Judiciary and its modus operandi have throughout the time unfolded as a competent mechanism for raising and establishing the standards of fairness and justness in the society. Any prevailing judicial system in the globe
operates with decisive object of providing justice with equity and no discrimination based on who knocks the door of court. For furnishing this object it demands construction of principle of law in such a manner that, in majority case possible, it will lead to similar decision on similar question of law. This necessity of uniformity and
consistency flows in every line of the law and it is demanded by any legal system in the globe to establish consistent and uniform modus operandi to meet the justice and equity.
Generally all legal systems around the globe have incorporated principle of equity and nondiscrimination
in their laws thus there are no hurdles in this aspect. However, the problem catches heat in those cases where there are requirements of rule of law to be applied which are foreign to that country’s courts. Cases with such essence which associates with them the element of foreign jurisdiction raises the question of choice of law. It mandates to discuss the question as to whether court should reflect foreign rule of law in their decision and if yes then at what length.
Conflict of laws or Private international law constitutes the legal principles and rules governing international private relations. It thus gives rise to that branch of law which deals with cases where some relevant fact has a geographic connection creating a “foreign element”, and that raises a question regarding jurisdiction and
which law applies i.e. arises when there are one or more legally relevant foreign elements, resulting in two or more different laws competing relative to a person, act or fact, or to a single thing and there is doubt about which law should apply.
