public commitment to constitutional values. Ultimately, the experiences of India and Sri Lanka provide valuable insights into the evolving relationship between constitutionalism, democracy, and judicial review in pluralistic societies.

This chapter aims to clarify the relationship between human right to health and business corporations in Nigeria. In this regard, this chapter describes the operation of the international human right to health in Nigeria. Next, it briefly explains the legal process that allows the enforcement of human rights obligations against private entities, including business corporations. With a view to demonstrating circumstances in which adjudicatory enforcement action could be taken against a business corporation, this chapter examines aspects of the human right to health that could be enforced against business corporations.

Increasing research has been devoted to examining collaborations between public and private actors in environmental regulation under neoliberal democracies. However, this public-private interaction in authoritarian regimes remains understudied. This article seeks to address this gap in the literature through an empirical examination of the interaction between environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and procuratorates in China's environmental public interest litigation. We find emerging complementarity: NGOs focus on new issues and target high-profile defendants to increase the socio-legal impact of their civil litigation, whereas procuratorates increasingly engage in administrative litigation against government agencies. This complementarity is shaped by the different legal opportunities for Chinese NGOs and procuratorates, as well as their respective institutional objectives and capacities. Their divergent regulatory preferences have also fostered synergy between th...

Pakistan’s constitutional jurisprudence has entered one of the most transformative phases in its constitutional history following the constitutional restructuring introduced through the Twenty-Sixth and subsequent Twenty-Seventh Constitutional Amendments. These reforms have fundamentally altered the traditional structure of judicial review, constitutional adjudication, writ jurisdiction, and the institutional relationship between the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the newly established Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
Historically, the Supreme Court of Pakistan simultaneously functioned as the apex appellate court, the final constitutional court, and the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. However, the contemporary constitutional structure reflects a decisive institutional shift toward a specialized constitutional adjudicatory framework in which constitutional interpretation and constitutional review are increasingly concentrated within a distinct constitutional court system.
This article critically examines the historical evolution of writ jurisdiction in Pakistan, the development and expansion of Article 184(3), the emergence of constitutional benches, the establishment and jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court, and the constitutional implications of this transition upon judicial independence, separation of powers, constitutional governance, and the future of constitutional democracy in Pakistan. The article further situates Pakistan’s evolving constitutional architecture within comparative constitutional models including Germany, South Africa, and Turkey.

The article explores the role of independent legal research in ensuring sustainability and countering corporate impunity. The authors analyse systemic flaws in corporate governance that allow multinational corporations to externalise social and environmental costs. Using the Airbus case (2020) and "Epstein files" as examples, the importance of legal deontology and the threats of "academic capture" are highlighted.
Martial law in Ukraine makes it vulnerable to numerous risks (specifically, regulatory arbitrage due to the country's need for reconstruction investments) inherent in the countries of the Global South, despite Ukraine's European identity and its constitutionally enshrined strategic course towards EU integration.
Special attention is paid to Ukraine’s post-war recovery, focusing on the implementation of the EU Directive 2024/1760 on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), anti-SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) mechanisms, and the institutional independence of scientific expert centres to protect the public interest.
A specific focus is placed on developing mechanisms for modernising the institutional status of Ukraine’s national scientific institutions through a transition from a hierarchical management model to functional autonomy based on the Swiss experience (specifically the SICL model) as autonomous centres for scientific research and lawmaking expertise for the protection of the public interest.
Key words: sustainable development, corporate impunity, EU Directive 2024/1760 (CSDDD), due diligence, independent legal research, legal deontology, SLAPP lawsuits, NAS of Ukraine, public interest.

