Supreme Court of Packilvania: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit |
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit |
||
Line 15:
In ''Prince Guram vs the Crown of Packilvania'', it was ruled that the Sultan of Packilvania had original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving Princes and Princesses of the [[Bedonite dynasty]]. Prince Radeeq was one of Sultan [[Amhoud II]]'s brothers. He appointed to the position by Sultan [[Namdun III]] in February 2001. In ''Sergeant Asmal Orkoud vs the Chief of the Defence Staff'', the Court ruled that members of the [[Packilvanian Armed Forces]] could appeal cases of military discipline to civilian courts and that to the extent that the matter pertained to constitutional law, the cases could be appealed to the Supreme Court. Faced with the case, ''Jabal Masumi v the Provincial Minister for Public Safety of Ashura'', it was ruled that the [[Provinces of Packilvania|Provincial governments of Packilvania]] could legislate on matters concerning the rights of citizens to the extent that such legislation abided with law and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful for a private business to deny a client service on the basis of their religion or species in the case ''Panaam Adud v Shaykal Furniture''. In ''Ashmara Duhavid v National Commissioner of the Religious Police'', it was determined that the Constitution did indeed by implication and through the laws created pursuant thereto have the power to request and enforce the observance of fasting for all able-bodied adult citizens during the month of Ishtihan. The Supreme Court determined that it was indeed constitutional for the government to pass laws moderating the public dress of the people of the country including imposing requirements with respect to headscarves in the case ''Fujayla Ashmidin v National Commissioner of the Religious Police''.
In 2006, the Great Magister of Ashura took the Minister of Home Affairs to court in the case ''Office of the Great Magister of Ashura v the Minister of Home Affairs'', in which the Supreme Court determined that it was not unconstitutional especially with respect to Packilvania's status as a theocratic state under Paxism for the government to extend to women the right to terminate a pregnancy, as it did not recognise that the precepts protecting children extended to an unborn foetus. In the case, ''Ekhanid Ankhadeel v National Commissioner of the Police Service of Packilvania'', it was determined that it was indeed constitutional for the police place a person within the borders of Packilvania under detention for a reasonable and lawful period for the sake of their own protection or the protection of others.
In 2008, journalist Yamal Bedawin published sensitive government documents to the newspaper the ''Tashkar Sun'' in [[Mekedesh]]. The Supreme Court, in ''Yamal Bedawin v the Minister of State Security'', ruled that it was constitutional for the government to arrest and charge with the crime of violation of national security, the unauthorised publishing of lawfully classified intelligence documents. 2015 marked the year the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court. During that year, in the case ''Menkhadim Ashmood v Korodal Data Incorporated'' that the personal data of a person was his private property and he had constitutional rights pertaining to property. However such data would have to be data against which property rights could be exercised. A year later, in ''Menkhadim Ashmood v the Minister of State Security'', the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for the state to hold private data to the extent that it was in the national interest (heavily citing the ''Yamal Bedawin'' case).
At the end of 2016, in ''Office of the Great Magister of Fidakar v Minister of Justice'', the Supreme Court determined that the right to life did not extend to the lawful imposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes violating the life of others. Stemming therefrom in the case entitled ''Terhad Fawad v the National Commissioner of the Police Service of Packilvania'' in 2017, the Supreme Court that the ruling of the ''Office of the Great Magister'' did not extend to vigilantes, stating that the Constitution empowered only the government through its lawfully established courts to enforce the death penalty. 2018 marked a landmark year in which the Supreme Court ruled that legitimate and lawful criticism by way of written or verbal statement of the government and the Crown was distinct from criticism of the monarch personally, in the case ''Meker Sunday Times v [[Imperial Court of Packilvania]]''. Nevertheless, it did uphold the fact that unlawful and indecent criticism of the state could be validly curtailed in the public interest.
==Powers and duties==
| |||