Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr

Girish R

Gujarat National
Law University
Gandhinagar, Gujarat (India)

Course Outline
of

Comparative Public Law/Systems of Governance

For
LLM

Semester: I (July 2022-December 2022)

Session: 2022-2023

Faculty: Dr RK Singh, Associate Professor of Law &

Dr Girish R, Assistant Professor of Law
Gujarat National Law University

Page 1 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

Sl. No. Contents Page No.

1.0 Objectives of the course 3

2.0 Proposed teaching schedule 4

3.0 Detailed course-outline 5-13

4.0 Prescribed/Recommended readings 14-16

5.0 Teaching methodology 16

6.0 Evaluation pattern 16

Tentative dates for test/submission of project/GD,

7.0 17
etc

8.0 Important instructions to students 17

9.0 Contact hours 17

Page 2 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

1.0 Objectives of the Course

 

Introduction to the Course

The Constitution, essentially an organic document, is said to be always in the process of
developing. The judicial process of constitutional interpretation engrosses a technique of
adapting the law to meet changing social mores. Constitution, being the fundamental law, an
insight into its novel trends is indispensable for a meaningful and evocative understanding of
the legal system and processes.

‘Comparative Public Law or Systems of Governance’ course is designed to study from a

comparative perspective — legal structure and concepts (such as, basic rights, rule of law,
systems of governance, judicial review, so on and so forth) that are found in public law across
the important jurisdictions in the world. This course is intended to acquaint students with the
constitutional and administrative systems of governance of a few countries, in particular, the
United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, South
Africa, Switzerland 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.

The post-graduate students in law, who have acquired the basic knowledge of Indian
Constitutional Law and Administrative Law at undergraduate level, should be exposed to the
new challenges and perspectives of constitutional development. Conspicuously, rubrics under
this course require modification and updating from time to time.

Page 3 of 19
 Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

2.0 Proposed Teaching Schedule

PROPOSED TEACHING SCHEDULE

Sr No Modules No. of Classes Faculty

Scope of the Comparative Study of Public Law or RKS & GR

1 02
Systems of Governance

2 Nature of the Constitution (Unitary and Federal 05 GR

Constitutions)

3 Principles of Public Law (Rule of Law and Doctrine 06 RKS

of Separation of Powers)

4 Principles of Natural Justice 05 GR

5 Federal Governance (Legislative, Administrative and 06 GR

Financial Relations between the Federal and the
Provincial Governments)

6 Forms of Government 04 GR

7 Judicial System (Role of Judiciary, Judicial Review, 08 RKS

and Doctrine of State Action)

8 Liability of State and Administration under the 06 RKS

Constitution

9 Civil, Political, and Socio-Economic Rights under the 04 RKS

Constitution

10 Amendment of the Constitution 04 GR

Total = _50_

Page 4 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

3.0 Detailed Course Outline

Comparative Public Law/Systems of Governance

MODULE- 1 Scope of the Comparative Study of Public Law

or Systems of Governance (Sessions:
02)

 Public Law — meaning and concept

o Constitutional law and administrative law
 Constitution
o Meaning, concept and idea of constitution
o Living constitution
o Constitution — as a supreme law
o Constitutional law
 Constitutional law, constitutionalism and constitutional morality
o Concept of, and distinction between constitution, constitutional law and
constitutionalism
o Essential features of constitutionalism — written constitution, separation
of powers, fundamental rights, independence of judiciary, judicial review,
etc
o Constitutional morality
 Comparative law
o Origin and development of comparative law
o Comparative private law
o Comparative public law
 Study of comparative public law
o Scope, relevance and methodology
o Problems and concerns in comparison
o Comparative law and conflict of laws
o Comparative interpretation of statutory law
o Comparative law and legal education
o Unification of private law

MODULE- 2 Nature of the Constitution (Unitary and

Federal Constitutions)
(Sessions: 05)

 Federal constitution
Page 5 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

oDual polity in federal constitutions

oDistribution of powers
oWritten constitution
oRigid constitution
oSupremacy of the constitution
oAmenability of the constitution
oModels of federal constitutions in the USA, Canada, Germany and
Australia
 Unitary constitution
o Trendy towards codification
 Quasi federal constitution
o Comparative analysis between Constitutions of India and South Africa
 Confederation
Cases

 Babulal Parate v State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 51.

