(Syllabus) Comparative Costitutional Law SAARC

1
SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LEGAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF LAW

WEEK-WISE SYLLABUS
COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF SAARC NATIONS

COMPULSORY PAPER-III
LL.M PROGRAMME
MONSOON SEMESTER
Part I
Course Title: Comparative Constitutional Law of the SAARC Nations
Course Code: LW-2
Course instructor: Dr. Nafees Ahmad nafeestarana@gmail.com
Course Duration: One Semester
Credit Units: 4 (MSE-40, ESE-40, TPW-15, TPP-05)
Medium of Instruction: English
Prerequisites: Nil
Precursors: Nil
Equivalent Courses: N/A

Part II
COURSE STRUCTURE

The entire syllabus is divided into fourteen weeks plus two weeks with specifics of coterminous
and pervading perspectives on the Comparative Constitutional Law of the SAARC Nations and
their cascading impact upon respective municipal legal systems. Questions shall be set and proffered in
all weeks. The candidates shall be required to attempt and answer four questions out of eight questions.
All questions shall have equal marks.

The ASSIGNMENTS for the Term Paper/Essay Writing shall be assigned to the students in
the Second Week of the Semester. Topics shall be decided by the Instructor in consultation with the
students.

Part III
OBJECTIVE OF THE COURSE
The Program on Comparative Constitutional Law of the SAARC Nations has been
commenced at SAU from July 26, 2011. Since its inception the curriculum of the program has to
examine the legal traditions of both civil law and South Asian law systems. The core curriculum centers
on fundamental issues in comparative government and constitutional rights protection in leading and
emerging democracies in South Asia and around the world. A rich selection of elective courses allows
insight into the main problems of Constitutionalism, Federalism, Governance, Human Rights and
Minority Protection, and into issues that are relevant to the understanding of the South Asian and
International Legal System.
Constitutional problems at the time of transition to democracy and constitutional institution
building have to be among the staple issues of expertise of the program. The shift in the curriculum
towards issues concerning the development and strengthening of good governance practices in a
globalized world reflects our academic community's commitment to the broader international context to
2

which it aspires to remain relevant and responsible. A clinical specialization and professional
cooperation with NGOs, will be providing a unique opportunity for our students to experience the
research based teaching advantages of their studies in a professional environment.
The department's highly qualified and diverse faculty is accompanied by a unique cohort of most
distinguished international faculty in accomplishing our academic, educational and professional goals.
The department committed to areas of research in civil and political rights in established and emerging
democracies; biomedical law and reproductive rights; enforcement of socio-economic rights, governance
in transition to democracy; comparative constitutional adjudication; freedom of religion and free speech
in a global world; broadcasting law; South Asian law with emphasis on institutional law and litigation;
comparative constitutional adjudication; corruption; constitutional transplants; administrative law etc.
Hence, the Course on the Comparative Constitutional Law of the SAARC Nations being one of
the five foundation courses for LL.M. is a compulsory course and has been designed, developed and
gestated with a view to meet the high objectives hereunder:

To understand the extra-ordinary complexities of the classical and contemporary constitutional
law on comparative anvil in order to appreciate the co-ordinates of legal and social orders within
the SAARC Nations and beyond.
To begin the process of augmentation of constitutionalism, constitutionalization, concern,
competence and sensitivity to deal with the future challenges within the SAARC Nation-states.
To get actively engaged and involved in the process of independent intellectually-oriented critical
thinking on Lego-institutional structures, governance institutions, state and non-state actors at
work within the framework of constitutional orders.
To evaluate the exact dividing line between federal and state legislative powers has been subject
to varied judicial interpretations as to the constitutionality of federal legislation and matters
pertaining to human rights and to explain the same by the competing philosophies of judges on
this point within the SAARC and beyond.
To develop an understanding of Constitutionalism at work from the perspectives of
internationally-proclaimed human rights is never quite the same as the constitutionally-based
understandings of human rights as put to work by Judges and Lawyers, social movements and the
political processes in each national context.
to create and groom a new generation of lawyers, judges, social scientists, thinkers, intellectuals
and leaders for the entire South Asia who would be well-versed in the philosophy of co-existence,
secularism, diplomacy, international relations and foreign policy imperatives under the brolly of
Comparative Constitutional Law that adorn and dictate our common future in South Asia.
To expose the students make them additionally well-equipped, well-groomed and well-planned at
the anvil of pedagogical pursuits, teaching & training trajectory and research orientations having
exposed to and completed the ensuing assignment in the South Asian University at New Delhi in
their scale and stature and upward mobility in terms of international exposure, experience, age
and intellectual interaction.

Part- IV
THE GOALS OF COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES
Developing Better Understanding of SAARC & Other Systems
Developing Better Understanding of Ones System
Identifying the Best Constitutional Practices in SAARC
Responding to Doctrinal or Textual Questions
Attending to Challenges of Constitutional Comparisons
Analysing the Interdependence of Constitutional Provisions
Appreciating the Complexity of Historical Context
Conflating Normative and Positive Claims
Contextualizing the Expressionism and Constitutions of SAARC
Examining Concepts & Legal Structures from Comparative Perspective
Dismantling the miasma of Constitutional confusions in SAARC
Generating, germinating and gestating a Constitutional commonality
3

Part VI
COURSE CONTENT

WEEK-1: INTRODUCTION

What is Comparative Constitutional Law? The Concept of the Comparative Constitutional Law,
Importance of the Study of Comparative Constitutional Law, Functions & Aims of Comparative
Constitutional Law, Sources of the Comparative Constitutional Law, The Comparative
Constitutional Law: Province Determined, Definition, Nature, Scope and Classification of
Different Forms of the Constitutions of the USA, UK, Canada and Australia.

