Maharashtra National Law University

Aurangabad,
India

COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

OPTIONAL PAPER

B.A.LL.B. – SEMESTER IX

Batch – 2017-2022

Academic Year – 2021-2022

FACULTY
Ms. Neha Tripathi
Assistant Professor of Law, MNLU, Aurangabad

1|Page
 COURSE OUTLINE
Objective of the Course:
Comparative constitutional law is a newly energized field in the early 21st century. Never
before has the field had such a broad range of interdisciplinary interest, with lawyers,
political scientists, sociologists and even economists making contributions to our
collective understanding of how constitutions are formed and how they operate. Never
before has there been such demand from courts, lawyers and constitution-makers in a
wide range of countries for comparative legal analysis. And never before has the field
been so institutionalized, with new regional and international associations providing fora
for the exchange of ideas and the organization of collaborative projects.
This course is designed to examine from a comparative perspective –legal structure and
concepts that are found in Constitutions across the world, percepts such as basic rights,
rule of law, systems of governance, judicial review, to name a few. Comparative
Constitutional Law course is intended to make students familiar with the constitutional
systems of a few countries, in particular the constitution of United States of America and
few other emerging constitutions along with the Indian Constitution. Students will be
benefitted from deeper understanding of the doctrines and values underlying the
provisions and principles from various constitutional systems.

Teaching Learning Methodology:

Students will learn through a combination of formal lectures, interactive class
discussions, and guided study. Student interaction and participation includes instructor-
student discussions during lectures, group tasks and presentations. As learning is through
the case law method, student participation becomes important.
Instructor and students adopt the following learning methods:

 Lectures and visual power point slides

 Students read text and commentary on assigned topics as well as published
research articles before the lectures

2|Page
  Students read cases discussed in the text-books, as well as more detailed law
reports or online case digests and commentaries
 Students participate in class discussions to crystallize the concepts

Guided Study:
Guided study includes textual readings, review of articles on contemporary legal issues,
written assignments, and case analysis and class presentations.

Student Assessment:
Student performance is assessed on a continuous basis throughout the term on their class
participation, written assignments, debates and class presentations. These exercises are
graded. Plus there are major examinations during the term - the end-term examinations.

3|Page
MODULE-1: CONSTITUTIONS, CONSTITUTIONALISM AND RULE OF LAW

1.1. Why do we need a Constitution? Types of Constitutions,

Constitutional Designs and Processes
1.2. The Concepts of Constitutionalism and limited government.
1.3. Varieties of Constitutionalism: Liberal and Non-Liberal
Constitutionalism, Adjectival, Popular, Regional; Positive and
Negative Constitutionalism; Abusive Constitutionalism; Social-
Democratic Constitutionalism; Authoritarian Constitutionalism;
Islamic Constitutionalism
1.4. Classifications of the forms of Government; Shared and Concentrated
Exercise of power as a basis for classification.

MODULE-2: PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND

JUDICIAL REVIEW

2.1. Modes of Interpretations: Originalism, Textualism, Progressive,

Purposive, Historical. Interpretivism and Non-Interpretivism.
2.2. Controlled Activism as an Interpretative Model
2.3. The Limits of Textualism as a Restraint on Judicial Review
2.4. Constitutional Interpretation in the Absence of Unambiguous Text

MODULE-3: PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS/HUMAN RIGHTS

3.1. Natural Rights, Human Rights & Fundamental Right.

3.2. Human Rights under National Constitutions.
3.3. Effect of entrenching Human Rights in a written Constitution as
Fundamental Rights.
3.4. Fundamental Rights: Against whom available? Whether enforceable
against Private persons? The Doctrine of State Action.
3.5. Fundamental Rights as a limitation on:
 The Legislature
 The Executive
 The Judiciary
3.6. Restrictions upon, and Limitations on Human Rights and Fundamental
Rights.

4|Page
MODULE-4: THE ORGANIZATION OF DEFENSE POWER: THE WAR
POWER, MARTIAL LAW AND EMERGENCY; EFFECT OF EXERCISE OF
DEFENSE POWER ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

4.1. The State of Siege, Historical Perspective

4.2. Martial Law: Origin and Development
4.3. Constitutional Protection of the Democratic Order during States of
Exception
4.4. Selected Constitutional Models; U.S., Switzerland, U.K., Germany,
Norway and France.

