Functions of a public nature under a provision of the Human Rights Act Case Study

Functions of a public nature under a provision of the Human Rights Act of 1998 - Case Study Example Those courts or judicial bodies shall act accordingly when an individual applies for that relief or remedy. Thus, if one perceives that any government authority exercises its powers illegally, he (the aggrieved party) may file or apply to the Administrative Court for judicial review. This means that the petitioner or applicant will be asking the Administrative Court to quash or set aside the allegedly illegal act or order or decision of the challenged government authority.In one case law, the grounds for judicial review were summarized into illegality, irrationality or unreasonableness, and procedural impropriety.1 Illegality and irrationality are founded on substantive considerations as both relate to the principles and theories applied in asking for the review of the act, order or decision of the respondent government authority. Procedural impropriety, on the other hand, points to the serious flaws of the procedures followed by the government authority in doing the act or in issuin g the order or in rendering the decision.Ordinarily, judicial review does not entangle so much in difficulty for its application and interpretation in cases on the subject of human rights. Thus, if an administrative office under the education ministry issues a ruling, for instance, that a certain public high school will accept only straight male boys for education grants, that ruling will be subject to judicial review if the prospective gay students apply for the same on the possible contention of discrimination which will have repercussion on their human rights even under common law. With the passing of the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the interpretation of basic rights and freedoms coverage in conjunction with the European Convention on Human Rights, there may be debates on the issues. Before the said law, no written law in the United Kingdom enumerated basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. These key human concerns were embodied in the general common law. Then came the Convention where provisions on basic human rights and fundamental freedoms are clearly stipulated. In view of all these, arguments on the issue of reconciling the Human Rights Act and the Convention have abounded. For instance, in the case of Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza2, the Human Rights Act was put on the test. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza was about gays who lived together as couples. Under the applicable law on rental succession, gays who treat each other as conjugal partners are not considered as husband and wife. Upon judicial review, Article 14 of the Convention was invoked and the court found that the claim against discrimination on the basis of sex or other gender orientation for that matter was tenable. The calisthenics all about the variances will lead to resolve the perception that the convention has become inferior to the Human Rights Act. It is at this point that the importance of judicial review in administrative law becomes apparent. The first part of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act says that primary and subordinate legislations must be construed such that local laws are compatible with the rights listed in the Convention. The statutory provision has its rationale. As a signatory to the treaty, the UK must abide by the rules of the Convention. Hence, UK statutes are interpreted in a way that there is agreement with the Convention. The final portion of Section 3 is the meat of the problem. It states that it does not affect the validity and continuing operation of the incompatible primary law. Does this affect the strength of the Convention' The answer is in the negative. Current primary and subo