South Asian Constitutional Texts:
Articles of the Constitution of Afghanistan
Articles of the Constitution of Bangladesh
Articles of the Constitution of Bhutan
Articles of the Constitution of India
Articles of the Constitution of Maldives
Articles of the Constitution of Nepal
Articles of the Constitution of Pakistan
Articles of the Constitution of Sri Lanka
C/F: The Constitutions of USA, UK, CANADA & AUSTRALIA

CASE LAW:

1. Cheatle V. The Queen (1993) 177 C.L.R. 541 (Austl.)
2. Edwards V. Attorney-General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C. 1929)-Persons Case
3. Jacobson V. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 31-33 & n.1 (1905)
4. Kindler V. Canada [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779
5. Law Society of Upper Canada V. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, 366
6. McCulloch V. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
7. Muller V. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 419-20, n.1 (1908)
8. Printz V. United States 521 US 897 (1997)
9. R. V. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, 343-44 (Can.)
10. Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
11. Roper V. Simmons 543 US 551 (2005)
12. St. Catherines Milling & Lumber Co. V. R., (1888) 14 App. Cas. 46, 50.
13. Street V. Queensland Bar Assn, (1989) 168 C.L.R. (Austl.)
14. The Society of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd. V. Grogan, (1991)
15. United States V. Burns [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283 (Can.)
16. United States V. County of Allegheny, 322 U.S. 174, 198 (1944)
17. Washington V. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 710 n.8, 718 n.16, 734 (1997)
18. White V. Jones [1995] 2 AC 207
19. Wickard V. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125-126 & n.17 (1942)
20. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. V. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 650-652 (1952)

WEEK-2: THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND DRAFTING AND MAIN FEATURES & AN
OVERVIEW OF THE MAJOR SAARC CONSTITUTIONS

The Constitutional Design, Drafting & Gender, Constitutional Drafting and External Influence,
Panoramic Constitution Approaches, the Comparativist Dilemma, Constitutional Endurance. The
Main Features & an Overview of the Major SAARC Constitutions; India, Pakistan, Bangladesh
and Sri Lanka etc.

4


CASE LAW:

1. Goodyear India V. State of Haryana, AIR 1990 SC 781
2. Indira Nehru Gandhi V. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 2299
3. Keshavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
4. Minerva Mills Ltd. V. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789
5. Nakara V. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130
6. Official Liquidator V. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1
7. P.A. Inamdar V. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537
8. Pradeep Jain (Dr.) V. Union of India V. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420
9. State of Bihar V. Bal Mukund Sah, AIR 2000 SC 1296
10. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. V. Statte of Uttar Pradesh, (1990) 1 SCC 109

WEEK-3: THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM

Constitutionalism, Legal Pluralism and International Regimes. The Twilight of Comparative
Liberal-Democratic Constitutionalism. The Contemporary Constitutionalism as the Law of the
Peoples. Transitional Justice and the Transformation of Constitutionalism. Alternative
Secularism, Constitutionalization, and People & Societies in the SAARC & Beyond.

Preamble with Articles 2, 3, 15, of the Constitution of Afghanistan
Preamble with Articles 8-25 (FPSP) of the Constitution of Bangladesh
Preamble with Articles of the Constitution of Bhutan
Preamble with Articles, 36-51A of the Constitution of India
Preamble with Articles 4, 8, 9, 10, 63, 66, 69 of the Constitution of Maldives
Preamble with Articles of the Constitution of Nepal
Preamble with Articles 29-40 of the Constitution of Pakistan
Preamble with Articles, 9 (Religion), 27, 28 29 (DPSP) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka
U.K. Constitutional Amendment & Governance Act, 2010

CASE LAW:

1. A. K. Gopalan V. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
2. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. V. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
3. Adkins V. Childrens Hospital of the District of Columbia, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)
4. Allgeyer V. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897)
5. Atkins V. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
6. Babri Mosque-Ram Janam Bhumi Dispute
7. Bal Patil V. Union of india, (2005) 6 SCC 690
8. Becker V. Alberta, 45 A.R. 37 (Q.B. 1983)
9. Blencoe V. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 (Can.)
10. Bosnia V. Serbia,
11. Brown V. Board of Education, 247 U.S. 483 (1954)
12. Burron V. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833)
13. Carter V. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)
14. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. V. City of Hialeah, 508 US 520 (1993)
15. Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010)
16. Coppage V. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
17. District of Columbia V. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)
18. Dred Scott V.Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
5

