INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN LIGHT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN INDIA AND BANGLADESH
Keywords:
Constitutional Rights, Constitutionalization of International Law, Human Rights, Constitutional Borrowing, International Constitutional RightAbstract
A trend of using relevant norms of international law to interpret the domestic constitutional rights emerged during the last few decades. The norms have been applied in rights adjudication, in particular in the judiciaries of dualist states where international law is not enforceable directly. The courts have borrowed content from international law, where there is a vacuum in domestic materials. They have also used international law to resolve ambiguity in domestic law and to strengthen the reasoning of judicial decisions, even if it is based mainly on domestic materials. However, judiciaries around the globe show different attitudes towards the acceptance and perusal of this tool. Hence, a comparative analysis between two constitutional democracies, namely India and Bangladesh shall have a synergic effect on both. To start with, this article traces the theoretical and practical aspects of using international law in interpreting constitutional rights. Then it proceeds to a comparative analysis of the two democracies based on various pertinent factors. It concludes by focusing on the areas and methods where the two nations can learn from each other.
Downloads
References
i Mark Tushnet, The Inevitable Globalization of Constitutional Law, 49 Va. J. Int'l L. 985 (2008).
ii 41 (1988) DLR (AD) 165.
iii Art. 39 of SOUTH AFRICA CONST. 1996 imposes an obligation on the judges to consult international law
while interpreting the bill of rights. Moreover, the same article ‘recommends’ the use of foreign laws in
constitutional interpretation.
iv Art. 2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 [ICCPR].
v Art. 2, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 [ICESCR].
vi General Comment 9 to ICESCR, Para. 3.
vii Art. 2, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Art. 3, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Art 2, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and implementation clauses of other core human rights treaties.
viii Rex D. Glensy, The Use of International Law in US Constitutional Adjudication, 25 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 197,
210-34 (2011).
ix Vicki C. Jackson, Transnational Challenges to Constitutional Law: Convergence, Resistance, Engagement, 35
Federal Law Review 161, 162 (2007).
x 537 U.S. 990 (2002).
xiJohn O. McGinnis & Illya Somin, Should International Law Be Part of Our Law?, 59 Stanford L. Rev. 1175,
1190 (2006).
xii See Cindy G. Buys, Burying Our Constitution in the Sand-Evaluating the Ostrich Response to the Use of
International and Foreign Law in US Constitutional Interpretation, 21 BYU J. Pub. L. 1 (2007).
xiii Supra note 3.
xiv The Proclamation of Independence, 1971 Para. 12 (Bangladesh).
xv MAHMUDUL ISLAM, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF BANGLADESH 127 (3d Ed. Mullick Brothers 2012).
xvi 60 (2008) DLR (AD) 90, Para 82.
xviiThe Fundamental Principles of State Policy (FPSPs) can be used as aids to interpretation, but are not themselves
justiciable.
xviii Constituent Assembly Debate of India (Jul. 27, 2020, 1:34), https://goo.gl/BstgzT.
xix AIR 1973 SC 1461 (India).
xx AIR 1980 SC 1789 (India).
xxi See Kirby’s advocacy of the use of international law at Michael Kirby, Domestic Courts and International
Human Rights Law-The Ongoing Judicial Conversation, 6 Utrecht L. Rev. 168 (2010).
xxii AIR 1997 SC. 3011 (India).
xxiii Khagesh Gautam, The Use of International Law in Constitutional Interpretation in the Supreme Court of India,
55 STAN. J. INT'L L. 27, 39 (2019).
xxiv Ridwanul Hoque & Mostafa Mahmud Naser, The Judicial Invocation of International Human Rights Law in
Bangladesh: Questing a Better Approach, 46.2 Indian J. of Intl. L. 151, 180-2 (2006).
xxv 29 (2009) BLD (HCD) 183 (Bangladesh).
xxvi Id. at 187.
