No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 September 2021
This article examines how global constitutional norms are received and reconfigured by South Asian judiciaries. It makes two central claims. First, it argues that India, as the largest state in the region, acts as a filter through which Bangladesh and Sri Lanka receive both structural and rights-based global norms. Second, it contends that Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan courts adopt distinct approaches to the Indian case law. While Bangladesh mostly converges with the Indian jurisprudence, Sri Lanka engages with it but does not wholly adopt its conclusions. The article puts forward a preliminary explanation for these distinct approaches based on differences in the constitutional structures and political histories of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka vis-à-vis India.
1 M Rosenfeld, ‘Is Global Constitutionalism Meaningful or Desirable?’ (2014) 25 European Journal of International Law 177.
2 See, for example, S Choudhry (ed), The Migration of Constitutional Ideas (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009); DS Law and M Versteeg, ‘The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution’ (2012) 87 NYU Law Review 762; KL Scheppele, ‘Aspirational and Aversive Constitutionalism: The Case for Studying Cross-Constitutional Influence Through Negative Models’ (2003) 1 International Journal of Constitutional Law 296.
3 See, for example, R Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004); S Gardbaum; ‘The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism’ (2001) 49 American Journal of Comparative Law 707; Ginsburg, T, ‘The Global Spread of Constitutional Review’ in Whittington, KE, Keleman, RD and Caldeira, GA (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008)Google Scholar; Ginsburg, T and Versteeg, M, ‘Why Do Countries Adopt Constitutional Review?’ (2013) 30 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 DS Law and M Versteeg (2011) ‘The Evolution and Ideology of Global Constitutionalism’ (2011) 99 California Law Review 1163; Z Elkins, T Ginsburg and B Simmons, ‘Getting to Rights: Treaty Ratification, Constitutional Convergence, and Human Rights Practice’ (2013) 54 Harvard International Law Journal 61.
5 VC Jackson, ‘Constitutional Comparisons: Convergence, Resistance, Engagement’ (2005) 119 Harvard Law Review 109.
6 On the forms and limits of convergence, see R Dixon and E Posner, ‘The Limits of Constitutional Convergence’ (2010–11) 11 Chicago Journal of International Law 400.
7 Constitution of the Netherlands (2008), Arts 93–94.
8 See DS Law, ‘Generic Constitutional Law’ (2005) 89 Minnesota Law Review 652.
9 See N Dorsen, ‘The Relevance of Foreign Legal Materials in U.S. Constitutional Cases: A Conversation between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer’ (2005) 3(4) International Journal of Constitutional Law 519.
10 Jackson (n 5) 114.
11 Ibid; Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
12 Dixon and Posner (n 6) 411–13, arguing that convergence through ‘learning’ is most likely between states with ‘similar demographic and social conditions’, where one state self-consciously adopts another state’s constitutional norms that produce ‘better outcome[s]’.
13 AM Slaughter, ‘A Typology of Transjudicial Communication’ (1994) 29 University of Richmond Law Review 99.
14 Ibid; AM Slaughter, ‘A Global Community of Courts’ (2003) 44 Harvard International Law Journal 191. For a comprehensive and critical treatment of this concept, see DS Law and WC Chang, ‘The Limits of Global Judicial Dialogue’ (2011) 86 Washington Law Review 523.
15 For more on Sri Lanka’s distinct political and constitutional history, see R Abeyratne, ‘Uncertain Sovereignty: Ceylon as a Dominion 1948–1972’ (2019) 17(4) International Journal of Constitutional Law 1258; R Abeyratne, ‘Rethinking Judicial Independence in India and Sri Lanka’ (2015) 10 Asian Journal of Comparative Law 99.
16 See R Hirschl, ‘The Question of Case Selection in Comparative Constitutional Law’ (2005) 53 American Journal of Comparative Law 125, 133–34, explaining that in the ‘most similar cases’ approach to small-N, qualitative studies, researchers should compare cases that are matched on ‘variables or potential explanations that are not central to the study, but vary in the values on key independent or dependent variables’.