19. Employment Division V. Smith, 494 US 872 (1990)
20. Escobedo V. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964)
21. Fracen V. City of Winnipeg, 40 Man. R. (2d) 137 (Ct. App. 1986)
22. Francis Coralie V. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 597
23. Frontiero V. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
24. Gideon V. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
25. Government of Andhra Pradesh V. P. Laxmi Devi, 2008 (4) SCC 720
26. Griffin V. County School Board, Prince Edward County,
27. Griswold V. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
28. Hammer V. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918)
29. Holden V. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898)
30. I.C. Golak Nath V. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643
31. I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs V. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, (2007) 2 SCC 1
32. Keshavanand Bharati V. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
33. Kokkinakis V. Greece
34. Korematsu V. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
35. Lawrence V. Texas: The Right that Dare Not Speak Its Name, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 1893 (2004)
36. Leyla Sahin V. Turkey
37. Lochner V. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
38. Malloy V. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1(1964)
39. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 593
40. Marbury V. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1903)
41. Milk Board V. Clearview Dairy Farm Inc., 69 B.C.L.R. 220 (Sup. Ct. 1986)
42. Miranda V. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
43. Murrays Lessee V. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co.
44. Parents Involved in Community Schools V. Seattle School District # 1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007)
45. Parkdale Hotel Ltd. V. Canada (Attorney General), 2 EC. 514 (Fed. Ct. Trial Div.1986)
46. Planned Parenthood Association V. Casey, U.S. 1992
47. Prosecutor V. Tadic
48. R. V. Edwards Books and Arts Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713 (Can.)
49. Raja Ram Pal V. Honble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Others, (2007) 3 SCC 184
50. S.R. Bommai V. Union of India, (1994) 3SCC 1
51. Sankari Prasad Singh Deo V. Union of India, AIR SC 458 (1951)
52. Sejdic and Finci V. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment, Application Nos. 2799/06 and 3483/06
(European Court of Human Rights, 22December, 2009): para49
53. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. V. Canada (Attorney General) 1 EC. 274 (Fed. Ct.
Trial Div. 1986)
54. Tyson & Bro.-United Theatre Ticket Offices, Inc. V. Banton, 273 U.S. 418, 445-57 (1927)
55. Velsamma Paul V. Cochin University, AIR 1996 SC 1011
56. West Coast Hotel Co. V. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
57. Wilson V. British Columbia (Medical Service Commission), 30 B.C.L.R. (2D) 1 (Ct. App. 1988)

WEEK-4: GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FEDERALISM IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE SAARC
NATIONS

General Principles of Federalism, Decentralization and Conflict Management in Multi-Cultural
Societies. Federalism, Feminism and Multi-Level Governance. The Influence of the Imperial
Structure on the SAARC Countries and the American example in the case of Canada and
Australia.

Articles 1 (1) of the Constitution of Afghanistan
Articles 1 of the Constitution of Bangladesh
Articles 245, 248, 250, 253, 256 of the Constitution of India
Articles 230-235 of the Constitution of Maldives
6

Articles 2 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka

CASE LAW:
1. A.G. Canada V. A.G. Ontario, (1937) AC 326
2. A.G. for Commonwealth V. Colonial Sugar Refining Co.[1914] AC 237
3. A.G. for Ontario V. A.G. for Canada, (1896) AC 348
4. A.G., Nova Scotia V. A.G., Canada, (1951) SCR 31
5. Ashton V. Cameron County, (1936) 298 US 513
6. Asma Jilani V. Government of Punjab, PLD 1972SC 139
7. Atiabari Tea Co. V. State of Assam, (1961) 1 SCR 809
8. Automobile Transport V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406
9. Bank of Toronto V. Lambe, (1887) 12 AC 575
10. Begum Nusrat Bhutto V. Chief of Army Staff, 29 PLD 657, 695 (1977)
11. Benazir Butto Case
12. Blum V. Bacon, (1982) 457 US 132
13. Carmichael V. S. Coal Co., (1937) 301 US 495
14. Florida Growers V. Paul, (1963) 373 US 132
15. Gonzales V. Raich, 545 US 1 (2005)
16. Haji Saifullah Case
17. Hopkins V. Cleary, (1935) 296 US 315
18. Jamat-e-Islami V. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2008 SC 30
19. Kapur Singh V. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1410
20. Kentucky V. Dennison, (1982) 456 US 742
21. Labatt Breweries of Canada V. Attorney General of Canada, Supreme Court of
Canada [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914 http:scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1979/1980rcs1-
914/1980rcs1-914.html
22. Mahmood Khan Achakzai V. Pakistan, 49 PLD 426, 446-47 (1997) (Pak.)
23. Maritime Bank V. Receiver General, (1892) AC 437
24. Minerva Mills V. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789
25. Montreal V. Montreal Street Ry., (1912) AC 333
26. Nadeem Ahmad Advocate V. Federation of Pakistan, Constitution Petition No. 08 of
July 2009
27. Nawaz Sharif Case
28. Pulp & Power Co. V. Manitoba Free Press, (1923) AC 326
29. R V. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., Supreme Court of Canada, [1988] 1 S.C.R.401
30. R.M.D.C. V. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628
31. Rapanos United States, 547 US 715 (2006)
32. Shamsher V. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192
33. State of Karnataka V. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68
34. State of West Bengal V. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241
35. State V. Zia-ur-Rahman, PLD 1973 SC 49
36. Steward V. Davis, (1938) 301 US 548
37. Syed Zafar Ali Khan V. General Pervez Musharraf, Chief Executive of Pakistan, PLD
2000 SC 869
38. Tariq Rahim Case
39. The Federation of Pakistan V. Maulvi Tazimuddin Khan, PLD 1955 FC 240
40. The State V. Dosso, PLD 1958 SC 533
41. Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan V. General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff,
Rawalpindi and Others, PLD 2008 SC 615
42. Union Colliery V. Bryden, (1899) AC 580
43. Wajihuddin Ahmad V. Chief Election Commissioner, PLD 2008 SC 25
44. United States V. Morrison 529 US 598 (2000)

7

WEEK-5: GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF DOCTRINE OF NEW SEPERATION OF POWERS

General Principles of the Separation of Powers in the Westminster System. The Doctrine of the
New Separation of Powers; Democratic Legitimacy, Functional Specialization, Fundamental
Rights and the New Separationism.


