Introduction
As the United States marks its 250th anniversary, it’s an opportune moment to examine how the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court have influenced India’s constitutional law. The US Constitution was groundbreaking in its adoption of the separation of powers principle, a concept championed by Montesquieu. Similarly, this principle was embraced by the framers of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, the Government of India Act, 1935, established a framework for separating the three branches of government.
Judicial Review
The landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), is a cornerstone in judicial review and has been cited extensively, including in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261: AIR 1997 SC 1125. The Indian Supreme Court recognized Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision as the origin of judicial review. Consequently, when India’s Constitution was being drafted, the power of courts to invalidate legislation was already a well-established concept.
The First Amendment
The First Amendment of the US Constitution has been influential in India’s legal landscape, particularly in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1. The Indian Supreme Court acknowledged the persuasive value of American judgments regarding freedom of speech and expression. However, it noted a distinction concerning public interest, as highlighted in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166. Unlike the US Congress, the Indian Constitution allows reasonable restrictions on speech under Article 19(2).
The Fourteenth Amendment
Mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution addresses equal protection. It has been referenced in various cases, such as State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75, where Mukherjea J. noted that Article 14 draws from the US equal protection clause, adding the concept of ‘equality before the law’ from English constitutional principles. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1, the court distinguished between the negative concept of equality before the law and the positive content of equal protection. This was further elaborated in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2023) 5 SCC 1.
The Eighth Amendment
While the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution explicitly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, similar protections are implicit in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 24, the Supreme Court found that Article 21 includes safeguards against inhuman treatment, aligning with the principle of proportionality seen in US cases such as Gregg v. Georgia, 428 US 153; Coker v. Georgia, 433 US 584; and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586.
Right to Privacy
The landmark decision in K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, heavily relied on US Supreme Court rulings to establish the right to privacy within the Indian Constitution. The judgment cites relevant US decisions extensively, particularly between paragraphs 171 and 195.
Legislative Overruling
Indian law recognizes that a legislature cannot simply overrule or nullify a judicial decision without addressing its foundational basis. This principle is underscored in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2022) 12 SCC 455, 503-505, and draws from US Supreme Court cases like US v. Judge Peters, 9 US 115 (1809), and Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954).
Recent US Supreme Court Decisions
Recent rulings by the US Supreme Court, such as the invalidation of President Trump’s tariffs (Learning Resources, Inc., Et Al. v. Donald J. Trump, 2026 SCC OnLine US SC 1), the preservation of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s position (Trump v. Lisa D. Cook), and the affirmation of birthright citizenship (Trump v. Barbara), highlight the enduring importance of judicial review and an independent judiciary within a republican democracy.
Arvind P. Datar is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India.