Environmental rights were developed as a separate legal regime after a few decades since the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is evident that the international conferences on the environment, international human rights treaties and declarations, regional human rights documents, national legislation, and both international and national judicial decisions have impacted on the development of this concept. The concept of environmental rights should be defined through its historical evolution and its international and national interventions. In accordance with that, environmental rights include mainly the human right to live in a healthy environment and also the right to the existence of nature.
India's and Pakistan's constitutions do not include environmental rights. It is noteworthy that, in the absence of certain constitutional provisions, the judiciary of both countries has intervened to recognize the right to live in a healthy environment as an extension of the right to life stipulated in their constitutions. This reveals that the right to life is not just mere living but living with some standards, including a standard environment. So, every state organ, including the judiciary, is enlisted to play their roles in protecting the environment.
The current Sri Lankan Constitution also does not include provisions in relation to environmental rights. In contrast to the countries in the region, Sri Lanka is reluctant to recognize environmental rights. Therefore, this research suggests strengthening the proactive intervention of the judiciary in order to ensure a decent environment for a dignified life for the people.

The chapter proposes the concept of transnationality both in a methodological and normative sense as an appropriate approach to enhance the guarantee of the right of access to justice. It conceptualizes transnational access to justice not merely as access to courts in transnational disputes, but as a way of increasing the efficiency of domestic and international access and the justice of outcomes through transnational instruments.

Acknowledging that barriers to access are reinforced in cross-border cases, the chapter suggests principles of transnational access to justice to ensure its dual function: as a tool to reinforce legality and as a mechanism to channel demands for legal and social transformation. Additionally, it explores various instruments that draw on transnationality to strengthen the right to access to justice.

Entre a Constituição e a Cidade, existe uma atuação silenciosa, técnica e permanente, responsável por conferir juridicidade às políticas públicas, estabilidade às instituições e proteção ao interesse coletivo. Celebrando os 80 anos da Procuradoria do Município do Recife, esta obra reúne diferentes olhares sobre Advocacia Pública, federalismo, governança, inovação, sustentabilidade e direitos fundamentais, reafirmando o papel essencial das procuradorias municipais na consolidação da autonomia local, da segurança jurídica e de um Estado federativo comprometido com o interesse público e a transformação social. Em uma cidade em permanente transformação, reconhecer a trajetória da PGM Recife é também compreender que o desenvolvimento urbano, a inclusão social e a sustentabilidade ambiental dependem de instituições sólidas e de agentes públicos comprometidos com a municipalidade e com o interesse coletivo. Que esta obra inspire as novas gerações de procuradoras e procuradores a continuar fortalecendo o Recife por meio do Direito, com rigor técnico, espírito público e compromisso democrático.

This study guide covers the LL.M. Group 8 (Jurisprudence) syllabus across six papers and three semesters. Spanning 96 topics with 50 unique verified cases, the guide addresses Comparative Judicial Process, Marxian Theory of Law, Socialist Jurisprudence, Theories of Justice, Law and Society, and Theories of Rights. Each topic features contextual foundations explaining the philosophical concept, doctrinal analysis connecting theory to law, three cited cases demonstrating judicial engagement with jurisprudential ideas, critical analysis, examination pointers, and further references. The guide accurately represents 20+ major legal philosophers including Hart (primary/secondary rules), Dworkin (rights as trumps, law as integrity), Rawls (original position, difference principle), Marx (base-superstructure), Kelsen (Grundnorm), Pashukanis (commodity exchange theory), Hohfeld (jural correlatives), Dicey (rule of law), Weber (legal authority types), Bentham (utilitarianism), Pound (social engineering), and Sen (capability approach). Supplementary sections include model answers, comparison tables (Hart vs Dworkin, theories of justice, schools of jurisprudence, Hohfeld's framework), previous year questions, and viva flash cards.


Published by Jurimetrics.Law as part of the LL.M. Series. First Edition, 2026.

Connect with us:

WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbAKXsbLY6d19GiCOX1d
Telegram: https://t.me/jurimetrics
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/jurimetrics-law
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jurimetrics.law

