本文選題：印度 + 司法審查��； 參考：《山東大學》2009年碩士論文

【摘要】： 印度是一個有著悠久歷史的國家,古印度法的基本內(nèi)容是以種姓制度為核心,與宗教緊密結合的,種姓制度貫穿于印度法的始終,成為印度法的精髓。隨著殖民主義的入侵,印度受到了以英國為代表的西方法治的影響,并以此為契機拉開了印度法制現(xiàn)代化的序幕。英國統(tǒng)治時期頒布的一系列的法案奠定了獨立之后印度的政府形式以及司法體制的初步框架。 在結合了本土特色的基礎之上,印度也實行三權分立,獨立之前的印度就存在類似于司法審查的活動;獨立之后,原來的聯(lián)邦法院經(jīng)過一些變動成為印度的最高法院。印度的法院系統(tǒng)是單一的,同時采取了英國式的議會主權制度,但是在司法審查的模式選擇上卻逐步走向了美國式的司法審查,這與當初的制憲者們的初衷是不相吻合的,因為他們看中的是英國威斯敏斯特模式的司法審查,議會主權是不容挑戰(zhàn)的,這與建國之初的經(jīng)濟改革是緊密聯(lián)系的,這一背景要求議會有足夠的權威來推行新的改革尤其是土地政策。同時英國式的法學教育模式也使得印度的法官以一種十分實證的方式來解釋憲法,因此建國之后的二十年中,印度的司法審查是十分消極的,表現(xiàn)為一種親立法的傾向,法院與國會之間的沖突不是很明顯。 1967年的Golak Nath vs.Punjab案中,最高法院以6:5的微弱多數(shù)作出判決,判決指出,國會不能通過修改憲法來剝奪或者克減公民的基本權利。作為報復,國會馬上對憲法進行修改,做出了第24憲法修正案,明確表示國會修憲的權力是不受限制的。到了1973年的Kesavananda Bhaxati vs.State of Kerala案中,法院則認為雖然國會有權修改憲法的任何條款,但是其修改不能改變憲法的基本結構,正式提出了憲法的基本結構原則,這是司法權對立法機關修憲權的限制。這一原則的提出成為印度司法審查史上一個非常重要的事件,也正是這一理論使得印度法院的角色受到諸多的爭議,司法能動主義開始被廣泛討論。法院開始以積極的作為形式來行使其司法審查權。 80年代的司法審查集中表現(xiàn)為對公民基本權利的保障,如生命自由權、平等權以及法律的正當程序等;進入90年代后,日益增長的社會公益訴訟是印度司法機關所面臨的問題,通過借助對公益訴訟案件的審查來行使司法審查權是這一時期的一個特點。 因此,在印獨立之后的不同階段,司法審查的力度又是不同的,并且其理論也是不斷豐富的。 本文試圖對印度的司法審查作一個系統(tǒng)的分析和闡述,從理論基礎到發(fā)展階段,從審查對象到審查方式以及審查依據(jù),印度的司法審查既有一般的司法審查的理論,同時又具有自身的特點,如上所述的基本結構原則就是印度司法機關在行使司法審查權的過程中發(fā)展出來的一種理論。同時在司法審查的對象方面,一般國家對于政治行為都不進行審查,目的是為了保持權力的分立與制衡,但是印度的法院卻可以對政治行為進行審查;對于如何協(xié)調(diào)國家的政策指導性原則與公民基本權利之間的關系也是印度司法機關在行使司法審查權過程中要考慮的。這些都體現(xiàn)了印度司法審查的特點。 同樣是議會主權制的國家,中國的司法審查制較之印度有很大的差距,這就為我國的司法審查制度的進一步完善提供了一些可以借鑒的東西。
[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.

【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：DD916;D935.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 陳峰君;印度政治制度評析[J];北京大學學報(哲學社會科學版);1992年03期

2 蔣迅;法律文化的沖突與融合——印度法現(xiàn)代化的實踐[J];比較法研究;1987年02期

3 王云霞;印度社會的法律改革[J];比較法研究;2000年02期

4 孫士海,江亦麗;印度政局發(fā)展趨勢及新政府的政策[J];當代亞太;1996年05期

5 孫士海;印度政治五十年[J];當代亞太;2000年11期

6 薛克翹;印度改革開放以后的文化變遷[J];當代亞太;2003年08期

7 薛克翹;印度獨立后思想文化的發(fā)展特點[J];當代亞太;2004年04期

8 吳展;印度選舉制度初探[J];東南亞縱橫;2005年01期

9 龔向和;通過司法實現(xiàn)憲法社會權——對各國憲法判例的透視[J];法商研究;2005年04期

10 杜強強;;修憲權之“基本架構限制”——印度最高法院關于憲法修改限制的理論與實踐[J];法商研究;2006年03期

，

本文編號：1854131