MODULE-5: THE COMMERCE POWER: SCOPE AMBIT AND LIMITATIONS

5.1. The Commerce Clause- Commonwealth Comparisons: U.S., Canada and

Australia
5.2. The Economic Constitutions and the Commerce Clause

MODULE-6: AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION; LIMITATIONS ON

THE POWER OF AMENDMENT
6.1. The Challenges of Constitutional Change
6.2. Enforcing the Boundaries of Constitutional Change
6.3. Constitutional Design for Formal Alterati
6.4. Amendment and Dismemberment. Dismemberment in Contemporary
Problems

CASES

 National Prohibition Cases [253 U.S.350 (1919)].

 United States v. Sprague [282 U.S.716 (1931)].
 Great Northern Railway v. Sunburst Oil & Ref. Co [287 U.S.358 (1932)].
 Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank [308 U.S 371
(1940)].
 Mapp v. Ohio [367 U.S.643 (1961)].
 Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)].
 Linkletter v. Walker [381 U.S.618 (1965)].
 Shankari Prasad Singh Deo & Ors v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 458).
 Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan (AIR 1965 SC 845).
 Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643).
 Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461).
 Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299)
 I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2007) 2 SCC 1].
5|Page
 Marbury v. Madison [5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)].
 M’Culloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. 316 (1819)].
 Hans v. Louisiana [134 U.S.1 (1880)].
 Lochner v. New York [198 U.S. 45 (1905)].
 West Coast Hotel v. Parrish [300 U.S. 379 (1937)].
 Cooper v. Aaron [358 U.S. 1 (1958)].
 Baker v. Carr [369 U.S. 186 (1962)].
 Alden v. Maine [527 U.S. 706 (1999)].
 Hamadan v. Rumsfeld [548 U.S. 557 (2006)].
 Boudmediene v. Bush [553 U.S. 723 (2008)].
 National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Kathleen Sebelius
[(2012) 567 U.S.___ (Decided on 26/06/2012)]
 Liversidge v. Anderson [(1941) 3 ALL.E.R.338].
 Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [(1948)
1 K.B.223].
 Anisminic Limited v. Foreign Compensation Commission [(1969) 2 A.C.
147].
 Field Peas Marketing Board (Tas) v. Clements & Marshall Pty Ltd.
[(1948) 76 CLR 414].
 Queensland v. Commonwealth [(1977) 139 CLR 585 (Second Territory
Senators Case)].
 Coleman v. Power [(2004) 220 CLR 1].
 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27)
 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461).
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597).
 Smt. Selvi & Ors v. State of Karnataka [2010 (4) SCALE 690].
 Nandini Sundar & Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2011) 7 SCC 547].
 Gibbons v. Ogden [22 U.S. 1 (1824)].
 United States v. E.C.Knight & Co [156 U.S. 1 (1895)].
 Hammer v. Dagenhart [247 U.S. 251 (1918)].
 Carter v. Carter Coal Co [298 U.S.238 (1936)].
 United States v. Butler [297 U.S.1 (1936)].
 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation [299 U.S. 304
(1936)].
 West Coast Hotel v. Parrish [300 U.S. 379 (1937)]
 National Labour Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation
[301 U.S.1 (1937)].
 Wikard v. Filburn [317 U.S. 111 (1942)].
 Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States [379 U.S. 241 (1964)].
 Pike V. Bruce Church Inc. [397 U.S.137 (1970)].
 Northeast Bancorp v. Board of Governors [472 U.S.159 (1985)].
6|Page
 United States v. Lopez [514 U.S. 549 (1995)].
 Camps Newfound/Owatonna Inc v. Town of Harrison, Me [520 U.S.564
(1997)].
 Eldred v. Ashcroft [537 U.S. 186 (2003)].
 Gonzales v. Raich [545 U.S. 1 (2005)].
 National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Kathleen Sebelius
[(2012) 567 U.S.___ (Decided on 26/06/2012)]
 Huddart Parker & Co. Ltd v. Moorehead [(1908) 8 C.L.R.330].
 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. The Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd.
[(1920) 28 C.L.R.129].
 James v. Commonwealth [(1936) A.C.578].
 Commonwealth v. Bank of New South Wales [(1950) A.C. 235].
 Stickland v. Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd. [(1971) 45 A.L.J.R 485].
 Cole v. Whitefield [(1988) 165 C.L.R.360].
 Atiabari Tea Co. v. State of Assam (AIR 1961 SC 232)
 Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1962 SC 1406)
 Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. A.P. (AIR 1968 SC 599)
 State of Madras v. Nataraja Mudaliar (AIR 1969 SC 147).
 Fateh Chand v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977 SC 1825)
 Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P. (AIR 2002 SC 322)
 Jindal Stainless Ltd v. State of Haryana [(2006)7 SCC 241].
 The Wolf Tone’s Case [(1798) 27 St. Tr. 614].
 Ex parte Milligan [71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)].
 D.F. Marais v. G.O.C. Lines of Communication & Anr. [(1902) A.C. 109].
 Tilonko v. Attorney General of Natal [(1907) A.C. 93].
 R v. Halliday, Ex parte Zadig [(1917) A.C. 260].
 Schenck v. U.S. [249 U.S. 47 (1919)].
 Abrams v. U.S. [250 U.S. 616 (1919)].
 R v. Allen [(1921) 2 I.R. 241].
 Clifford & O’Sullivan [(1921) 2 A.C. 570].
 Gitlow v. New York [268 U.S. 652 (1925)].
 Eshugbayi Eleko v. Government of Nigeria [(1931) A.C. 662].
 Liversidge v. Anderson [(1941) 3 ALL.E.R.338].
 Korematsu v. United States [323 U.S. 214 (1944)].
 Dawson v. Commonwealth [(1946) 73 CLR 157].
 R v. Foster [(1949) 79 CLR 43].
 Australian Communist Party v. Commonwealth [(1951) 83 CLR 1].
 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer [343 U.S. 579 (1952)].
 Hamadan v. Rumsfeld [548 U.S. 557 (2006)].
 Boudmediene v. Bush [553 U.S. 723 (2008)].
 Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1964 SC 381)
7|Page
 Shambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1973 SC 1425).
 Fagu Shaw v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1974 SC 613).
 Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1974 SC 2154).
 Khudiram v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1975 SC 550).
 A.D.M Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, (AIR 1976 SC 1207)
 M.M.Pathak v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 803).
 A.K. Roy v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 710).
 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569].
 PUCL v. Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 456).
 Nandini Sundar & Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2011) 7 SCC 547].
 Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393 (1857)].
 Slaughter House Cases [83 U.S. 36 (1873)].
 Munn v. Illinois [94 U.S. 113 (1877)].
 The Civil Rights Cases [109 U.S. 3 (1883)].
 Lochner v. New York [198 U.S. 45 (1905)].
 Abrams v. U.S. [250 U.S. 616 (1919)].
 Gitlow v. New York [268 U.S. 652 (1925)].
 Norris v. Alabalma [294 U.S. 587 (1935)].
 West Coast Hotel v. Parrish [300 U.S. 379 (1937)]
 Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)].
 Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)].
 Miranda v. Arizona [384 U.S. 436 (1966)].
 Regents of University of California v. Alan Bakke [438 U.S. 265 (1978)].
 BMW of North America Inc v. Gore [517 U.S. 559 (1996)
 Lawrence v. Texas [ 539 U.S. 558 (2003)].
 Hamadi v. Rumsfeld [542 U.S. 507 (2004)].
 Rasul v. Bush [542 U.S. 466 (2004)].
 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
[551 U.S. 701 (2007)].
 Fisher v. University of Texas ET AL [(570.U.S.__ (2013), (NO.11-345-
Decided on June 24th 2013)]
 A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27)
 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461).
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597).
 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684].
 Smt. Selvi & Ors v. State of Karnataka [2010 (4) SCALE 690].
 State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
West Bengal [(2010) 10 SCC 571].
 Nandini Sundar & Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2011) 7 SCC 547].
 P.V. Indiresan v. Union of India [2011 (9) SCALE 33].

