English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Superior Courts judges are expected to have a higher standard of conduct. It is necessary for the judiciary as an institution, to maintain its probity and independence. The proposition that the Superior Court Judge is only responsible for his conduct and not that of his independent wife and children. This study makes clear that Judges are supposed to know the interests of members of their families in monetary terms. This work further explores an appealing hypothesis that the President should act in his discretion when authorizing an investigation against a Superior Court Judge under Article 48(2). The study concluded that under the Constitutional process for performing the executive function of authorizing an investigation into information against a Superior Court Judge, the President should act on the advice of the PM or the Cabinet under Article48(1) of the Constitution and not invoke his discretionary power under Article 48(2).

Assessing the Efficacy of the Concept of Judicial Accountability Through the Lens of the Constitution of Pakistan