CASE LAW:
1. Alden V. Maine, 119 S. Ct. 2240 (1999)
2. Chandler V. Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 763
3. College Savings Bank V. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 119
S. Ct. 2219 (1999)
4. Douglas V. Verney, (1995) 25 Publius 81, 81-95
5. Hamdi V. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507 (2004)
6. R v. Attorney-General, [2005] UKHL 56, [2005]4 All ER 1253
7. R V. Comptroller-General of Patents, ex parteTomlinson [1899] 1 QB 909 at 913-4
8. R v. Parole Board and Another, [2005] EWHC 5469 (Admin), [2005] 1 All ER 11
9. R v. Secretary of State for Home Department, [2005] UKHL 69, 1 All ER 219 at 19, 28
10. R v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, [2005] UKHL 29, [2006] 1 All ER 487 at
32
11. Secretary of State for the Home Department V. Rahman, [2002] UKHL 47, [2002] 1 All
ER 122 at 139
12. Singh v. United Kingdom, [1996] 22 EHRR 1
13. Sinnot v. Minister of Education, [2001] 1 IR 545
14. T.D. and Others V. the Minister of Education, [2001] 4 IR 259

WEEK-6: THE TREATY MAKING, FREDOM OF TRADE, e-COMMERCE AND FOREIGN POLICY
IMPERATIVES UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONS OF SOUTH ASIAN NATIONS

The Treaty Making under the Constitutions of South Asian Nations. The Freedom of Trade &
Commerce and e-Commerce Laws and Regulatory Systems in South Asia. The Regional
Economic Alliance; SAFTA. The Foreign Policy Imperatives under the Constitutions of South
Asian Nations.

Articles 7, 8 (Foreign Policy) 10, 11 (Trade), of the Constitution of Afghanistan
Articles 301-304 of the Constitution of India

CASE LAW:
1. Andhra Steel Corporation V. Commissioner of Commercial-Tax, AIR 1990 SC 1912
2. Andhra Sugars Ltd V. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1968 SC 599
3. Aramachine V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1992 Raj 7, para 10, 14, 17.
8

4. Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. V. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 232
5. Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406
6. Indian Cement V. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 567
7. Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd. V. State of Haryana, AIR 2006 SC 2550
8. Maharaja Tourist Services V. State of Gujrat, AIR 1991 SC 1650
9. State of Kerala V. A.B.Abdul Khadir, AIR 1970 SC 1912
10. State of Madras V. N.R. Natrajan Mudaliar, AIR 1969 SC 147
11. State of Tamil Nadu V. Sanjeetha, AIR 1993 SC 237
12. United States V. Lopez 514 US 549 (1995)
13. Video Electronics V. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 SC 820

WEEK-7: THE COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES AND GOVERNANCE
INSTITUTIONS & THEIR EVOLUTION IN SAARC COUNTRIES

The Comparative Constitutional Structure & Evolution; the Concept of Autochthony. The
Presidentialism, Parliamentarism & Democracy. The Cabinet Government and Legislative-
Executive Relations. The Constitutional Breakdowns. The Rise of Specialized Constitutional
Courts & the Supranational Sphere. The Role of Courts and the Civil-Military Governments in
South Asia.

Constitutional Texts:

CASE LAW:
1.
WEEK-8: MID SEMESTER EXAMINATION

WEEK-9: THE PHILOSOPHY OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
THE PEOPLES IN SOUTH ASIA AND BEYOND

Nature of Rights, Justification of Rights, Definition, Content and Scope of Rights, Rights Holders
& Defenders, Rights & Political Ideology, Global Rights Discourse and Criticism of Rights.
Understanding the Evolution of State Responsibility in the Reconstruction of Comparative
Constitutional Human Rights Jurisprudence Context.

The Constitutional Human Rights of the People and the Role of the Judiciary in their Protection;
Right to Life & Liberty, Employment Rights, Right to Free Expression, Right to Privacy, Right to
Protection against Hate & Racist Speech, Free Press, Racial Equality, Freedom Of Religion,
Right to Health, Gender Equality, Biomedical Law and Reproductive Rights, Victims Rights,
Rights of Children, Civil And Political Rights in Established And Emerging Democracies, Right
to Leave & Return, Intellectual Property Rights, Social Welfare & Affirmative Rights,
Comparative Constitutional Law and the Challenges of Terrorism, Legal Protection of Same-Sex
Partnerships and Comparative Constitutional Law etc. The Safeguards against the Abuse of
Power, Constitutional Guarantees, Prohibitions and the Institutional Safeguards (NHRCs).

Preamble with Articles 6, 7, 8, 22-59 of the Constitution of Afghanistan
Preamble with Article 26-47A of the Constitution of Bangladesh
Preamble with Articles of the Constitution of Bhutan
Preamble with Articles 12-32 of the Constitution of India
9

Preamble with Articles 16-69(FR), 189 (HRC) of the Constitution of Maldives
Preamble with Articles of the Constitution of Nepal
Preamble with Articles 8-28 of the Constitution of Pakistan
Preamble with Articles 10-17 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka

