Monthly Archives: September 2016

Inter National CASES APPLYING THE “Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct”

A case involving a suggested ambiguity of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) whereby civil proceedings were stayed on bankruptcy and whether the Act should be interpreted so as to exclude any applications to public law proceedings brought for the vindication of a public (as distinct from private) right 37 .

A case concerning imputed bias by reason of a judge’s earlier retainer, whilst a barrister, for a party to litigation in suggested breach of the requirement in article 14.1 of the ICCPR that a person have a “fair and public hearing by a competent independent and impartial tribunal established by law” 38 .

A case concerning whether the common law provides an enforceable right to speedy trial 39 having regard to the terms of article 14.3 of the ICCPR .

A case concerning a right of a mute person to have an interpreter assist her understanding of evidence and argument given in open court in proceedings concerning her, having regard to the terms of articles 14.1, 14.3(a) and (f) of the ICCPR 40 .

A case involving the right of a litigant in person to have, as costs, expenses necessary for attending court by reason of the promise of “equality” before the courts and tribunals under Article 14.1 of the ICCPR 41 , notwithstanding earlier court decisions to the contrary in England.

A case involving the imposition of a fine upon a bankrupt, invalid pensioner prisoner of $60,000.00 as punishment for contempt of court, having regard to the prohibition on “excessive fines” in the still applicable Bill of Rights 1688 (GB) 42 .

An appeal by a convicted contemnor involving an asserted denial of his right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law as article 14.5 of the ICCPR requires, when all that was provided was an entitlement to seek special leave from the High Court of Australia to appeal against conviction 43 .

There are many other Australian cases which could be mentioned in this context, including cases in the Federal Court of Australia 44 , the Family Court of Australia 45 and in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales 46 . In many of the lastmentioned decisions, a feature of the reasoning is the reference by the judges, not only to the text of a relevant international instrument, but also to the development of the jurisprudence by courts, tribunals and committees – particularly the European Court of Human Rights – which elaborate and explain the fundamental norms.

In New Zealand, the vehicle of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act , although not constitutionally entrenched, gives an established framework for the reference to analogous jurisprudence developed around similarly expressed provisions in international law. The same is true of India Sri Lanka and countries of the “new Commonwealth” which have written constitutions incorporating a detailed Bill of Rights. In Australia and England there is no similar charter of enforceable rights although a Bill has been introduced into the United Kingdom Parliament to incorporate the European convention into domestic law. Meanwhile, the absence of a constitutional charter has not stopped the courts, in the manner suggested in the Bangalore Principles , from utilising international law where a relevant gap appears in the common law where a statute falls to be construed which is ambiguous.


for more



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Judge Christopher Weeramantry, former Vice President of the International Court of Justice and chair of the international Judicial Integrity Group today welcomed the endorsement of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct by the Member States of the UN Commission on Human Rights at its 59th Session in Geneva.

Speaking on behalf of the Group which developed the Principles, he said they had the potential to strengthen and enhance levels of judicial integrity and accountability in countries around the world.

“These Principles have been formulated by national and international judges working together for a common purpose. They should help not only to render judicial institutions ethically stronger, but also, through their implementation by the judicial branch, assist in strengthening the independence of judicial institutions,” he said.

Judge Weeramantry said that the Principles will be used around the world, not only as a guide in fashioning new national codes of judicial conduct, but also as a reference for testing and revising existing national codes.

In a UN resolution passed today, Member States noted the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct adopted at the Round-Table Meeting of Chief Justices held in the Peace Palace in The Hague on 25-26 November 2002, and brought the Principles to the attention of Member States, the relevant United Nations organs and intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations for their consideration.

“This is a significant step towards making judges accountable for their conduct. These Principles will complement the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary,” Judge Weeramantry concluded.

Steps are already under way to implement the new Principles in both Nigeria and Uganda.

Notes to Editors:The Judicial Integrity Group, which is chaired by Judge Weeramantry (Sri Lanka), comprises the Chief Justices of Bangladesh, Egypt, Karnataka State in India, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda, and senior judges from Australia and Canada. Those who attended the Round-Table Meeting included the Judges of the International Court of Justice from Madagascar, Hungary, Germany, Sierra Leone, United Kingdom, Brazil, Egypt and the United States of America, and the Chief Justices of Brazil, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, Norway and the Philippines. Others involved in the consultative process included the 40-member Consultative Council of European Judges. The Chairman of the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers participated as Observers. Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia has functioned as Rapporteur; Dr Nihal Jayawickrama (Sri Lanka) as Co-ordinator; and Mr Jeremy Pope (of Transparency International) as Resource Person. The initiative has been facilitated throughout by the Department for International Development, United Kingdom.

The Bangalore Principles take their name from the Indian city of Bangalore, where a meeting of the Judicial Integrity Group took place in February 2001. The Bangalore meeting included Chief Justices and senior judges from Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, India, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Uganda.

Press contact(s):

Dr Nihal Jayawickrama
Co-ordinator, Judicial Integrity Group
Tel: +44-2083606705

Jeremy Pope
Director, TI Centre for Innovation and Research
Tel: +44-20-7610 1400


Read More Strengthening basic principles of judicial conduct 



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Your Patriotic Donations is NEED of Hour for Indian Justice to put on par with Developed nations’ Justice System


Inline image @India0corrupt

“ ‘Indian DEMOCRACY is in DANGER; when 867 Employee-Cum-Judges, who have NEVER Learned to OBEY the LAW Are given THE RIGHT to COMMAND’.
‘to ABORT ANARCHY in India & To Make India Corruption Free; One needs to Prosecute & Jail Corrupt 867 Employee-Cum-Judges in Activating JUDICIARY’ ” .

Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct [BPCJ]- United Nations –

A Covenant agreed & approved by Indian Judiciary, Parliament & Prime Ministers of India. And the BPCJ is accorded by Indian Judiciary in Bangalore, where the SCAM of JUDICIARY of 867 Employee-Cum-Judges has taken place of which King Pins inter alia are Present Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, his predecessor CJIs H.L. Dattu, S.Rajendra Babu, M.N. Venkatachaliah.

Our Mission is to make Indian Judiciary, Parliament & Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Judicial Vision in disciplining Indian Judiciary per United Nations as agreed Covenant to by Indian Judiciary in implementing and upholding Universally accepted norms for JUDICIAL Independence ,  Impartiality , Integrity , Propriety ,  Equality, Competence and diligence.

THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT  is approved as  per Universal Declaration of Human Rights ,  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.

“The United Nations and the Council of Europe took into consideration the American and Canadian Models while examining the issue of judicial ethics and prepared the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct to which India is a signatory – CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICSM. C. SETALVAD MEMORIAL LECTURE as mentioned in Supreme court of India website .

A NOBLE Mission:-
Your Patriotic Donations is NEED of Hour for Indian Justice to put on par with Developed nations’ Justice System.

Donations be made in F/O Mr. DIGVIJAY MOTE,
State Bank of India. Savings Bank Account No. 20249182227.
Branch Code: IFSC : SBIN 0004932 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized