Are Judges the Makers or Discoverers of the Law? Essay

The tantrums of the latter three jurists atomic number 18 very complicated and need feature attention. It is also pertinent to note that no one has explored the views of leading judges and jurists in Pakistan to know which theory of adjudication they support. This work analyses rough of the prominent stopping points given by some(prenominal) of the notable Pakistani judges ? muhammadmuniriiu. edu. pk. Dr. Muhammad Munir, PhD is sort Professor and Chairman Department of legal philosophy at the Faculty of Shariah & Law, International Islamic University, Islamabad and Visiting Professor at the University College of Islamabad.This view is sh atomic number 18d by policeyers, law teachers, law students and judges alike. The prevailing mentation of in all those persons who deal with law in one way or the new(prenominal) in the IndoPak sub-continent or in the AngloAmerican legal world is that a decision of a court of law, especially a court of last resort which explicitly or imp licitly lays down a legal proposition, constitutes a source of law. The richness of precedent can be gauged yet by the fact that almost all authors from the above-mentioned regions treat precedent as a source of law.The above view may be undisputed in our own times but historically and jurisprudentially, it has always been disputed. Ascribing authoritative force to a precedent is to some extent grounded on the assumption that court decisions are a source of law and that judges are entitled to make law in much the same sense as the legislator. The role of the judge in the lick of adjudication as a law manufacturer is the subject of disagreement and debate. Many celebrated jurists, among them Bacon, Hale, and Blackstone, were convinced that the office of the judge was notwithstanding to declare and interpret the law, but not to make it. 2