The supreme court represents the highest form of court seating which has the final say on contested cases. One might go to the constitutional court if there is any need to challenge any law deemed unfair, but usually, the supreme court ends heated court cases.
Since it is a court, people believe that it must just interpret the laws of a country and then use them as a yardstick to reveal if a person is innocent or guilty. In this regard, judges become assessors of law rather than authors, and they use whatever is written down to make a ruling. The prescribed regulations and orders are treated as a manual that directs a judge to the most ‘fair’ judgment to be made. Others analysts noted that judges “should apply the law and not make the law.” Relying on what is scribed in the constitution seems like an easy task for a judge who can refer to the books of laws and hold a perpetrator against the laws.
But a closer analysis on this issue has proved otherwise. Due to the roles assigned to the supreme court judges, it is revealed that they do make laws in their own right. Such an ability is not an outright exercise, but it stems from executing their court business. It was argued that making a ruling entails writing down opinions while justifying them with the constitution or mandates laid out within a specific area [Source].
These opinions will lead to a justifiable conclusion which is reached after considering the involved factors. Because these opinions vary, so it means that they are unique and are probably a new thing that one will include in a rule book, thus modifying the status quo of whatever law is referred to.
After making a ruling, the cases are filed, and this material can be used as a source of reference in other matters of the same caliber. On this aspect, these recorded views are utilized as sources of law, meaning the judges who wrote authored a law. “In writing opinions that serve as a precedent and in relying on precedent as a source of law, the Supreme Court runs under common law.”
Other perspectives note that “Only Parliament can pass or cancel laws. The Supreme Court’s role is to decide on the correct interpretation of those laws when there is a dispute” [Source] and make recommendations to the Parliament about any law which does not safeguard human rights.
Because the constitution’s contents are prone to different interpretations, the Supreme Court doles out reasons for making certain decisions. Reasons are derived from the laws written down. “Supreme Court do make law; it is the reasons for their decisions that matter” [Source], which means that by explaining why a decision was taken, the supreme court judges do establish common laws.
By telling people how to interpret a law, the Supreme Court can be regarded as making “laws of how to interpret constitution laws,” used in future cases as a point of reference. This has prompted judges to allude to rulings made during the 90s or long back and use them as evidence to back up their decisions.
These case files, together with judges’ recommendations and opinions, are then turned into “rulebooks” that help one to make a ruling, hence it can be argued that the Supreme Court makes a law, whether directly or indirectly, and does contribute in noting the laws used in a country.