Science is Key to Secure Predictable Outcome
Innovation
Statement, “It is impossible to predict the outcome in a Court of Law for the Law involves its Interpretation”, & that not even one would say with authority & sense of responsibility that “He is absolutely clear what would be the outcome in a litigation before a Court of Law” baffled us.
We found this situation fundamentally opposed to the idea of Law (Orderly element in society to secure predictable discourse) indicating that Law, in reality, has given rise to a Lawless discourse. This compelled us (as we were not ready to accept the status quo which was defeating the core of Law) to delve into a new & different journey to find the real reasoning of such glaringly visible dichotomy & made us discover the fault line (Inverted Architecture) & consequent development (Innovation) of new Legal Language as opposed to the existing Jurisprudential Principles.
To challenge & change the existing known Legal Language used ubiquitously for centuries, we needed something substantial yet simple & easy to understand, may be on a mathematical scale, which we did by adopting the graphical/scientific route by designing many Graphical Models/Tool.
Following are some of our Jurisprudential Innovations:
- Court doesn’t have “Power to delete a part provision” if it tramples someone’s Fundamental Rights while unlocking one’s trampled Fundamental Rights.
- State doesn’t have “Power to extricate your choice” to restrain yourself from exercising a lawful Profession, Business & Trade.
- State has no “Power to impose reservation on Private Sector” unless it is linked with state largesse or statutory benefit.
- Assessee has full “Right to rectify error in its GST Return” & avoid incidence of Taxing Liability therefrom.
- “Intention of Legislature” is an unnecessary Rule of “Interpretation of Law”.
- Known & existing “Rules of Interpretation” is designed & rested on “Inverted Architecture”.
- New “Legal Language” adjusted to “Inverted Architecture” factor is the sound language of Law.
- “Constitution Perimeter” covers Governance.
- “Every Statute has its defined & visible Perimeter” within which Public Interest rests, beyond which & no man’s territory within the perimeter Private Interest rests.
- Public Interest (which is an artificial interest) cannot fathom an interest beyond Individual Interest (which is natural interest) & thus public interest is a sub-set of Individual Interest.
- PIL distorts constitutional edifice/architecture/design with wide ramifications.
- State cannot assume or authorise itself to declare citizens a “Presumed Offender”.
- “Concept of Accused” puts onus on the prosecutor to prove the allegation is an intrinsic “Rule of Civility”.
- Inter se Rights & Liabilities arising out from an Instrument cannot be “Enforceable by Law”, which freezes the medium in which said instrument operates.