The argumentative approach, the probability approach, and the story model are the three normative frameworks to reasoning with judicial evidence. The story model describes that judges reach the final conclusion by going through three different stages. The model also offered certainty principles, including evidential coverage, coherence, consistency, plausibility, and structural completeness to evaluate the stories. Different researchers have criticized the story model by pointing out that the model does not elaborate the meaning of evidential coverage and plausibility. Additionally, the story model has also been charged on the ground that it does not guide how to evaluate evidential coverage or plausibility of a story and how to select the best story when judges make more than one story. The present study demonstrates that these shortcomings may be overcome by using anchored narrative theory, causal abductive reasoning, story schemes, critical questions, and principles of inference to the best explanation.

A vast majority of Muslim scholars opine that land reforms including the fixation of ceiling on individual land-holdings can be carried out without offending any Islamic teachings. Moreover, article 253 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to prescribe the maximum limits as to property or any class thereof which may be owned, held, possessed or controlled by any person. Likewise, such reforms are considered essential as for as requirements of distributive justice is concerned and to further the desired Islamic goals of social justice, eradication of social evils and to ensure economic well-being of the poor attached to earth. To achieve these desired goals, land reforms laws were introduced in the country. However, the beneficiaries of feudalism and landlordism challenged these laws in the Islamic Courts to protect their vested interests. These judicial forums were split in their findings regarding the fate of these laws. This article analyses the findings of these forums to suggest that weather those who uphold these laws have stronger reasons.

No abstract

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the role of the UN on the conflict of J and K. The Kashmir Issue has been on the agenda of the UN since 1948. There are many stages of the UN's intervention for the resolution of this protracted conflict. There is a need to critically analyze the role of the UN in the conflict of J and K. This research paper will analyze the role of the UN in a critical manner to explore the causes and circumstances responsible for the failure of the UN in resolving this conflict. The findings of this paper will be based upon the literature review on the conflict of J and K and UN's mediation. This study can be very useful in the future to analyze the role of the UN in resolving international disputes and to evaluate the causes of the failure of the UN in different protracted conflicts.

This research article aimed to examine a leading case regarding imprisonment for non-payment of Diyat, Arsh or Daman and its associated issues contested at the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan respectively in the light of qualitative research methodology. This work highlighted provisions declared by the court ineffective and directions to the government for legislation in this regard. The article also identified issues and challenges liked with the newly formulated Rules. The research at hand, examined whether or not the larger bench of the Supreme Court or the drafters of the Rules addressed the question of interest on the soft loan, which the government undertook the responsibility to be offered to the convicts who are unable to pay due to financial crisis and the same has to be received as arrears of land revenue