Draft:Contemporary Jurisprudence

• Comment: This still turns on a single source. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: (a) significant MOS issues. (b) needs inline references. (c) needs proper sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Contemporary Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence(Case law) also used interchangeably with common law, is law that is based on precedents, that is the judicialdecisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a legal case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions. He is considered the most influential element in the development of modern civilization, in the historical journey of mankind.

Branches of Jurisprudence

Here is an overview of its various branches:

• Fundamental human rights derive from natural jurisprudence.
• Current civil rules and regulations derive from sociological jurisprudence.
• The rituals and traditional values of society are derived from historical jurisprudence.
• Knowledge of the law derives from analytical jurisprudence, while today's judicial system exists on the basis of the cardinal principles of realist jurisprudence.
• Consequently, the current democratic and judicial system, as well as all the world's constitutions, are the product or by-product of jurisprudence, while jurisprudence is considered the supreme source of the structure of our current civilization.

The new birth of jurisprudence: Contemporary Jurisprudence

In the course of the development of jurisprudence, a new school of thought has been codified as the school of contemporary jurisprudence, which places greater emphasis on increasing the degree of democracy with a view to achieving absolute democratic status and increasing the effectiveness, transparency and efficiency of the judicial system. In the following series of jurisprudence, contemporary jurisprudence criticizes the current democratic system on the following grounds:

1.     The Parliament | Legislative Assembly | governing body can never be considered an absolute representation of the State Republic. This is because the personal interests of the person elected can never be the same as those of the State Republic (according to contemporary jurisprudence).

This means that the current democratic system worldwide has been declared null and void.

2.      The state judicial system has been declared an organ of the state and must never be treated as an independent organ of the state.

    This means that current judicial systems worldwide have been declared null and void.

3.     In today's democratic system, only members of parliament and the legislature follow the election procedure, while other institutions (such as the judiciary and the bureaucracy) do not.

Rules of contemporary jurisprudence

Consequently, DEEPAK SHARMA (father of contemporary jurisprudence) proposed, in support of contemporary jurisprudence, based on rules such as:

A.     The dual representation of the democratic system - (Parliament and society represent)

B.     Dual representation of the judicial system - (representation of the judiciary and society)

C.     Centralized trial procedure of the judicial system - Fair trial procedure (J.I.T)

• Proposed Democratic System under Contemporary Jurisprudence
• Proposed Judicial System under Contemporary Jurisprudence
• Impact of Contemporary Jurisprudence upon upcoming Democratic System
• Proposed impact of Contemporary Jurisprudence on Political Science
• Proposed impact of Contemporary Jurisprudence on Social Structure in term of Religion, Economic class.

Tanya Gorshi, Development of Justice in Indian Jurisprudence, https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/injlolw3&div=81&id=&page=