 In Re Berubari AIR 1960 SC 845.
 Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.
 Jindal Stainless Ltd v State of Haryana AIR 2016 SC 5617
 Ram Kishore Sen v Union of India AIR1966SC644.
 Kuldip Nayar v Union of India AIR 2006 SC 3127.
 Laser v Garnet (1922) 258 US 130.
 Marbury v Madison (1803) 1 Cr 137.
 SR Bommai v Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1918.
 State of Rajasthan v Union of India AIR 1977 SC 1361.
 State of West Bengal v Union of India AIR 1963 SC 1241.
 US v Sprague (1931) 282 US 716.
 Union of India v Mohit Minerals Private Limited [2022] 138 taxmann.com 331
(SC)

MODULE- 3 Principles of Public Law (Rule of Law and Doctrine

of Separation of Powers) (Sessions:
06)
 The rule of law
o The rule of law—in the international scenario
o Magna Carta (1215)
o The English Bill of Rights
 Universal rule of law
o The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
o The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1948)
o The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
o The Convention against Torture (1984)
 Dicey’s doctrine of rule of law
Page 6 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

 ‘Formal’ and ‘substantive’ versions of the rule of law

 Rule of law under the Indian Constitution
o Ancient Indian system — dharma
o Preamble
o Article 13
o Article 14 (equality before the law and equal protection of the laws)
o Articles 19, 20, 21, 32, 226, 142 and 144
 Doctrine of separation of powers
o Aristotle, Locke, Montesquieu, etc
o Concept of the separation of powers
o Checks and balances
o Separation of powers or separation of functions
 Different applications in France, the USA, the UK and India
o Indian Constitution
o Does the Indian Constitution discard the principle of separation of powers?

Cases

 ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207: (1976) 2 SCC 521.

 Delhi Laws Act, 1912, re AIR 1951 SC 332.
 Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v The State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549, 556.
 Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299.
 Nixon M Joseph v Union of India AIR 1998 Ker 385.
 T Fenn Walter v Union of India (2002) 6 SCC 184.

MODULE- 4 Principles of Natural Justice (Sessions: 05)

 Principles of natural justice
o Absence of strict separation of powers and requirement of principles of natural
justice
o Principles of natural justice in the legal systems of the US, the UK, France and
European Union
o Concept and applicability of principles of natural justice
o Administrative action or quasi-judicial action — relevance of classification
 Nemo judex in causa sua — rule against bias
o Pecuniary bias
o Personal bias
o Official bias
o Exception in doctrine of necessity and doctrine of absolute necessity
 Audi alteram partem — right to be heard
o Requirements of audi alteram partem
o Notice
o Right to present evidence
o Reasoned decision
o Right to legal representation
o Exceptions to principles of audi alteram partem
 Expanding horizon of natural justice
Page 7 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

o Doctrine of legitimate expectation

o Duty to act fairly
 Effect of failure to comply with the principles of natural justice
o Void or voidable
 Post decisional hearing
 Alternative remedies and fairness in administration
 Ombudsman –Sweden, the UK and India
 Open government and Right to Information — the USA, the UK and India

Cases

 AK Kraipak v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150.