The landmark case Anwar Hossain Chowdhury vs. Bangladesh 1989, widely known as the 8thAmendment Case, marked a turning point in Bangladesh’s constitutional law by introducing the basic structure doctrine into its jurisprudence. The case arose from a challenge to the Constitution (8th Amendment) Act 1988, through which the Parliament had established six new permanent High Court benches outside the capital, Dhaka, and made Islam the state religion, among other changes. The petitioners contended that these changes, particularly the decentralisation of the High Court Division violated the core “basic features” of the Constitution, such as the independence and unity of the judiciary, which could not be altered by a mere parliamentary majority. In a historic verdict, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court struck down the Eighth Amendment (insofar as it created separate permanent benches) as ultra vires, holding that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 142 is limited and cannot extend to destroying its fundamental structure. The Court identified basic features including the supremacy of the Constitution, the
sovereignty of the people, the unitary republic, separation of powers, and an independent judiciary as beyond the legislature’s amending authority. This decision af irmed the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law and that even a constitutional amendment must conform to its essential spirit. The Eighth Amendment Case thus cemented judicial review over constitutional amendments in Bangladesh and has since been invoked to invalidate several other amendment that threatened the Constitution’s basic framework. This case study provides an indepth analysis of the Anwar Hossain Chowdhury case, covering its background,
issues, arguments, judgment, and its profound impact on constitutionalism and public law in Bangladesh.

This handbook helps citizens understand constitutional systems, recognize conflicts between government action and constitutional limits, and pursue lawful civic remedies. The goal is clarity rather than confrontation. Chapter 1 -The Nature of Constitutional Systems A constitution defines government structure, delegated powers, and rights retained by the people. Authority is delegated from citizens through constitutional processes. Chapter 2 -Separation of Powers Legislative makes laws, Executive enforces them, and Judicial interprets them. This division prevents concentration of power. Authority is distributed between federal and state governments. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government. The first ten amendments protect liberties such as speech, religion, press, due process, and protection from unreasonable searches. Chapter 5 -Due Process Government must follow fair procedures when affecting life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process ensures fair procedures; substantive due process limits certain actions regardless of procedure. The Equal Protection Clause requires states to treat individuals similarly under the law unless a valid legal reason exists for different treatment. Courts require a plaintiff to demonstrate injury, causation, and a remedy that the court can provide before hearing a case. Chapter 8 -Filing a Case Constitutional challenges begin with a complaint outlining facts, legal claims, and requested remedies. Many federal claims rely on civil rights statutes such as 42 U.S.C. §1983. Chapter 9 -Motions Defendants often file motions to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, standing, or failure to state a claim. Chapter 10 -Discovery Discovery allows both sides to exchange evidence through document requests, depositions, and interrogatories. Chapter 11 -Trial and Appeals Cases may proceed from trial courts to appellate courts and potentially to the Supreme Court depending on the issue. Historical Case Studies Key cases include Marbury v. Madison (judicial review), Brown v. Board of Education (desegregation), Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel), and Miranda v. Arizona (rights during interrogation). Successful civic movements emphasize credibility, legal awareness, clear goals, and sustained organization. The First Amendment protects the right to petition government for redress of grievances through letters, petitions, administrative filings, and court actions. Constitutional literacy enables citizens to evaluate government actions and participate responsibly in democratic institutions.

Abstract

This investigative report presents a forensic audit of systemic institutional failure, judicial compromise, and administrative erasure in Grays Harbor County, Washington. Drawing exclusively from public records—including court dockets, state agency breach notices, county budget documents, judicial conduct reports, and missing persons data—the analysis identifies a coherent structural pattern of extraction rather than isolated administrative errors.

Key findings include:

