Indian rights jurisprudence on privacy, dignity, and equality draws from comparative constitutional law but adapts principles to Indian context. Which statement best captures this approach?
- India copies foreign judgments verbatim without adaptation
- India selectively borrows comparative principles, adapting them to Indian constitutional text, social context, and transformative goals
- India rejects all foreign influences to create purely indigenous jurisprudence
- India follows only US constitutional law due to its global influence
Answer: India selectively borrows comparative principles, adapting them to Indian constitutional text, social context, and transformative goals
Comparative constitutionalism in Indian rights jurisprudence: (a) Selective borrowing: (i) Privacy: Puttaswamy cited South Africa, Canada, EU; adapted to Indian federalism, diversity, (ii) Dignity: Navtej Singh Johar drew from South African Constitutional Court; applied to Indian social context of caste, gender, sexuality, (iii) Proportionality test: Adopted from German/Canadian law; calibrated for Indian rights framework, (b) Contextual adaptation: Indian jurisprudence addresses: (i) Caste-based discrimination, (ii) Religious pluralism, (iii) Socio-economic inequalities, (iv) Post-colonial state-building, (c) Transformative goals: Rights interpreted to advance Preamble values (justice, liberty, equality, fraternity) in Indian context. Illustrates dynamic constitutionalism: learning from global wisdom while rooted in indigenous needs.