 Board of Education v Rice (1911) AC 179.
 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935.
 Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852)3 HLC 759.
 Dr SP Kapoor v State of HP AIR 1981 SC 2181.
 Election Commission of India v Dr Subramanian Swamy (1996) 4 SCC 104.
 Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v APSRTC AIR 1959 SC 308.
 Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v State of AP AIR 1959 SC1376.
 Hiranath Mishra v Rajendra Medical College AIR 1973 SC 1260.
 J Mohapatra and Co. v State of Orissa AIR 1984 SC 1572.
 Jawahar Lal Nehru University v BS Narwal AIR 1980 SC 1666.
 JK Aggarwal v Haryana Seeds Development Corporation AIR 1991 SC 1221.
 Leary v National Union of Vehicle Builders (1970)2 All ER 713.
 Lee v Bude & Torrington Ry Co (1871) LR 6 CP 577.
 Local Government v Arlidge (1915) AC 120.
 Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India Ltd v VB Karunakar (1993) 4
SCC 727.
 Manaklal v Dr Premchand AIR 1957 SC425.
 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
 Metropolitan Properties Co v Lannon (1968) WLR 815.
 Nirmala J Jhala v State of Gujarat (2013)4SCC301
 Pett v Greyhound Racing Association (1969) 2 All ER 221.
 Premchand v Excise Commissioner AIR 1965 SC 99
 Punjab Communications Ltd v Union of India AIR1999 SC1801
 Ridge v Baldwin (1963) 1 QB 539.
 Schmidt v Secretary of State Home Affairs (1969) 1 All ER 904
 SP Paul v Calcutta University AIR 1970 Cal 289.
 State of Kerala v KTA Shaduli AIR 1977 SC 1627.
 State of UP v Mohammed Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.
 Suresh Koshy v University of Kerala AIR 1969 SC 191.
 Swadeshi Cotton Mills v Union of India AIR 1981 SC 818.
 Tata Cellular v Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651.
 Thomas Bonham v Cambridge University (1610) 8 Co. Rep.113 (b).
 Trehan v Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 764.
 Union of India v Hindusthan Development Corporation AIR 1994 SC 988
 US v Forness (1942) 125 F2d 928.

Page 8 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

MODULE- 5 Federal Governance (Legislative, Administrative

and Financial Relations between the Federal and the Provincial
Governments) (Sessions: 06)
 Legislative, administrative and financial relations between the Central (federal)
Government and the State (provincial) Government
o Doctrine of Pith and Substance
o Doctrine of Colourable Legislation
o Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
 Law making powers of federal and provincial governments
o Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution
o Sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Constitution
o Exclusive powers to regional governments in Schedule 5 of the South African
Constitution
o The Union List, the State List, the Concurrent List –VII Schedule and Article
246
 Concurrent law-making power under the German Constitution and the South African
Constitution
 Financial distribution — a comparative study
 Judicial review of Centre-State relations
 Fiscal Federalism

Cases

 AG British Columbia v AG Canada (1937) AC 377.

 AG of Canada v AG of Ontario AIR 1937 PC 89.
 Attorney General, Ontario v Attorney General, Canada (1912) AC 571(PC).
 Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 46 ALR 625.
 Gajapati Narayan Deo v State of Orissa AIR 1953 SC 375.
 Jindal Stainless Ltd and Ors v State of Haryana and Ors AIR 2016 SC 5617.
 Mc Culloch v Maryland 17 US 316 (1819).
 Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (1974) 74 CLR 31.
 Profulla Kumar v Bank of Commerce AIR 1947 PC 60.
 Texas v White (1868) 74 US 227.
 Union of India v Dhillon AIR 1972 SC 1061.

MODULE- 6 Forms of Government (Sessions:

04)
 Parliamentary form
 Presidential system of government
 Chancellor system
 Cabinet form of government
 Council of Ministers
 Articles 74 and 75 of the Indian Constitution
 British North America Act 1867

Page 9 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

 Australian Constitution Act 1900

 Role of Governor in presidential and parliamentary forms of government
 System of elections in these forms

Cases

 Chokolingo v AG of Trinidad (1981) 1 All ER 244.

 Cooper v Haron (1958) 358 US 5.
 In Re Presidential Election AIR 1974 SC 1682.
 Samsher Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 2192.
 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co (1920) 28 CLR
129

MODULE- 7 Judicial Systems (Role of Judiciary, Judicial Review,

and Doctrine of State Action)
(Sessions: 08)
 Legal systems in the world
o Civil law (sometimes known as Continental European law)
o Common law
o Religious/theocratic law
o Combinations of the above systems
 Indian judicial system
o The Constitution of India
o Single integrated (unitary) system of courts
o Hybrid legal system: common law system, statutory law, regulatory law
o Adversarial system (not inquisitorial system or non-adversarial)
o Adoption of the features of other legal systems
 The Supreme Court of India
 The High Courts
 The subordinate judiciary
 Quasi judicial bodies
 Judicial System in the United Kingdom
o The Supreme Court
o The Court of Appeal (Civil Division and Criminal Division)
o The High Court
o The Crown Court/County Court
o Magistrates’ Court
 The US Court System
o The Supreme Court of the United States
o United States Courts of Appeals and the US Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces
o US district courts and specialised courts
 Constitutional Review
o Methods of constitutional review
o Judicial and political review
Page 10 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