1. Jason Douglas Hoff (State v. Hoff, No. 54903-4-II): A registered sex offender with multiple “Failure to Register” convictions was out on domestic violence bail when he allegedly assaulted a resident and stole a vehicle. Despite the severity, his charges were amended to 4th Degree Assault (RCW 9A.36.041)—the “43” protocol—keeping him in the community as a recidivist asset. This amendment pattern appears repeatedly across local court records.
2. Auditor’s 100‑Day Data Void (March 2026): The Washington Department of Licensing terminated Auditor Joseph R. MacLean’s vehicle/vessel licensing contract following a Level III breach, citing failure to remedy 16 audit discoveries and a delay of over 100 days in submitting financial materials to the State Auditor. This reporting blackout created a window during which physical ledgers (property records, vital documents, probate files) lacked state oversight, enabling potential record alteration.
3. Judicial Anomalies: Appellate briefs (State v. Grayland) accuse former Judge Gordon Godfrey of assisting in “criminal acts of theft, fraud, and extortion.” Judge David Edwards was forced to void Godfrey’s orders. Judge Mistachkin has documented DUI and Conduct Commission reports. The 2025–2026 installation of Judge Steven G. Jackson and Commissioner Jon Beltran (former Drug Task Force prosecutor) occurred simultaneously with the elimination of that task force due to budget cuts.
4. Financial Entropy: A confirmed $8.5 million budget deficit (2026) includes proposed $2.16 million cuts to the Sheriff’s Office—eliminating the Drug Task Force, investigations division, and 24‑hour patrols—creating conditions for a self‑reinforcing extraction feedback loop.
5. Missing Persons Context: 2026 DNA identifications of remains missing since 1995 and 2006 (Ocean Shores, Taholah) reveal a decades‑long backlog of non‑persistent individuals, suggesting systemic prioritization of real estate equity over human persistence.

The report concludes with four investigative demands: a state audit of records processed during the 100‑day void, a federal RICO inquiry into financial links between local real estate brokerages (John L. Scott) and judicial officers, a judicial conduct review of the “43” amendment pattern, and restoration of altered or omitted records. All evidence is drawn from public sources; no unverifiable or private victim data is included. The findings warrant independent investigation by state auditors, federal prosecutors, and journalistic outlets.

---

Keywords: Grays Harbor County, forensic audit, Jason Douglas Hoff, failure to register, 4th degree assault, RCW 9A.36.041, Joseph R. MacLean, Level III breach, Washington DOL, budget deficit, Sheriff cuts, Drug Task Force, Judge Gordon Godfrey, Judge David Edwards, Judge Mistachkin, Judge Steven G. Jackson, Commissioner Jon Beltran,,, real estate extraction, NamUs, missing persons, systemic extraction, judicial compromise, administrative erasure, public records audit.

our-libertarian-age-dogma-democracy-dogma-decline). * There are more common citations for the main points of the argument. But as with items 52 and 53 above, I have opted for the earlier piece rather than the somewhat better known follow-ons.

The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) represents a significant legislative intervention aimed at regulating promoter conduct and protecting flat purchasers in Maharashtra. Unlike conventional regulatory statutes, MOFA incorporates a structured penal framework under Section 13, thereby transforming statutory obligations into criminally enforceable duties. This article examines the criminal liability arising from violations of Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 11, with particular emphasis on the enhanced punishment for breach of trust under Section 13(2) and the overriding procedural mechanism under Section 13A. It further analyses judicial interpretation of promoter obligations and argues for stricter enforcement of MOFA's penal provisions to address systemic non-compliance in the real estate sector.

Foi promulgada no último dia 21 de dezembro a reforma tributária. A Emenda Constitucional n° 132/2023 tem por objeto reestruturar o Sistema Tributário Nacional. Uma das maiores, talvez a maior novidade trazida pela reforma, é a previsão do IBS, um imposto sobre bens e serviço de competência compartilhada entre os estados, o Distrito Federal e os municípios, que passa a ser regulado no artigo 156-A da Constituição. Dentre tantos (e polêmicos) temas que chamam atenção, o artigo 156-B da CF prevê a figura do Comitê Gestor do IBS, responsável pela gestão administrativa integrada do tributo. Cabe ao Comitê: editar regulamento único e uniformizar a interpretação e a aplicação da legislação do imposto; arrecadar o imposto, efetuar as compensações e distribuir o produto da arrecadação entre Estados, Distrito Federal e Municípios; decidir o contencioso administrativo. A Constituição prevê (artigo 156-B, §1°), ainda, que o comitê será entidade pública sob regime especial, com independência técnica, administrativa, orçamentária e financeira. Todavia, inúmeras questões relativas ao seu funcionamento deverão ser reguladas por lei complementar (artigo 156-B, §2°). Nosso objeto central é chamar atenção a inciso específico do artigo 156-B, §2°: Art. 156-B. § 2º Na forma da lei complementar: (…) V -a fiscalização, o lançamento, a cobrança, a representação administrativa e a representação judicial relativos ao imposto serão realizados, no âmbito de suas respectivas competências, pelas administrações tributárias e procuradorias dos Estados, do Distrito Federal e dos Municípios, que poderão definir hipóteses de delegação ou de compartilhamento de competências, cabendo ao Comitê Gestor a coordenação dessas atividades administrativas com vistas à integração entre os entes federativos; (…) Caberá à lei complementar regular (ou deixar a regulação ao próprio comitê) como se dará a gestão conjunta e integrada pelos estados, DF e municípios, que permanecem com as respectivas competências para a fiscalização, o lançamento, a cobrança e a representação administrativa e judicial do IBS. A lei complementar poderá ela mesma tratar das hipóteses de coordenação das respectivas competência ou definir que caberá ao comitê regular o tema. Não se pode esquecer que, especialmente no início, inúmeros conflitos de atribuição na representação administrativa e judicial podem ocorrer. O destaque fica por conta da possibilidade de delegação e compartilhamento de competências, a partir da coordenação do comitê.

