"Comparative Constitutional Law and Judiciary"

There has been immense jurisprudence that shows in India there has been rise in judges’ power of interpretation of various provisions of Constitution, what strikes me the most is different approach of judges in different time of the last seventeen years. While interpreting the provisions based on the Constitution and adopting foreign precedents whether to use precedents from the House of Lords or American Supreme Court or different countries and in the same way while interpreting the rights because it is the citizen which has soul in Constitution of India and any Constitution of modern world begins with the we the people so where is we the people while interpreting the Constitution and the rights. Sometime judges to suit the end results cherry picks the judgment on foreign approach from different jurisdictions; they do not have a principled approach towards interpreting the provisions of the constitution. From the Indian context there are judgments in the Supreme Court where J. Krishna Iyyer says “it’s not the Potomac but the Thames, fertilizes the flow of the Yamuna.” Italy adopts the river bank variant on this theory. Somebody rejects the very idea of meticulous judgments in interpreting the executive powers in Parliament; they say that we will go with foreign regulations and at same time while interpreting another statute of Maharashtra relating to economic rights J. Krishna Iyyer says that “we will not look at all the foreign precedents and pari materia provisions of other jurisdictions that how the judges have interpreted in foreign jurisdictions” and further stated that “Of course we will refer to them with pertinent gravity although we must administer to ourselves the caveat that the same words used in enactment of constitution of various nations that may have different connotations and when the courts are called upon to interpret them they must accommodate the particular conditions pertaining in the country.” Citing this jurisprudence and condition of India summarily relates to all foreign judges. As pointed out by senior advocate Mr. Vekatramni that the few Constitutions like of South Africa they expressly authorizes for the use foreign materials and precedents. So the question has to be asked that where we are heading and how the global society is working while interpreting the Constitution and providing the rights of human kind. What are the principles which should guide the judges across the jurisdictions while interpreting the rights, powers of executive, having the appointments in constitutional courts of the judges?

For the deliberation on such important questions in regard to the judiciary and comparative constitutional study Lloyd Law College,best law colleges, organized the two day Colloquium on 17th and 18th March 2019, in the Fourth Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting Competition, 2018-19.