CASE LAW:
1. A.P. Pollution Control Boards V. Prof. MV Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 822
2. Anwar Ali Sarkar V. State of West Bengal, AIR 1952 SC 75
3. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug V. Union of India and Others, JT 2011 (3) SC 300
4. Barrios Altos V. Peru, IACHR Ser. C No. 75 (14 March 2001), para 189
5. Bhagwan Dass V. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2011 (5) 498
6. Bombay Hawkers Union V. B.M.C., (1985) 3 SCC 528
7. Budayeva V. Russia, [2008] ECHR
8. Center for PIL V. Union of India, 1995 Sppl. (3) SCC 382
9. Cerc V. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922
10. Charles Shobhraj V. Delhi Admin., (1978) 4 SCC 104
11. D.K. Basu V. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 4116
12. Dandridge V. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970)
13. Darshan Masih V. The State, (1990) Pakistan
14. Deshaney V. Winnebago, 489 US 189 (1989)
15. Fadeyeva V. Russia, [2005] ECHR 376
16. Guerra V. Italy, (1998) 26 EHRR 357
17. Haynes V. Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 (7
th
Cir. 1993)
18. Hich Lal Tiwari V. Kamala Devi and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 496
19. Hussainara Khatoon V. Home Secretary, (1980) 1 SCC 81
20. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action V. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281
21. Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) V. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515
22. Indira Sawhney V. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 498
23. Jersild V. Denmark, September 23, 1994
24. Kapila Hingorani V. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 1
25. Khatri V. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 928
26. Khudiram Chakma V. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1992 GAU 105
27. Lata Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2006 (5) SCC 475
28. Lopez Ostra V. Spain, (1994) 20 EHRR 277
29. Lucy V. State of Goa, AIR 1990 Bom. 355
30. M.C. Mehta V. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 471
31. M.C. Mehta V. Union of India, (1991) 2SCC 353
32. M.H. Hoskot V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548
33. Mariela Viceconte V. Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Case No. 31.777/96 (1998)
(Argentina)
34. Minister of Health V. Treatment Action Campaign(TAC), (2002) 5 SA 721 (SA)
35. National Human Rights Commission V. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742
36. New York Times Co. V. Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964)
37. Ocalan V. Turkey, (2003) 37 EHRR 10
38. Oliga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180
39. Oneryildiz V. Turkey, [2004] ECHR 657
40. ONGC V. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 Sppl. (3) SCC 176
41. P.Katara V, Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 286
42. People Union for Civil Liberties V. Union of India, 1997 3 SCC 433
43. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties V. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399
44. Police Commissioner, Delhi V. Registrar, Delhi High Court, AIR 1999 SC 95
45. Prabha Dutt V. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 6
46. Pradeep Kumar Jain V. State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 1420
47. R. Rajgopal V. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632
48. R.A.V. V. City of Paul, 505 US 377 (1992)
49. Ramana V. International Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCC 479
50. Romesh Thapar V. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
10

51. S.K. Mastan Bee V. GM South Central Railway, (2003) 1 SCC 184
52. S.P. Gupta V. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
53. S.R. Bommai V. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
54. Sakshi V. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518
55. Shantisar Builders V. L. Narayan, (1991) 1 SCC 520
56. Sheela Barse V. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96
57. Simon, Julio Hector y otros, 328 Fallos 2056 (2005)
58. Soering V. UK, (1989) 11 EHRR 439
59. Soobramoney V. Minister of Health KwaZulu Natal, 1997 (12) BCLR 1696
60. State of Arunachal Pradesh V. Khudiram Chakma, AIR 1994 SC 1461
61. State of Gujrat V. Honble High Court of Gujrat, (1998)7 SCC 392
62. State of M.P. V. Shobharam, AIR 1966 SC 2193
63. State of Rajasthan V. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361
64. Sunil Batra V. Delhi Admin., (1978) 4 SCC 498
65. Supreme Court Advocates on Record V. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441
66. Taskin V. Turkey, [2004] ECHR Paras 113-9
67. Tatar V. Romania, [2009] ECHR Para 88
68. Unni Krishnan V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993), 1 SCC 645
69. Velasquez Rodriguez V. Honduras, Case 7920, Ser. C., No. 4, IACHR 35 OEA/ser. L/V/III. 19
doc. 13 (1988)
70. Vineet Narain V. Union of India, 1998 Cri. L.J. 1208
71. Virginia V. Black, 538 US 343 (2003)
72. Vishakha V. State of Rajasthan, 1997, 6 SCC 241

WEEK-10: THE COMPARATIVE CONSTITUIONAL LAW INTERPRETATION

The Judiciary, Law and the Comparative Constitutional Adjudication & Courts. The Judicial
Engagement with Comparative Constitutional Law Perspective. Docket Control and Institutional
Success of Constitutional Courts.

Articles 94, 96(3) (SJC), 127-132 (C & G) of the Constitution of Bangladesh
Articles 148-151 (C & G) of the Constitution of India
Articles 157 (JSC), 209 (AG) of the Constitution of Maldives

CASE LAW:
1. Allen V. Wright, 468 US 737 (1984)

WEEK-11: THE LAW MAKING, PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES

The Law Making, Parliamentary Behaviour, Parliamentary Procedures, Privileges and
Immunities
Articles 81, 107, 110, of the Constitution of Afghanistan
Articles 65, 68, 73A, 75, 80, 93 of the Constitution of Bangladesh
Articles 105, 106, 107 of the Constitution of India
Articles 70, 83, 90, of the Constitution of Maldives
Articles 50, 57, 66, 67, 70 of the Constitution of Pakistan
Articles 62, 67, 75, of the Constitution of Sri Lanka
11

CASE LAW:
1. Union of India V. Gopal, AIR 1978 SC 684
2. State of Karnataka V. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608
3. M.S.M. Sharma V. Sri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395
4. Jatish Chandra Ghose V. Harisadhan Mukherjee, AIR 1961 SC 613
5. Tej Kiran V. Sajiva, AIR 1970 SC 1573

WEEK-12: THE PUBLIC SERVICES, ELECTORAL SYSTEMS AND THE FUTURE OF
DEMOCRACY IN SOUTH ASIA

The Public Service, the Police, the Electoral Systems, the Future of Democracy and the
Institution of the Ombudsmen in South Asia.

Articles 118 (Elections), 133 (Services) of the Constitution of Bangladesh
Articles 309, 315 (UPSC), 324 (Elections) of the Constitution of India
Articles 179 (Civil Service), 236 (Services), 244 (Police), 167-170, 276 (Elections), 199 (Anti-CC) of the
Constitution of Maldives
Articles 103, 104 (Elections) of the Constitution of Pakistan
U.K. Public Services Code, 2010

CASE LAW:
1. S.S. Dhanoa V. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1745
2.