Este artigo busca analisar criticamente duas decisões recentes do STF
– ADI. n. 2390 e RE. n. 601314 – que tratam da quebra de sigilo bancário com o repasse de dados à Receita Federal sem prévia ordem judicial, violando preceitos constitucionais em prol do interesse público.

This article investigates how Chinese non-governmental organisations (NGOs) strategically mobilize environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) to advance animal protection in a legal system that is deeply anthropocentric and lacks dedicated animal welfare legislation. Drawing on a series of landmark cases, this study identifies key advocacy strategies that frame animal protection in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services; public health and biosecurity; and wildlife-related intermediary obligations. These frames allow NGOs to translate animal welfare claims into legally justifiable and administratively actionable harms, by aligning with state priorities such as ecological civilization, sustainable development, and public health. The study finds that finding that EPIL, when coupled with strategic framing, can operate as both a legal remedy, as well as expressive governance that helps to gradually expand the legal and moral imagination for nonhuman interests. Meanwhile, however, these framings also risk reinforcing the marginalization of animals whose protection cannot be fully justified through human-centred rationales.

This study examines the transformation of environmental public interest lawyering in China within an ever-tightening legal order, where activists confront both state suppression and co-optation. Utilizing qualitative methods, including in-depth interviews with 49 environmental lawyers and activists, participant observations, and online ethnography, the research delineates two divergent models of legal mobilization. The conventional model prioritizes compliance with state regulations, employing impact litigation and consensus-building with state institutions to drive incremental environmental reforms, often at the cost of aligning with state priorities. In contrast, guerrilla lawyering emerges as an innovative strategy, leveraging decentralized networks, experimentalist litigation, flexible funding, and diffused media tactics to sustain activism while preserving autonomy. By transforming courts into platforms for generating critical information and exposing systemic vulnerabilities, guerrilla lawyering resists assimilation into state-controlled schemes. This approach not only ensures movement survival amidst repression but also enriches theoretical understandings of legal mobilization under authoritarianism by addressing the understudied risk of co-optation. These findings illuminate the resilience and ingenuity of activists in China's constrained environmental advocacy landscape and offer a transferable framework for resistance for social movements in other authoritarian contexts, amid the global rise of authoritarian legality.

Статья посвящена анализу допустимости использования противоречий в позиции защитника в уголовном процессе. Автор критикует устоявшееся требование однозначности и непротиворечивости позиции защиты, указывая на его отсутствие в законодательстве и негативное влияние на реализацию права обвиняемого на защиту. Обосновывается тезис о невозможности достижения объективной истины в уголовном судопроизводстве и, как следствие, о неизбежной вероятностной природе знания защитника. В этих условиях альтернативные и даже противоречивые суждения рассматриваются как допустимый и необходимый инструмент защиты. Делается вывод, что использование противоречий в позиции не нарушает закон и должно восприниматься как нормальная профессиональная практика, способствующая обеспечению справедливого правосудия.

