Legal Interpretation and Judicial Discretion in Modern Courts
Keywords:
legal interpretation, judicial discretion, judicial reasoning, modern courts, constitutional lawAbstract
This article examines the dynamic relationship between legal interpretation and judicial discretion in modern courts. It explores how interpretative theories—textualism, purposivism, originalism, and living constitutionalism—shape judicial reasoning and influence discretionary powers. The article further analyzes how courts balance rule-based interpretation with the necessity of flexible application to achieve justice, fairness, and consistency. Challenges in maintaining judicial neutrality, the influence of societal values, and the impact of modern constitutionalism are highlighted. The findings suggest that judicial discretion is essential in addressing legal ambiguity but must be bounded by interpretative principles, judicial ethics, and institutional accountability.
References
Bork, R. (1990). The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. Free Press.
Brennan, W. J. (1985). The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary ratification. Text and Teaching Symposium, Georgetown University.
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.
Frank, J. (1949). Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice. Princeton University Press.
Galligan, D. J. (1991). Judicial Discretion and the Constitution. Oxford University Press.
Hart, H. L. A., & Sacks, A. M. (1958). The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law. Tentative edition.
Posner, R. A. (2010). How Judges Think. Harvard University Press.
Scalia, A. (1997). A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton University Press.
Tushnet, M. (2009). Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law. Princeton University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Innovation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows others to share the article with proper attribution to the authors and prohibits commercial use or modification. For any other reuse or republication, permission from the journal and the authors is required.