17 The term ‘basic structure’ was introduced in Kesavananda and refers to the most essential parts of a constitution that are immune from amendment. Outside South Asia, the judicial practice of invalidating amendments is generally known as the ‘unconstitutional constitutional amendments doctrine’. See Y Roznai, ‘Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Migration and Success of a Constitutional Idea’ (2013) 61 American Journal of Comparative Law 657.
18 Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) SCC 225.
19 (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 1.
20 In Re The Thirteenth Amendment [1987] 2 Sri LR 312.
21 Sièyes, EJ, ‘What is the Third Estate?’ in Lembcke, OW and Weber, F (eds), Emmanuel Joseph Sièyes: The Essential Political Writings (Brill 2014) 118–34Google Scholar.
22 Schmitt, C, Constitutional Theory, Seitzer, J trans (Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 2008)Google Scholar.
23 Roznai (n 17) 668.
24 Mate, M, ‘Priests in the Temple of Justice’ in Halliday, TC (eds), Fates of British Liberalism in the Post-Colony: The Politics of the Legal Complex (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2012) 119 Google Scholar.
25 Ibid 120.
26 Ibid.
27 Golak Nath v Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762.
28 Golak Nath, 2 SCR at 764.
29 Krishnaswamy, S, Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A Study of the Basic Structure Doctrine (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2009) 26–27 Google Scholar.
30 Kesavananda (n 18) 768.
31 Ibid 366.
32 Roznai, Y, Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017) 44 Google Scholar.
33 Ibid 20–21.
34 Ibid
35 Ibid 21.
36 Ibid 47–69.
37 The Bangladesh Supreme Court is divided between the High Court Division and Appellate Division. The latter has the power of final adjudication.
38 (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 1.
39 Yap, PJ, Courts and Democracies in Asia (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017) 160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 1 [293].
41 Ibid [295].
42 Ibid [294] (emphasis added).
43 Ibid [419].
44 Ibid [350–368]; HM Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 4th edn (Universal Law Publishing, Delhi, 2005).
45 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India, (2016) 4 SCC 1.
46 R Abeyratne, ‘Upholding Judicial Supremacy: The NJAC Judgment in Comparative Perspective’ (2017) 49 George Washington International Law Review 569, 570.
47 Bangladesh v Asaduzzaman Siddiqui, Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017 (AD).
48 Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act 2014 (Act XIII of 2014).
49 For a detailed comparative analysis of these judgments, see PJ Yap and R Abeyratne, ‘Judicial Self-Dealing and Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments in South Asia’ International Journal of Constitutional Law (forthcoming).
50 Yap (n 39) 157.
51 Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act 2011 (Act XIV of 2011).
52 Ibid Art 7B.
53 Ibid Art 96.
54 In Re The Thirteenth Amendment (n 20)
55 Ibid 316–17.
56 Constitution of Sri Lanka (1978), art 83. Under Article 82, all other parts of the Constitution can be amended by a two-thirds majority in parliament.
57 In Re The Thirteenth Amendment (n 20) 317.
58 Ibid 329.
59 Ibid.
60 Kesavananda (n 18) 767.
61 In Re The Thirteenth Amendment (n 20) 329–30.
62 Ibid 330.
63 In Re the Nineteenth Amendment [2002] 3 Sri LR 85.
64 Ibid 94.
65 Constitution of Sri Lanka (1978) Art 4(b).
66 In Re the Nineteenth Amendment (n 63) 98.
67 Ibid 115.
68 In Re the Nineteenth Amendment, SD Nos 4–19/2015 (3 May 2016) p 5.
69 Ibid 6.
70 Ibid 17.
71 CD Cunningham, ‘Public Interest Litigation in Indian Supreme Court: A Study in the Light of American Experience’ (1987) 29 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 494.
72 See P Singh, ‘Human Rights Protection Through Public Interest Litigation’(1999) 45 Indian Journal of Public Administration 731; Baxi, U, ‘The Avatars of Indian Judicial Activism: Explorations in the Geographies of (in)justice’ in Verma, SK and Kusum, K (eds), Fifty Years of the Supreme Court of India: Its Grasp and Reach (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000)Google Scholar.
73 PN Bhagwati, My Tryst with Justice (Universal Law Publishing, Delhi, 2013) 71 (‘It would not be presumptuous on my part to say that my response to [deeply-rooted problems in India] … was almost unique in the history of the development of law and judicial process’).