Trans People in India: A Decade after NALSA offers a multidisciplinary exploration of transgender identity and activism in India, tracing its cultural, legal, and political evolution.

The book situates trans identity within cosmogenic, mythological, and historical narratives, while mapping four waves of activism from the 1980s to the present. Drawing on personal interviews, RTI investigations, and official records, it exposes systemic gaps in policy implementation following the NALSA judgment and the Transgender Persons Act 2019. Through two original analytical frameworks—“implementational disenfranchisement” and “corrigible inequities”—it critiques bureaucratic gatekeeping and proposes actionable reforms. The work is anchored in lived experience and offers a foundational timeline of trans recognition in India, with contributions from prominent trans activists like Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, Shreegauri Sawant, A. Revathi and others in the foreword and afterword.

Trans People in India: A Decade after NALSA is ideal for students and researchers in gender studies, law, literature, sociology, public policy, and South Asian studies, especially those interested in trans- activism, identity, and institutional reform.

Since the 1994 constitutional reform, a group of lawyers, public defenders and societal organizations have turned to the courts in search of new spaces for participation in the pursuit of social change. To this end, they have increasingly promoted public interest litigation,[1]defined as a judicial claim in the form of an individual or collective lawsuit that seeks the structural transformation

Established on the communist framework, it progressively expedited social and economic revolution; yet, by the late 1980s, PIL had redefined the legal landscape of India. Since its establishment, the Supreme Court of India has adopted an activist role, enhancing accessibility but simultaneously complicating the process. Originally established to safeguard the rights of marginalized groups, the law has progressively transformed into an instrument of harassment and exploitation. This paper examines the origins of the significant Hussainara Khatoon case and provides an in-depth analysis of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, its development, and its influence on the legal framework. This paper critically analyzes the current function of PIL cases as their prevalence increases, emphasizing both benefits and weaknesses. In conclusion, the study elucidates insights and recommendations to guarantee that PIL remains a genuine instrument of justice rather than a tool for manipulation, so reinforcing its role as a protector of public interest and legal integrity.

This paper examines the idea of 'socialism' in the Indian Constitution and its rise in the corridors of justice between the 1950s and the 1990s, and its slow disappearance from serious consideration in post-Globalised India. This paper examines the socio-political environment and the judicial environment in the context of giving effect to Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution) during the 1980s and the slow withdrawal of the same Courts after India's entry into a liberalised economy.

This is a monumental twelve part legal treatise written by S M Nazmuz Sakib and published in 2026 that serves as both a comprehensive anatomy of Bangladesh’s legal system and a passionate blueprint for its transformation. The work emerges from a deep and persistent frustration with institutions that the author believes are operating on inherited colonial assumptions that have never been seriously examined. Bangladesh’s legal framework the book argues is largely a colonial relic with structures designed for a different country and a different set of problems still governing daily life through the Penal Code of 1860 the Evidence Act of 1872 and the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure from the late nineteenth century.

The timing of this commentary is extraordinarily significant. It arrives in the wake of the July 2024 Monsoon Revolution a student led uprising that toppled the government of Sheikh Hasina after more than fifteen years of increasingly authoritarian rule. This political earthquake has opened a rare window for institutional reform. The interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus established eleven reform commissions including a Judiciary Reform Commission that submitted a comprehensive report in February 2025. A new Bangladesh Bar Council election has been announced for May 2026 the first since the political transformation of August 2024. The author positions this work as a contribution to an urgent and consequential national conversation about the shape of Bangladesh’s future constitution the structure of its judiciary the standards of its legal profession and the content of its legal education.

The book traces the civilizational roots of legal thought in the Bengal delta from the pluralistic universe of Hindu Dharmashastra and Islamic fiqh through the Mughal period to the colonial transformation initiated by the East India Company. It analyzes the Liberation War of 1971 not merely as a political event but as a profound legal and constitutional event raising fundamental questions about self determination and the laws of armed conflict. It dissects the philosophical architecture of the 1972 Constitution with its four foundational principles of nationalism socialism democracy and secularism and the subsequent constitutional battles that have reshaped and contested those principles over five decades.

