There is an elementary rule of presumption that Parliaments acts reasonably or in reasonable manner.To this regard the following observations of the South Africa's Constitutional Court are very relevant.The citation of the case are given at the the end of the paragraph and may be referred to.{blogger]
…the rule of law. Fundamental to the rule of law is the notion that government acts in a rational rather than an arbitrary manner. As South Africa: Constitutional Court observed in Prinsloo:
“ [T]he constitutional State is expected to act in a rational manner. It should not regulate in an arbitrary manner or manifest ˜naked preferences” that serve no legitimate governmental purpose, for that would be inconsistent with the rule of law and the fundamental premises of the constitutional State. . . . This has been said to promote the need for governmental action to relate to a defensible vision of the public good, as well as to enhance the coherence and integrity of legislation. In Mureinik’s celebrated formulation, the new constitutional order constitutes a bridge away from a culture of authority . . . to a culture of justification.. (footnotes omitted)"
Our Constitution accordingly requires that all legislation be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. If not, it is inconsistent with the rule of law and invalid.
No comments:
Post a Comment