8|Page
 SUGGESTED READINGS

 Mark V. Tushnet & Vicki C. Jackson: Comparative Constitutional Law.

Foundation Press.
 Karl Loewenstein: Political Power and the Governmental Process. The University
of Chicago Press.
 Herman Finer. The Theory and Practice of Modern Government. Delhi, Surjeet
Publications.
 A.V. Dicey. An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. (Delhi.
Universal).
 D.L. Keir & F.H. Lawson. Cases in Constitutional Law. (Oxford. Clarendon
Press).
 H.W.R Wade & C.F Forsyth. Administrative Law. [Oxford University Press].
 Harry Woolf, Jeffery Jowell (ed). De Smith’s Judicial Review. [London.
Thomson, Sweet & Maxwell].
 O Hood Phillips & Jackson. Constitutional & Administrative Law. [London.
Sweet & Maxwell].
 Ian Loveland. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law & Human Rights. A
Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press.
 Colin Turpin and Adam Tomkins. British Government and the Constitution.
Cambridge University Press.
 Jeffery Goldsworthy. Interpreting Constitutions. A Comparative Study. [Oxford
University Press].
 J. Rolland Pennock & John. W. Chapman. Constitutionalism. New York
University Press; 1979.
 Charles Howard Mcilwain. Constitutionalism: Ancient & Modern. Cornell
University Press. 1947 (Reprint 1987).

