Comparative Constitutional Law
Indian courts regularly draw upon foreign jurisprudence for interpretive guidance. Below are key foreign judgments and legal principles frequently cited by the Supreme Court of India.
United States Supreme Court
-
Marbury v. Madison (1803): Established judicial review — cited by Indian courts in recognizing their power of constitutional review
-
Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Desegregation — cited in Indian equality jurisprudence
-
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Right to counsel and against self-incrimination — influenced D.K. Basu guidelines
-
Roe v. Wade (1973): Privacy rights — discussed in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)
-
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Marriage equality — cited in Navtej Singh Johar (2018)
United Kingdom
-
Entick v. Carrington (1765): Foundation of privacy law — cited in Puttaswamy
-
A.V. Dicey’s Rule of Law: Foundational concept adopted in Indian constitutional framework
-
Wednesbury Unreasonableness (1948): Standard of judicial review of administrative action — widely used in Indian administrative law
-
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): Neighbour principle in tort — foundational in Indian tort law
South African Constitutional Court
-
S v. Makwanyane (1995): Abolition of death penalty — cited in Indian death penalty debates (Bachan Singh)
-
Government of RSA v. Grootboom (2000): Right to housing — influenced Indian right to shelter jurisprudence
-
Minister of Health v. TAC (2002): Right to health/access to medicines — cited in Indian health rights cases
-
National Coalition for Gay Rights v. Minister (1999): Decriminalization of homosexuality — cited in Navtej Singh Johar
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
-
Handyside v. UK (1976): Freedom of expression scope — cited in Indian free speech cases
-
Soering v. UK (1989): Death row phenomenon — cited in Vatheeswaran and Triveniben
-
Dudgeon v. UK (1981): Decriminalization of homosexuality — cited in Naz Foundation and Navtej Singh Johar
-
Proportionality doctrine: Widely adopted in Indian constitutional analysis
Canada
-
R v. Oakes (1986): Proportionality test for reasonable limits on rights — adopted in Indian limitation analysis
-
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982): Section 1 “reasonable limits” clause — discussed in Indian restriction analysis under Article 19(2)-(6)
International Criminal Tribunals
-
Nuremberg Trials (1945-46): Foundation of international criminal law — established that individuals are responsible for crimes against humanity
-
ICTY (Yugoslavia) and ICTR (Rwanda): Developed jurisprudence on genocide, war crimes, and command responsibility
Note: Indian courts use comparative law as persuasive authority, not binding precedent. As the Supreme Court observed, foreign decisions are useful for the reasoning they contain, not as binding authority. Indian constitutional text, structure, and history remain primary guides for interpretation.