WEEK-13: POLITICAL PARTIES, EMERGENCY POWERS AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS

Political Practices & Party Systems. Constitutions and Emergency Regimes & Powers. The
Constitutional Amendment Rules in a Comparative Perspective; Functions of Amendment;
Beware of Amendment; the Comparative Conundrum of Amendment and Secession.

Articles 143-148 (Emergency), 90, 149, 150 (Amendment) of the Constitution of Afghanistan
Articles 141 (Emergency), 142 (Amendment) of the Constitution of Bangladesh
Articles 352, 355, 356 (Emergency), 368 (Amendment) of the Constitution of India
Articles 261 (Amendment), 253-260 (Emergency), of the Constitution of Maldives
Articles 82, 84 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka

CASE LAW:
1. A.K. Roy V. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710
2. Adkins V. Childrens Hospital, 261 US 525 (1923)
3. Aldridge V. Booth, (1988) 80 ALR 1
4. Arun V. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC All 1
5. Bhim Singhji V. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 234
6. Chisolm V. Georgia, 2 US 419 (1793)
7. Dred Scott V. Sanford, 60 US (19 How.) 393 (1857)
8. Golaknath V. State of Punjab, 1967 AIR 1643
9. Hammer V. Dagenhart, 247 US 251 (1918)
10. Hans V. Louisiana, 134 US 1 (1890)
12

11. Keshavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
12. Kihota Hollohon V. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412
13. NLRB V. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 US 1 (1937)
14. Romer V. Evans, 517 US 620 (1990)
15. Sampath Kumar V. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386
16. State of Rajasthan V. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361
17. United States V. Darby Lumber Co., 312 US 100 (1941)
18. Waman Rao V. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386
19. West Coast Hotel Co. V. Parish, 300 US 379 (1937)
20. Wurridjal V. Commonwealth of Australia, [2009] HCA 2

WEEK-14: MISCILLANY OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS & VALUES
IN SOUTH ASIA

The Supremacy of the Constitutions, Rule of Law & Due Process, Comparative Form of Judicial
Review and the Rise of Weak-Form of Judicial Review, Independence of Judiciary, Judicial
Activism, Constitutional Provision for the Protection of the Judiciary. Enforcement of Socio-
Economic Rights, Governance In Transition To Democracy and Free Speech In A Global
World; Broadcasting Law; South Asian Law With Emphasis On Institutional Law and
Litigation; Corruption; Constitutional Transplants; Administrative Law Etc.
Articles 5, 34 of the Constitution of Afghanistan

CASE LAW:
1. Marbury V. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
2. City of Boerne V. Flores, 521 US 507 (1997)
3. Cook V. Cook (1938) 162 C.L.R. 376

WEEK-15: RETHINKING COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: REVISION AND
INTERACTIONS

WEEK-16: ESSAY PRESENTATIONS/SIMULATION EXERCISES ON PROBLEMS BY
STUDENTS AND FEEDBACK

Part VII
Grading System for the Students Achievement:

Standard (A+, A, A-F) Grading is based on students overall performance in the assessment
tasks/activities/assignments/term papers etc. To pass this course, students must obtain an aggregate mark
of 50% and a minimum of 50% in each of the coursework and the examination elements of the
assessment. Coursework for this purpose means those ways in which students are assessed otherwise
than by the end of session examination.

Part VIII
Recommended Readings

1. A. Harding & E. Oeruecue (eds), Comparative Law in the 21
st
Century (Kulwer Academic
Publishers, London, Hague, NY, 2002) pp. 1-54
2. A. Von Methron & J.R. Gordley, The Civil Law Systems ( 2nd ed., 1977)
13