xxvii 60 (2008) DLR (AD) 90, Para 82 (Bangladesh).
xxviii 1980 AIR 470 (India).
xxix 10 (2004) SCC 201 (India).
xxx P.N. Krishanlal v. Govt. of Kerala, (1995) Sup. (2) SCC 187 (India).
xxxi Visakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 301 (India).
xxxii AIR 1997 SC 568 (India).
xxxiii Appeal (Civil) 8161-8162 of 2003 (India).
xxxiv See Sheikh H. R. Karzon & Abdullah A. Faruque, Status of International Law under the Constitution of
Bangladesh: An Appraisal, 3.1 Bangladesh J, of L. 1 (1999).
xxxv BNWLA v. Government of Bangladesh and others, 31 (2011) BLD (HCD) 324 (Bangladesh). The judgment
is supported by Chaudhury and Kendra v. Bangladesh and ors, 29 (2009) BLD (HCD) 1 (Bangladesh); Bangladesh
v. Sheikh Hasina, 60 (2008) DLR (AD) 90 (Bangladesh).
xxxvi B. B. Roy Chowdhury J in Ershad v. Bangladesh, 21 (2001) BLD (AD) 69 (Bangladesh), para 3 points out
“National Courts should not ignore the international obligations which a country undertakes. National courts
should draw upon the principles incorporated in the international instruments if the domestic laws are ambiguous
or absent”. The same position has been reiterated in 31 (2011) BLD (HCD) 324.
xxxvii Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 (India). Bangladesh v. Unimarine SA
Panama, 29 (1977) DLR 252 (Bangladesh), Saleem Ullah v. Bangladesh, 47 (1995) DLR 1995 HCD 218
(Bangladesh).
xxxviii Saiful Islam Dilder v. Bangladesh, 50 (1998) DLR 318 (Bangladesh).
xxxix W. P. (C) NO. 793 OF 2017 (India).
xl Charu Khurana & Others v. Union of India & Others, (2015) 1 SCC 192 (India).
xli Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 SC 2426 (India).
xlii Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675 1975 (India).
xliii Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 549 (India).
xliv Sher Singh alias Partapa v. State of Haryana, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 23 (India).
xlv Mohiuddhin Farooque v. Bangladesh, 17 (2013) BLD (AD) 1 (Bangladesh) and Prof. Nurul Islam v.
Bangladesh, 52 (2005) DLR (HCD) 413 (Bangladesh).
xlvi State v. Md Roushan Mondal, 59 (2007) DLR (HCD) 72 (Bangladesh), Bangladesh National Women Lawyers
Association v. Bangladesh, 61 (2009) DLR (HCD) 371 (Bangladesh).
xlvii Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust and ors v. Government of Bangladesh, (2011) 31 BLD (HCD) 1
(Bangladesh)
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License Terms
Ownership and Licensing:
Authors of research papers submitted to any journal published by The Law Brigade Publishers retain the copyright of their work while granting the journal specific rights. Authors maintain ownership of the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. Simultaneously, authors agree to license their research papers under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License.
License Permissions:
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License, others are permitted to share and adapt the work, even for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate attribution is given to the authors, and acknowledgment is made of the initial publication by The Law Brigade Publishers. This license encourages the broad dissemination and reuse of research papers while ensuring that the original work is properly credited.
Additional Distribution Arrangements:
Authors are free to enter into separate, non-exclusive contractual arrangements for distributing the published version of the work (e.g., posting it to institutional repositories or publishing it in books), provided that the original publication by The Law Brigade Publishers is acknowledged.
Online Posting:
Authors are encouraged to share their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on personal websites) both prior to submission and after publication. This practice can facilitate productive exchanges and increase the visibility and citation of the work.
Responsibility and Liability:
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submitted research papers do not infringe on the copyright, privacy, or other rights of third parties. The Law Brigade Publishers disclaims any liability for any copyright infringement or violation of third-party rights within the submitted research papers.