74 Baxi, U, ‘Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India’ (1985) 4 Third World Legal Studies 107, 108–09Google Scholar.
75 A Chayes, ‘The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation’ (1976) 89 Harvard Law Review 1281, 1284.
76 Kennedy, D, ‘Three Globalizations of Law and Legal Thought: 1850–2000’ in Trubek, DM and Santos, A (eds), The New Law and Economic Development: A Critical Appraisal (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) 19, 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 Ibid 68.
78 Ibid.
79 Baxi (n 74) 114–16.
80 Ibid. In a recent revisionist account of the origins of PIL, Anuj Bhuwania argues that the Supreme Court used PIL to further the agenda that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sought to impose during the Emergency, rather than as a means of resistance against the government. See Bhuwania, A, Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India (Cambridge University Press, Delhi, 2017) 25–35 Google Scholar.
81 Singh, P, ‘Enforcing Social Rights Through Public Interest Litigation: An Overview of the Indian Experience’ in Deva, S (ed), Socio-Economic Rights in Emerging Free Markets: Comparative Insights from India and China (Routledge, Oxford, 2015)Google Scholar.
82 Constitution of India Arts 32, 226.
83 S Deva, ‘Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review’ (2009) 28 Civil Justice Quarterly 19, 23.
84 Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdulbhai Faizullabhai (1976) 3 SCC 832, 837–38.
85 Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union v Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 568.
86 Ibid 584 (Krishna Iyer J. concurring).
87 SP Gupta v Union of India (1982) SCC (Supp) 87.
88 Ibid 205.
89 R Abeyratne, ‘Socioeconomic Rights in the Indian Constitution: Toward a Broader Conception of Legitimacy’ (2014) 39 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 1, 34–42.
90 SP Gupta (n 87) 210.
91 Ibid 212.
92 Desai, AH and Muralidhar, S, ‘Public Interest Litigation: Potential and Problems’ in Kirpal, BN, Desai, AH, Subramanium, G, Dhavan, R and Ramachandran, R (eds), Supreme but Not Infallible: Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000) 163 Google Scholar.
93 See, for example, Sheela Barse v Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 226.
94 See, for example, In Re: Networking of Rivers, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of 2002.
95 Hoque, R, Judicial Activism in Bangladesh: A Golden Mean Approach (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, 2011) 140–41Google Scholar.
96 Bangladesh Sangbadpatra Parishad v Bangladesh (1991) DLR (AD) 126, 127–28.
97 Ibid.
98 Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (1997) 26 CLC (AD) [505].
99 Ibid [20].
100 Bangladesh Constitution (1972) Art 102(1).
101 Mohiuddin Farooque (n 98) [48].
102 Ibid.
103 Ibid [81–83].
104 Hoque (n 95) 142–43.
105 One notable exception is that Bangladeshi courts have not used the non-justiciable Fundamental Principles of State Policy in the Constitution to aid in the interpretation of fundamental rights to the degree that the Indian Supreme Court has with the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution. See MJA Chowdhury, An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of Bangladesh, 3rd edn (Book Zone, Chittagong, 2017) 135–50.
106 Ain-o-Salish Kendro v Bangladesh (1999) 18 BLD (HCD) 488.
107 Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 69.
108 See, for example, Khushi Kabir v Bangladesh WP No 4685 of 2003.
109 BLAST v Bangladesh (2007) 57 DLR (HCD) 11.
110 Several PILs have been decided on issues of pollution and the right to clean environment in India, including MC Mehta v Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 353 (Taj Mahal Pollution Case); MC Mehta v Union of India, WP (Civil) No 13029/1985 (Delhi Vehicular Pollution Case); and Almitra H Patel v Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 416 (solid waste management).
111 Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545.