3. A.C. Kapur, Select Constitutions
4. A.L. Goodhart, Precedent in English and Commercial Law, 50 I.Q Rev 40 ( 1934)
5. Annoussamy, Chap IV, V & VI
6. B Z Tamanaha, Rule of Law in United States in Randall Peerenboom (ed.), Asian Discourses of
Rule of Law, Routledge, London, 2004, pp 56-78.
7. Barnett, Randy E., The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law.
8. Basu, D.D., Introduction to the Constitution of India
9. Bobbitt, Philip. Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution.
10. C.F. Strong, Modern Political Constitutions
11. Charles Fried, Saying What the Law is: The Constitution in the Supreme Court, First Indian
Reprint, Universal Publishing Co.Pvt Ltd., 2008, pp 13-48.
12. Chemerinsky, Erwin. Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies.
13. D. Annoussamy, chaps IV, v & VI
14. D. C. M. Yardley, Introduction to British Constitutional Law
15. D.Annoussamy, French Legal System (NLSIU, Bangalore, 1995 ) ch.
16. D.D.Basu, Comparative Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., Wadhwa Nagpur, 2008, pp 1-12.
17. Davis (1980) chaps 6 & 7
18. DD Basu, Comparative Constitution Law, 2nd (ed.), Wadhwa, 2008, pp 324-350.
19. DD Basu, Comparative Constitution Law, 2nd (ed.), Wadhwa, 2008, pp 403-416.
20. DD Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Lexis-Nexis-Butterworth-Wadhwa, 2008, pp
51-66, 327-334, 344-351, 357-367.
21. Dicey, Albert V. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution.
22. Dorsen, Rosenfeld, Sajo, and Baer, Comparative Constitutionalism.
23. Douglas V. Verney, The Struggle over Judicial Review: Supreme Court and Limited Government
in M.P.Singh et al (eds.), Indian Judiciary and Politics: The Changing Landscape, Manohar Book,
2007 pp 41-67.
24. E. Schmidt Assmann, Basic principles of German Administrative Law, 35 JILI 61 (1993)
25. Galanter, Marc, Competing Equalities- Law and the Backward Classes in India.
26. Georg Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge University Press,
2005).
27. Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, ed. Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparative Study
28. Gutteridge, chaps VII & VIII
29. H.C. Gutteridge, Comparative Law (Camb. Uni. Press 2nd ed., 1949) Chaps I, II &VI.
30. Harding & Oeruecue, pp. 121-136, 235-266
31. Hilare Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law
32. Ivor Jennings, Law of the Constitution
33. Ivor Jennings, Law of the Constitution
34. J. Bell, French Constitutional Law ( Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992)
35. Jain, M.P., Constitutional Law of India.
36. Jan M Smits (ed), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,UK,
2006, pp 57-65, 187-199.
37. Jeffrey Jowell, The rule of law today, in Jeffrey Jowell and Dawn Oliver (ed.), The Changing
Constitution, OUP, 4th ed., 2000, pp 3-22 (Rule of law in England)
38. John Alder, General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law
39. K. Brohi, Fundamental Law of Pakistan.
40. K.Zweigert and H.Kotz, Comparative Law An Introduction to (Clarendon Press 1998)
Introduction & pp. 63 -73ff.
41. M.A. Glendon, M.W. Gordon & C. Osakwe, Comparative Legal Traditions ( West Publishing
Co., St Paul, 1985) Introduction.
42. M.P. Singh(ed), Comparative Constitutional Law: Festschrift in Honour of Professor P.K.
Tripathi ( Eastern Book Co. Lucknow, 1989) pp 26 - 42 & 45 416
43. M.P. Singh, German Administrative Law in Common Law Perspective (2nd ed., Springer Verlag,
Berlin 2001) Chaps 7 & 8
44. M.P. Singh, V.N Shuklas Constitutional Law, (11th ed.) Eastern Book Company, pp A 52 A
56, 482-536, 614-677.
45. Mahendra P. Singh, V N Shukla, 11th ed., EBC, Lucknow, 2008, pp A28-A35.
46. Mahmudul Islam, Constitutional Law of Bangladesh
14

47. Maitland, Constitutional History of England
48. Mark Tushnet, The Constitution of the United States of America: A Contextual Analysis, Hart
Publishing Ltd, 2009, pp 159-181.
49. Mark Tushnet, The Possibilities of Comparative Constitutional Law (1999) 108 Yale.L.J. 1225.
50. Michael Burgess, Comparative Federalism, Theory and Practice, Routledge, NewYork, 2006, pp
9-49 and pp 50-75.
51. Munro, Colin R. Studies in Constitutional Law
52. N. Brown & J.S. Bell, French Administrative Law ( Butterworth, London , 4th ed., 1993)
53. OHood Phillips, Constitutional and Administrative Law
54. Olivier De Schutter, International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary, ISBN-13
978-1-107-64155-6 (Paperback), Cambridge University Press, 2010
55. Olivier De Schutter, International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary, ISBN-13
978-1-107-64155-6 (Paperback), Cambridge University Press, 2010
56. R. David & J.E.C Bierley, Major Legal Systems in the World Today ( Stevens & Sons, London,
3rd ed., 1985) Introduction.
57. R. David, Ch.III
58. R. David, English Law and French Law ( Eastern Law House, Calcutta) Chapters I & 2
59. R. David, English Law and French Law ( Eastern Law House, Calcutta) Chapter IV & V
60. R. David, French Law ( Lousiana State University Press, Balton Rouge, 1972) Chaps III & IX
61. R. Khan & S. Kumar, An Introduction to the Study of Comparative Law (N.M Tripathi, Bombay
for ILI, 1971) Chaps I, II, & III.
62. Reimann, Mathuas and Zimmermann, Reinard, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law,
OUP, Oxford, 2006, pp 1225-1257
63. Rianne M. Letschert, The Impact of Minority Rights Mechanisms, ISBN-10:90-6704-210-2,
TMC Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2005
64. Richard H. Fallon Jr., The Rule of Law as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, Columbia Law
Review, vol.97 (1997) 1.
65. S. RoseAckerman & P.L. Lindseth, Comparative Administrative Law (Edward Elgar, UK &
USA, 2010)
66. Seervai, H.M., The Constitutional Law of India
67. Singh, M.P., Outlines of Indian Legal & Constitutional History
68. Thompson and Ludowikowski, Constitutionalism and Human Rights.
69. U Baxi, Rule of Law in India: Theory and Practice in Randall Peerenboom (ed.), Asian
Discourses of Rule of Law, Routledge, London, 2004, pp 324-345.
70. V.D. Mahajan, Select Modern Government
71. Vicki C. Jackson and Mark V. Tushnet, Comparative Constitutional Law, Foundation Press, pp
456 491, 640 650.
72. W. Friedmann, legal theory ( Stevens, London, 4th ed., 1960) Chap. 32
73. W. Hegde, Justice and the Law in the Federal Republic of Germany (C.F. Muller, Heidelberg,
1994).
74. W.F. Menski, Comparative Law in a Global Context ( Platinum, London, 2000) Ch.I
75. W.Hug, the History of Comparative Law, 45 Harv. L. Rev. 1027 (1932)
76. W.W. Willoghby, Constitutional Law of the United States
77. Wade, ECS and Bradely, AW, Constitutional and Administrative Law
78. Wheare, K.C. The Modern Constitution