o Concentrated and diffused review

o Anticipatory and successive review
 Judicial Review
o Concept and origin
o Judicial review under the US Constitution
o Judicial review under the UK Constitution
o Judicial review under the French and Swiss Constitutions
o Judicial review under the Indian Constitution
o Functions of judicial review
 Judicial activism
o Judicial activism in India
o Judicial review and judicial activism
 Limitations and challenges to the doctrine of ‘judicial review’
 Public Interest Litigation
o An innovative step towards judicial activism
o Problems and challenges posed by PIL

Cases
 A K Gopalan v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27.
 IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2007 SC 861 (The Ninth Schedule
Case).
 Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225].
 L Chandra Kumar v Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125: (1997) 3 SCC 261.
 MC Mehta v Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 750.
 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
 Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 (1803).
 Nixon M Joseph v Union of India AIR 1998 Ker 385.
 Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180.
 P Sambamurhty v State of Andhra Pradesh (1987) 1 SCC 362.
 Parmanand Katara v Union of India AIR 1989 SC 2039.
 People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India, 1982 AIR 1473, 1983
SCR (1) 456 (Asiad Case).
 SP Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 (the first judges’ case).
 SP Sampath Kumar v Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124.
 Special Reference No 1 of 1998 (1988) SCC 739 (the third judges’ case).
 Subhash Kumar v Union of India 1991 Supp (1) SCC 574.
 Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India (1993) 4
SCC 441 (the second judges’ case).
 Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India AIR 2015
SC 5457 (the fourth judges’ case).
 State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal AIR 2010 SC 2550.
 Unnikrishnan, JP v State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645.

Page 11 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

MODULE- 8 Liability of State and Administration

under the Constitution
(Sessions: 06)
 Concept of state
 Significance
 Other authorities
o Company
o Society
o Agency or instrumentality
 Test
 Contractual liability
o Effect of a valid contract with the government
o Ratification
o Estoppel
o Government contract and article 14
o Award of government contract and judicial review
o Issue of writs in the matters of contracts
o Restitution
o Quasi-contractual liability of the government
 Tortuous liability of the State and administration
o What is vicarious liability?
o General rule as to liability for a wrongful act
o Vicarious liability for a wrongful act
o Basis/rationale of the rule
 Liability of the State for the tort committed by its servant
o Constitutional provision (article 300 of the Indian Constitution)
 Pre constitution judicial decisions 
o Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co v Secretary of State for India
(P&O case) (1861) 5 Bom. HCR App 1, p 1.
o Secretary of State v Hari Bhanji (1882) ILR 5 Mad 273.
 Post constitutional judicial rulings
o State of Rajasthan v Vidyawati AIR 1962 SC 933.
o Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v State of UP AIR 1965 SC 1039.
o Other cases
 Cases involving fundamental rights—constitutional tort
o Origin and evolution
o Important judicial pronouncements
 Liability of the state in the United Kingdom
o Crown Proceedings Act 1947.
 Liability of the state in the United States
o The Federal Tort Claims Act 1946.

Cases

 AH Khodwa v State of Maharashtra 1996 ACJ 505 (SC).

Page 12 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

 Bhim Singh v State of J&K AIR 1986 SC 494.