112 Rudul Sah v Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141.
113 BNWLA v Bangladesh (2009) 29 BLD 415.
114 Vishaka v Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.
115 State v Deputy Commissioner, Satkhira (1993) 45 DLR (HCD) 643.
116 Hoque (n 95) 152.
117 Baxi (n 74) 118.
118 AIR 1979 SC 1369.
119 Ibid.
121 Editor, Daily Prothom Alo v Bangladesh (2003) 11 BLT (HCD) 281.
122 Md. Rustom Ali v State (2017) 5 CLR (AD) 154.
123 Constitution of Sri Lanka (1978), art 126(1).
124 Ibid Art 126(2).
125 Ibid Art 126(4).
126 Ibid Art 80(3).
127 Constitution of India Arts 13, 32, 226.
128 Constitution of Sri Lanka (1978) Art 17 (emphasis added).
129 Constitution of India Art 32.
130 Wijesiri v Siriwardene [1982] 1 Sri LR 171, 172.
131 Ibid 175.
132 Ibid.
133 Ibid 178.
134 Ibid 178–79.
135 Bulankulama v Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development (Eppawela Case) [2000] 3 Sri LR 243 (2000).
136 Ibid 252.
137 Ibid 262.
138 Ibid 258.
139 Ibid 320.
140 Azath Salley v Colombo Municipal Council [2009] 1 Sri LR 365, 368.
141 Ibid 382–85.
142 Ibid 377–78.
143 Ibid 378–79.
144 D Samararatne, ‘Judicial Borrowing and Creeping Influences: Indian Jurisprudence in Sri Lankan Public Law’ (2018) 2(3) Indian Law Review 205, 216–17.
145 SC FR No. 18/2015 (3 May 2016).
146 Ibid 13–14.
147 Ibid 14.
148 Ibid 14-15.
149 Bangladesh was under martial law from 1975 to 1979 and from 1982 to 1986, while emergency rule has been declared four times, resulting in the suspension of fundamental rights. See Yap (n 39) 157.
150 R Coomaraswamy and C de los Reyes, ‘Rule by Emergency: Sri Lanka’s Postcolonial Constitutional Experience’ (2004) 2(2) International Journal of Constitutional Law 272; A Welikala, A State of Permanent Crisis: Constitutional Government, Fundamental Rights and States of Emergency in Sri Lanka (Centre for Policy Alternatives, Colombo, 2008).
151 SR Ratner, ‘Accountability and Sri Lankan Civil War’ (2012) 106 American Journal of International Law 795.
152 See Bass, GJ, The Blood Telegram: India’s Secret War in East Pakistan (Random House, Delhi, 2014)Google Scholar.
153 S Krishna, ‘India and Sri Lanka: A Fatal Convergence’ (1992) 15 Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 267, 272.
154 RM Gunewardene, ‘Indo-Sri Lanka Accord: Intervention by Invitation or Forced Intervention?’ (1991) 16 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 211, 213.
155 ML Marasinghe, ‘Ethnics Politics and Constitutional Reform: The Indo-Sri Lankan Accord’ (1988) 37 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 551, 565–71.
156 RR Premdas and SWR de A Samarasinghe, ‘Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Conflict: The Indo-Lanka Peace Accord’ (1988) 28(6) Asian Survey 676, 682–84.
157 Krishna (n 153) 276.
158 Ibid.
159 Ibid 276 (noting that Sri Lankan ‘public opinion held that the accord was a sellout and that ‘big brother’ India had secured one third the island for one-tenth the population’).
160 See P Zumbansen, ‘Comparative, Global, and Transnational Constitutionalism: The Emergence of a Transnational Legal-Pluralist Order’ (2012) 1 Global Constitutionalism 16.
161 See, for example, R Albert, M Nakashidze and T Olcay, ‘The Formalist Resistance to Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments’ (2019) 70 Hastings Law Journal 639.
162 See JM Isanga, ‘African Judicial Review, the Use of Comparative Jurisprudence, and the Judicialization of Politics’ (2017) 49 George Washington International Law Review 749, 764–79, arguing that while the South African Constitutional Court does not rely much on other African courts, its jurisprudence is influential in those courts’ judicial review; C Bernal, ‘The Constitutional Protection of Economic and Social Rights in Latin America’ in R Dixon and T Ginsburg (eds), Comparative Constitutional Law in Latin America (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2017) 338–39, noting ‘the beginning of a practice of intra-regional migration of constitutional ideas’ and that the ‘innovative conceptual and methodological tools’ of the Colombian Constitutional Court have been adopted by judges across Latin America.