Advanced Readings

1. Alexander M. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The SC at the Bar of Politics, Yale
University Press.
2. Anata Kumar Giri, The Rule of Law and Indian Society: From Colonialism to Post Colonialism
in P Costa and D Zolo (ed.), The Rule of Law: History, Theory and Criticism, Springer, The
Netherlands, 2007, pp 587-614.
3. Andrew Borkowski & Paul du Plesis, Text Book on Roman Law ( Oxford University Press, 2005)
4. Archibald Cox, Court and the Constitution, Houghton Mifflin, pp 341 -378
5. C.G. Weeramantry, An Invitation to the Law, ( Lawman, 1998)
15

6. Charles L. Black, The People and the Court: Judicial Review in a Democracy, The Macmillan
Company, 1960
7. Donald Kommers, The Value of Comparative Constitutional Law, 9 J. Marshall Prac. & Pro. 685
(1976).
8. Donald P Kommers, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 2nd
edn, Duke University Press/ Durham and London, 1997, pp 61-10 (Federalism in Germany.)
9. Ernest A. Young, Foreign Law and the Denominator Problem (2005) 119 Harv. L. Rev.148.
10. Goolam E Vahanvati, Rule of Law: The Sieges Within, in Constitutionalism, Human Rights and
the Rule of Law: Essays in Honour of Soli J Sorabjee, Universal Book Punlishing Co., New
Delhi, 2005, pp 165-173.
11. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford: OUP, 2008) at 156-
163.
12. Gustavo Fernades De Andrade, Comparative Constitutional Law: Judicial Review, University of
Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, vol.3, n.3, 2001, pp. 989-997
13. H. Patrick Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World Sustainable Diversity in Law ( Oxford
University Press, 2000).
14. Jack Wade Nowlin, The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Review: A Structural Interpretative
Approach, Oklahoma Law Review, 1999
15. Jan Erk, Explaining Federalism: State, Society and Congruence in Austria, Belgium, Canada,
Germany and Switzerland, Routledge, New York, 2008, pp 1-13, 44-48.
16. Jan M. Smits, Elgar Encuclopedia of Comparative Law ( Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,
2006).
17. Jeremy Waldron, Rule of Law and Concept of Law,
18. Joseph Raz, The Rule of Law and Its Virtue, The Law Quarterly Review, vol 93 (1977) 196.
19. Kuldip Nayar v. UOI AIR 2006 SC 3127, (2006) 7 SCC 1.
20. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 5th ed., , Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2003, pp 7-10
21. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 5th ed., Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2003, pp 22-23, 553-555, 847-
860.
22. Martha A. Field, The Differing Federalisms of Canada and the United States (1992) 55 Law
and Contemp. Probs. 107.
23. Mathias Reimann & Reinhard Zimmermann, the Oxford, Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford
University Press, 2006.)
24. Nicholas Aroney, The Constitution of a Federal Commonwealth: The making and meaning of the
Australian Constitution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, pp 17-39.
25. Paul H. Rubin, The Evolution of Efficient Common Law ( An Elgar Reference Collection, 2007).
26. Peter de Cruz, Comparative Law in a Changing World ( Cavendish Publishing Limited, 1999)
27. Pierre Legrand and Roderick Munday, Comparative legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions (
Cambridge University Press, 2003.)
28. Ran Hirschl, The Rise of Comparative Constitutional Law: Thoughts on Substance and Methods,
Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, (2008).
29. Re Quebec Objection to a Resolution to Amend the Constitution [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793.
30. Rianne M. Letschert, The Impact of Minority Rights Mechanisms, ISBN-10:90-6704-210-2,
TMC Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2005
31. Roger P. Alford, In Search of a Theory for Constitutional Comparativism (2005) 52 UCLA L.
Rev. 639.
32. S.P Sathe, Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits, OUP, pp 63-
99, 249- 311
33. Seervai, Constitutional Law, pp. Vol.1, 260-275, Vol.3, 2613-2986
34. Sujit Choudhry, Globalisation in Search of Justification: Toward a Theory of Comparative
Constitutional Interpretation (1999) 74 Ind. L. J. 819.
35. Thomas Glyn Watkins, An Historical Introduction to modern Civil Law (Ashgate, 1999).
36. Tom Ginsburg, Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases,
Cambridge University Press, pp 34 64, 64- 89
37. Tony Blackshield and George Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory Commentary
and Materials, 4th ed, The Federation Press, Sydney, 2006, pp 241-246. (Australian Federalism).
38. Ursula Bentele, Mining for gold: The Constitutional Court of South Africas Experience with
Comparative Constitutional Law.
16

144-152.
791-803, 825-827, 843-858.
213-222, 337-342.
42. Wendy Dongier & Brian K. Smith, The Laws of Manu ( Penguin, 1991)
43. Werner Menski, Comparative Law in a Global Context Legal System of Asia and Africa (
Cambridge University Press, 2006)
Part-IX
Statutes & Acts

The Constitutions of All the SAARC Nations
Thematic Books & Commentaries
Bare Acts
Juristic Writings/Research Papers
Thematic Journals
Online Journals
E-Resources.

THE SYLLABUS OF COMPARATIVE CONSTITUIONAL LAW OF SAARC NATIONS IS
SUBJECT TO PERENNIAL CHANGE KEEPING IN VIEW THE NEW CONSTITUIONAL
DEVELOMENTS OR MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO OR CONNECTED THEREWITH IN
THE REGION AND ELSEWHERE OR OTHERWISE

***

(Syllabus) Comparative Costitutional Law SAARC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Syllabus) Comparative Costitutional Law SAARC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Syllabus) Comparative Costitutional Law SAARC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY

You might also like