 Chatturbhuj v Moreshwar AIR 1954 SC 236.
 Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v State of UP AIR 1965 SC 1039.
 KD Basava v State of Mysore AIR 1977 SC 1749.
 LM Co-Operative Bank v Prabhu Das Hathi Bhai AIR 1966 Bom 134.
 Mahabir Auto Stores v Indian Oil Corporation AIR 1990 SC 1031.
 Mohammed Murad v Government of UP AIR 1956 All 75.
 Mulam Chand v State of MP AIR 1968 SC 1218.
 N Nagendra Rao v State of AP AIR 1994 SC 2663.
 Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746.
 P Gangadharan Pillai v State of Kerala AIR 1966 Ker 71.
 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co v Secretary of State for India
(P&O case) (1861) 5 Bom. HCR App 1, p1.
 People’s Union for Democratic Rights v State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 355.
 Ram Ghulam v Government of UP AIR 1950 All 206.
 Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v International Airport Authority AIR 1979 SC
1628.
 Roop Lal v Union of India AIR 1972 J & K 22.
 Rudul Shah v State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086.
 Sabastian M Hongray v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1026.
 Satyawati Devi v Union of India AIR 1967 Delhi 98.
 Secretary of State v Hari Bhanji (1882) ILR 5 Mad 273.
 Shyam Sunder v State of Rajasthan AIR 1964 SC 890.
 Smt Kumari v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1992 SC 2069.
 State of Gujarat v Memon Mahmood AIR 1967 SC 1885.
 State of MP v Chironji Lal AIR 1981 MP 65.
 State of Orissa v Padamalochan AIR 1975 Orissa 41.
 State of UP v Murari Lal AIR 1971 SC 2210.
 State of West Bengal v BK Mondal & Sons AIR 1962 SC 779.
 Tata Cellular v Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11.
 Union of India v Smt Jasso AIR 1962 Punjab 315.
 Union of India v Sugrabai AIR 1969 Bom 13.

MODULE-9 Civil, Political, and Socio-Economic Rights under the

Constitution (Sessions: 04)
 Fundamental rights
o Need and purpose
 Directive principles of state policy
o Need and purpose
 Relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy
o Judicial trends

Page 13 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

Cases
 IC Golaknath v State of Punjab 1967 AIR 1643.
 In re Kerala Education Bill (1959) SCR 995.
 IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2007 SC 861 (The Ninth Schedule
Case).
 Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.
 Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789.

MODULE-10 Amendment of the Constitution (Sessions: 04)

 Amendment under the Indian Constitution
 Procedure for the amendment
 The Ninth Schedule
 Amendment and fundamental rights
 Limitations on the amending power
 Basic Structure Doctrine
 Amendment under the Constitutions of United States of America, Germany, Canada
and South Africa

Cases
 IC Golaknath v State of Punjab 1967 AIR 1643.
 Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299.
 IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2007 SC 861.
 Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.
 M Nagaraj v Union of India AIR 2007 SC 71.
 Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789.
 Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845.
 Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India AIR 1951 SC 458.
 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association v Union of India
(2016)5SCC1.
 Waman Rao v Union of India AIR 1981 SC 271.

4.0 Prescribed/Recommended Readings

Prescribed Readings

Books:
1. Austin G, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford 2008)
2. Basu DD, Comparative Constitutional Law, (3rd ed, Lexis Nexis 2014).
3. Basu DD, Comparative Federalism, (2nd ed, Wadhwa 2008).

Page 14 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

4. Basu DD, Shorter Constituents of India (Justice AR Lakshmanana & VR

Manohar ed, 14th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa 2009).
5. Basu Durga Das, Administrative Law (7th edn, Kamal Law House, Kolkata 2019)
6. De Smith’s Judicial Review of Administrative Action, (8th ed, Sweet & Maxwell
2019)

7. Gutteridge HC, Comparative Law: An Introduction to the Comparative

Method of Legal Study & Research (University Press Cambridge 1949).
8. Jain DC, Parliamentary Privileges under the Indian Constitution (Sterling
Publishers Pvt Ltd 1975).
9. Jain MP & Jain SN, Principles of Administrative Law (7th edn, LexisNexis, 2017)
10. Jain MP & Jain SN, Principles of Administrative Law (8th edn, Vol I & II, LexisNexis
2017)

11. Jain MP, Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed, LexisNexis 2018).
12. Lakshminath A, Basic Structure and Constitutional Amendments: Limitations
and Justiciability (Deep and Deep 2002).
13. Louise Tillin , Indian Federalism: Oxford India Short Introductions, (1st ed,
OXFORD 2019)
14. Manohar S V ed T K Thope’s Constitutional Law of India (Eastern Book Co
2010).
15. Naorem S, Basic Issues on Centre State Relation, (Omsons Publications 1985).
16. Phillips OH & Jackson, Constitutional and Administrative Law (Sweet and
Maxwell 2001).
17. Pylee MV, Constitutional Amendments in India (4th ed, Universal Publishing
Co Pvt Ltd 2012).
18. Reimann, Mathuas and Zimmermann, Reinard, The Oxford Handbook of
Comparative Law (OUP 2006).
19. Seervai HM, Constitutional Law of India, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 (4th ed).
20. Singh M P, Comparative Constitutional Law (Eastern Book Company 2011).
21. Singh MI, Constitutions, Constitutional Interpretation and Human Rights
(Indian and Foreign) (LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa 2009).
22. Smits JM (ed), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Edward Elgar
Publishing 2006).
23. VN Shukla’s Constitutional Law (MP Singh ed, 13th ed. Eastern Book Co
2017).
24. Wade HWR & Forsyth CF, Administrative Law (11th edn, Oxford 2014)