9|Page
 Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg (et al). The Endurance of National Constitutions.
Cambridge University Press (2009).
 Benjamin N. Cardozo. The Nature of Judicial Process. (Delhi. Universal).
 Alexander Bickel: The Least Dangerous Branch. Yale University Press.
 Jefferey Rosen: The Most Democratic Branch. Oxford University Press, 2006.
 T.M. Cooley. A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations. (Calcutta. Hindustan Law
Book Co.).
 R.F.V. Heuston. Essays in Constitutional Law. (Delhi. Universal).
 Laurence H. Tribe. American Constitutional Law. [New York. Foundation Press].
2000
 Laurence Tribe. Constitutional Choices. (Delhi. Universal).
 Akhil Reed Amar (et al): Process of Constitutional Decision Making. ASPEN.
New York. USA.
 Donald P. Kommers, (et al). American Constitutional Law. [New York, Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, Inc].
 Craig R. Ducat: Constitutional Interpretation. Thomson West. New York. USA.
 Erwin Cherminsky. Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies. [New York.
ASPEN Publishers].
 Brian. Z. Tamanaha, Rule of Law in United States in Randall Peerenboom (ed.),
Asian Discourses of Rule of Law, Routledge, London.
 Robert Alexy: A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford University Press.
Oxford.’
 Michael Allen and Brian Thompson: Cases and Materials on Constitutional and
Administrative Law. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
 Tony Blackshield & George Williams. Australian Constitutional Law and Theory.
The Federation Press.
 B. Shiva Rao: The Framing of India’s Constitution (in 5 vols). Universal Law
Book Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Delhi.
 B.N. Rau: The Making of Indian Constitution. Allied Publishers, New Delhi.

10 | P a g e
 P.K. Tripathi: Spotlights on Constitutional Interpretation. Bombay, N.M. Tripathi
Pvt. Ltd. 1972
 P.K. Tripathi. Some Insights into Fundamental Rights. Bombay, N.M. Tripathi
Pvt. Ltd.
 M.P. Singh (ed.) Comparative Constitutional Law: Festschrift in Honour of P.K.
Tripathi. [Lucknow. Eastern Book Company]; 2011.
 Granville Austin: The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
 Granville Austin: Working a Democratic Constitution; The Indian Experience.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
 H.M. Seervai: Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary. Universal
Law Book Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Delhi.
 S.P. Sathe: Judicial Activism In India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi
(2007).
 P. Ishwar Bhatt: Fundamental Rights: A Study Their Interrelationship. Eastern
Law House, Kolkata.
 Upendra Baxi: Constitutionalism as Site for State Formative Practices. 21
Cardozo Law Review. 1183.
 A.R. Blackshield. “Fundamental Rights” and the Institutional Viability of the
Indian Supreme Court. 8 JILI 139 (1966).
 A.R. Blackshield. “Fundamental Rights” and the Economic viability of the Indian
Nation. 10 JILI 1 (1968).
 William.W.Van Alstyne. A Critical Guide to Marbury v. Madison 1969
Duke.L.J.1 (1969). [Van Alstyne, William W., "A Critical Guide to Marbury v.
Madison" (1969). Faculty Publications. Paper 743. Available on:
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/743].
 Mark Tushnet, The Possibilities of Comparative Constitutional Law 108
Yale.L.J.1225. (1999).
 Donald Kommers, The Value of Comparative Constitutional Law, 9 J. Marshall J.
Prac. & Pro. 685 (1976).

11 | P a g e
 Roger P. Alford, In Search of a Theory for Constitutional Comparativism (2005)
52 UCLA L. Rev. 639.
 Richard H. Fallon Jr., The Rule of Law as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse,
Columbia Law Review, vol.97 (1997) 1.
 Sujit Choudhry, Globalisation in Search of Justification: Toward a Theory of
Comparative Constitutional Interpretation (1999) 74 Ind. L. J. 819.
 Ursula Bentele, Mining for gold: The Constitutional Court of South Africa’s
Experience with Comparative Constitutional Law, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1169642.
 Martha A. Field, “The Differing Federalisms of Canada and the United States”
(1992) 55 Law and Contemp. Probs. 107.
 Jeremy Waldron, Rule of Law and Concept of Law, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1273005.
 Joseph Raz, The Rule of Law and Its Virtue, The Law Quarterly Review, Vol 93
(1977).
 Jack Wade Nowlin. The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Review: A Structural
Interpretative Approach, 52 Oklahoma Law Review 521 (1999).
 Gustavo Fernades De Andrade, Comparative Constitutional Law: Judicial
Review, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, vol.3, n.3,
2001, pp. 989-997

__________________

12 | P a g e