Protection of Journalistic Sources Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Protection of Journalistic Sources - Essay Example There is multitude of such cases in which the freedom of media has had been violated. Keeping in view such instances, it may easily be concluded that the prevailing laws have some flaws which have to be rectified in order to make the media more secure and free to perform its real ‘watchdog’ role and deliver the information to the public without any legal hindrances. There should be clarity in the laws which may not lead judges or the defence lawyers to interpret these laws wrongly. As, in the eye of law, both the accused and the common man have equal rights, so their rights may not clash with each other. If the fair trial is the fundamental right of the accused, it is also a right of the common man to know the factual position if there is public interest involved in the case. And it is, also the ethical obligation of the journalists to safeguard their sources so they may obtain information. Hence there is a need to make laws keeping in view these aspects.

The Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty Research Paper

The Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty - Research Paper Example The principle of parliamentary sovereignty was held high in Jackson v Attorney-General by Lord Bingham. Jackson v Attorney-General was a pivotal House of Lords case that brings to fore the legality of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 in the context of banning fox hunting by passing the Hunting Act 2004. The Hunting Act 2004 was passed while ascribing to section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, which was amended by section 1 of Parliament Act 1949, in the sense that the Act was passed sans the consent of the House of Lords after the expiry of the prescribed delay. In that sense, Jackson v Attorney-General stood to be an important case lies within the scope of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Within the sphere of the parliamentary sovereignty, Jackson v Attorney-General raised the question raised the questions regarding the validity of all the legislation passed under 1949 Parliament Act as the appellants argued that the Hunting Act passed under the 1949 Parliament Act was inv alid, because the parent act was passed while ascribing to the 1911 Act, a privilege that the 1911 Act never intended to allow. Since the Enrolled Bill Doctrine enunciated that the courts of law could not look into the procedural aspects of passed legislation, the bigger question that this case raised was that whether it was allowable to courts to challenge an Act passed by the Parliament. Lord Hope put an end to this controversy by referring to the principle of pre-enactment practice when he said that: â€Å"The political reality is that of general acceptance by all the main parties and by both Houses of the amended timetable which the 1949 Act introduced.