Research Papers/Articles:

Page 15 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

1. Ackerman B, ‘The New Separation of Powers’ 113 (3) Harv. L. Rev. 634-729
(2000).
2. Agarwal C, ‘Rule of Law: Reflection upon we the People and Beyond’ 252 (1)
Madras Law Journal 8-16 (2010).
3. Bhat I, ‘Why and how Federalism matters in Elimination of Disparities and
Promotion of Equal Opportunities for Positive Rights’, 54(3) Journal of the Indian
Law Institute 324-363 (July-Sept 2012).
4. Bosniak L, ‘Persons and Citizens in Constitutional Thought’ 8 (1) International
Journal of Constitutional Law 9-29 (January 2010).
5. Bulman J, ‘Federalism as a safeguard of the Separation of Powers’, 112(3) Columbia
Law Review 459-506 (2012 April).
6. Chapman N, ‘Due Process as Separation of Powers’ 121(7) Yale Law Journal 1672-
1807 (2012 May).
7. Clark B & Amanda Leiter, ‘Regulatory Hide and Seek: What Agencies Can (And
Can’t) do to Limit Judicial Review’ 52(5) Boston College Law Review 1687-1732
(2011 November).
8. Ginsburg T & Eric Posner, ‘Sub Constitutionalism’ 62 (6) Stanford Law Review
1583-1628 (June 2010).
9. King D, ‘Formalizing Local Constitutional Standards of Review and the
Implications for Federalism’ 97 (7) Virginia Law Review 1685-1726 (November
2011).
10. Levinson D & Richard H Pildes, ‘Separation of Parties, Not Powers’ 119(8)
Harvard Law Review 2311-2386 (2006).
11. Schapiro, ‘Judicial Federalism and the Challenges of State Constitutional
Contestation’, 115(4) Penn State Law Review 983-1006 (2011 Spring).
12. Sharma R, ‘Judiciary as Change Agent: Some insights into the Changing role of
Judiciary in India’ 58(2) Indian Journal of Public Administration 264-286 (2012
April-June).
13. Siegel J, ‘Institutional case for Judicial Review’ 97(4) Iowa Law Review 1147-1200
(2012 May).
14. Singh DP, ‘Sovereignty, Judicial Review and Separation of Power’, 7(5) Supreme
Court Cases 1-13 (2012 September).
15. Singh RK, ‘Independence and Integrity of the Judiciary: An Analysis of the 12
January 2018 Press Conference’, GNLU Journal of Law, Development and Politics,
Volume 8, Issue 1, April 2018, pp 10-29.
16. Singh RK, ‘Judicial Activism in India — Prospects and Challenges in the Twenty
First Century’ in Dr Lokendra Malik (ed), Judicial Activism in India—A Festschrift
in Honour of Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd, New
Delhi, 2013, pp 336-367.
17. Singh RK, ‘Liability of the State for Torts Committed by its Servants: Public Law
and Private Law Perspectives’, GNLU Journal of Law, Development and Politics,
Volume 6, Issue 1, April 2016, pp 25-70.
18. Singh RK, ‘Mapping the Constitutionality of Constitutional Amendments under the
Constitutions of India and Germany’ in the International Legal Studies IV by
European and International Scholars of the ELPIS Network, December 2018, pp
199-226.
19. Singh RK, ‘Role of the Supreme Court of India in Upholding Rule of Law’, in Dr
Lokendra Malik (ed), Rule of Law and Human Rights in India, Universal Law
Publishing Co Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 2012, pp129-161.
20. Smith A, ‘Internationalization and Constitutional Borrowing in Drafting Bills of
Rights’, 60(4) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 867-894 (2011
October).
21. Staruss D, ‘Do we Have a Living Constitution’ 59 (4) Drake Law Review 973-984