The commentary is unsparing in its critique of current institutions. The Bangladesh Bar Council the body that should stand as the guardian of professional integrity is described as structurally compromised by political capture by a governance system that rewards loyalty over competence and by a regulatory culture that has failed to enforce professional standards for decades. The enrollment examination for new advocates is mired in allegations of corruption and inefficiency testing rote memorization of statutory sections rather than the analytical and practical skills that genuine legal competence requires. Legal education across the country is failing to equip students for the demands of modern practice producing graduates trained in black letter memorization rather than legal reasoning. The courts are buried under approximately 4.5 million pending cases a backlog that represents a denial of justice on a massive and morally troubling scale.

Yet the book is not merely diagnostic. It offers a comprehensive reform agenda across multiple domains including the restructuring of the Bar Council the transformation of the enrollment examination the abolition of the two year LLB program the introduction of a national LLB admission test the redesign of legal education curricula and pedagogy the development of clinical legal education to serve access to justice the establishment of a specialist accreditation framework for the legal profession the creation of a professional doctoral program to develop Bangladeshi legal scholarship the reform of personal law to address gender inequality and the construction of a genuine transitional justice framework for the atrocities of 1971 and the political violence of subsequent decades.

The work is grounded in several convictions that the author states explicitly. Reform must be comprehensive and systemic not piecemeal and fragmentary because the problems of the legal system are deeply interconnected. Reform must be guided by a clear sense of purpose with the fundamental goal of serving justice protecting rights and providing peaceful dispute resolution. Reform must be inclusive and participatory involving students junior advocates senior practitioners judges clients academics civil society organizations and the general public. And reform must be informed by comparative experience without being slavishly imitative of foreign models drawing on the English reforms under the Legal Services Act 2007 the Indian experience with National Law Schools and the Common Law Admission Test the Australian specialist accreditation programs and the South African constitutional transformation while adapting these models to the specific conditions of Bangladesh.

This is a work of immense ambition and scale written with the conviction that scholarship has a responsibility to engage with moments of political transformation to provide the intellectual resources that reformers need and to hold power accountable to the principles that a just legal system requires. It is a commentary in the great jurisprudential tradition not a neutral description but a form of argument an act of engagement that reads the legal system in a particular light and argues for its future in a particular direction. For anyone seeking to understand the legal challenges facing Bangladesh at this pivotal moment in its history and the possibilities for genuine transformation this treatise is an indispensable resource.

Constitution Petition  No.49 of 20117, 3 of 2018, 10 of 2018 and 13 of 2018.
The constitution petitions were severally lodged in the Constitutional court persuant to the provisions of Article 137(1) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as rules 3,4,5 and 12 of the constitutional court for various reliefs from court by way of orders and declarations.

Recent controversies over caste and gender laws reveal a common crisis-Indian law sees identity where it is irrelevant and misses discrimination where it is most real. A different anxiety emerges in the context of the UGC's proposed anti-discrimination regulations. Critics have expressed concern that defining discrimination through specified identity categories may open the door to false or exaggerated complaints. Recent controversies over amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, the continued exclusion of Dalit Christians from Scheduled Caste (SC) status, and the University Grants Commission's anti-discrimination regulations appear to concern very different issues. Yet they are driven by a common difficulty: How the law defines discrimination. Across these domains, legal frameworks rely heavily on identifying who qualifies as a member of a protected group. But this focus on identity often produces unease — ranging from fears of exclusion to anxieties about misuse — because identity recognition and discrimination are not always aligned.

This study examines human rights violations in Somalia, focusing on crimes against humanity, conflict-related abuses, and restrictions on fundamental freedoms. Using qualitative analysis of existing reports and literature, the paper highlights issues such as civilian targeting, forced displacement, modern slavery, and suppression of freedom of expression. The findings indicate that prolonged conflict, weak governance, and insecurity are the primary drivers of these violations. The study concludes by emphasizing the need for institutional reform, stronger rule of law, and sustained international support to improve human rights conditions in Somalia