why did the house of lords issue the practice statement in 1966
Practice Statement Until the year 1966, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom was bound to follow all of its previous decisions under the principle of stare decisis, even if this created "injustice" and "unduly restrict(s) the proper development of the law" (London Tramways Co. v London County Council [1898] AC 375). The Practice Statement 1966 is authority for the House of Lords to depart from their previous decisions. It does not affect the precedential value of cases in lower courts; all other courts that recognise the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) as the court of last resort are still bound by Supreme Court decisions. Before this, the only way a binding precedent could be avoided was to create new legislation on the matter.
Nandalal Bose He was given the work of illustrating the constitution of India
Presentment Clause The Presentment Clause, which is contained in Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3, provides:
The mother of parliaments (expression) The expression is often applied to the Parliament of the United Kingdom because of the adoption of the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy by many countries of the former British Empire.[2][3][4]
All that glitters is not gold While early expressions of the idea are known from at least the 12th century, the current saying is derived from a 16th century line by William Shakespeare.
Parkinson's law Articulated by Cyril Northcote Parkinson as part of the first sentence of a humorous essay published in The Economist in 1955 and since republished online,[1][2] it was reprinted with other essays in the book Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress (London, John Murray, 1958). He derived the dictum from his extensive experience in the British Civil Service.