Page 16 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

(2011 Summer).
22. Staszewski G, ‘Political Reasons, Deliberative Democracy and Administrative Law’,
97(3) Iowa Law Review 849-912 (2012 March).
23. Tushnet M, ‘The Possibilities of Comparative Constitutional Law’, 108 Yale L J
1225 (1999).
24. Ullah A & Uzair Samee, ‘Basic Structure of Constitution: Impact of Kesavananda
Bharati on Constitutional Status of Fundamental Rights’, Vol. 26 (2) South Asian
Studies 299-309 (July-December 2011).
25. Venugopal KK, ‘Separation of Power and the Supreme Court of India’, Vol. 2 No. 2
Journal of Law and Social Policy 64-82 (July 2008).

Recommended Readings

1. Amar VD & Mark Tushnet, Global Perspectives on Constitutional Law (Oxford

University Press 2009).
2. Asim Pandya, Writs and other Constitutional Remedies (1st Edition, Lexis Nexis
2009)
3. Craig Paul, Administrative Law; (8th edn., Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, 2016)
4. Forsyth C, Mark Elliott, Swati Jhaveri, Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of
Good Governance (Oxford University Press 2010).
5. Kashyap SC, Framing of Indian Constitution (Universal Law 2004).
6. Khilnani S,Vikram Raghavan & Arun Thiruvengadam, Comparative
Constitutionalism in South Asia (Oxford University Press 2013).
7. Ray SN, Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights (Eastern Law House 1974).
8. Strauss D, The Living Constitution (Oxford University Press 2010).
9. Swamy SK, Democracy and constitutionalism in India – A Study of the Basic
Structure Doctrine (Oxford University Press 2009)

Note: The foregoing list of readings is not exhaustive. Some additional references may
be provided by the faculty concerned from time to time. Further, the students are
advised to explore further reading sources and references on their own.

5.0 Teaching Methodology

 Lecture-delivery—more of the Socratic Method—the dialectical method to stimulate

critical thinking
 Case-discussion method
Besides the foregoing broad teaching methodologies, the following techniques will
also be resorted to:

o Class-participation
o Project-assignment, if needed
o Presentations by the students
Page 17 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

o Group discussion
o Inviting Visiting Faculty, if required
o Use of teaching aids, such as, power point presentation

6.0 Evaluation Pattern

EVALUATION: Marks

Continuous Evaluation………………………………………........…........….….50

End-Semester Examination…………………………………….......... ..................50

Total 100

CONTINUOUS EVALUATION: Continuous Evaluation of 50 marks, as mentioned above, shall be

done through one Research Assignment (30 marks) and one Presentation (20 marks). The
topics for the Research Assignment and Presentation have to be different.

7.0 Tentative Dates for Continuous Evaluation Tests/ Submission of

Project/ GD, etc

Research Assignment and Presentation: Dates will be announced and necessary instructions
will be given in the classroom.

8.0 Important Instructions to Students

 This course-outline is tentative. The faculty member(s) concerned may modify it while
engaging the classes.
 The teaching methodology of the subject will not necessarily be bound by the parameters
mentioned hereinabove.
 The faculty concerned may not necessarily follow the sequence of the modules, as stated in
this course-outline. The sequence will be determined in accordance with the need of the
subject and its delivery. Flexibility is required to do complete justice to the subject.
 Active and positive class participation is mandatory. Maintaining the dignity and decorum
of the class is equally obligatory. Once the class is begun (after the attendance is taken), the
students are not allowed to enter the class room.
 The students are required to come to the class with necessary home work and reading,
which will be helpful for positive participation in learning–teaching process.

9.0 Contact Hours

Day: Thursday.

Timings: 3.30 pm to 4.30 pm.

Page 18 of 19
Semester: I (LLM) Course: Comparative Public Law Faculty: Dr RK Singh & Dr
Girish R

E-Mail: rsingh@gnlu.ac.in & rgirish@gnlu.ac.in

Mob: 08128650853 & 08128650806

Page 19 of 19