The peer-reviewed, open access Global Journal of Political Science and Election Tribunal (GJPSET) offers quick publishing of manuscripts in all fields of political science, election tribunal, and allied disciplines. This journal's goal is to give scientists and researchers from all over the world a genuine forum to communicate, promote, and discuss a wide range of cutting-edge concepts and advancements in all facets of vocational and technical education. Manuscripts that satisfy the general requirements of relevance and scientific excellence are welcome submissions to the journal. After acceptance, papers will be published shortly. Peer review is applied to every manuscript published in GJPSET.

Judicial precedents are necessary for the integration of the election legal system. Such a statement implies that the resolution of electoral issues now involves both political and judicial institutions. Political authorities once utilised political standards to settle electoral disagreements. Conflicts over elections are now resolved by independent electoral courts that sort cases based on legislative requirements. Election litigation has been judicialized, and the rulings of electoral courts and judges have become essential to understanding what election legislation is meant to be. In common law regimes, election courts are important. These courts offer a vital contribution to the growth of the legal system. Election law is produced by judicial opinions and election-related court opinions. It is clear that systems other than common law systems take into account judicial rulings on electoral disputes. Election judges in civil court regimes have significantly improved and developed electoral law as well. In those countries, decisions made by electoral courts must be taken into consideration when deciding fresh cases. The constitutionality of executive orders issued by electoral authorities is occasionally addressed in judicial rulings regarding election disputes because of how significantly important it is to do so.

Election resolutions that achieve this are comparable to constitutional courts issuing interpretations of the constitution. The power to create precedents with legal force belongs to the highest courts. Certain formal conditions, including decisions having to be reached by consensus or in writing, must be met in order to establish precedents. Judicial precedents are created when a single ratio is regularly used to settle numerous cases. Similar situations must exist in order to solve such cases utilising the same ratio. The setting of precedents in the law is also aided by the rulings of the highest courts on conflicting legal opinions that have been upheld by other courts. Judicial precedents can typically only be overturned or rescinded by the most senior judges' rationale-based rulings.