The Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR) in collaboration with its partnered Indian and American universities organised a series of workshops on U.S.- India Comparative Constitutional law in October, November 2021 and January 2022. The partnered Indian and American law universities were paired for an interactive session.
On 30 and 31 October 2021, CLPR conducted the second virtual workshop of this series with students from the National University for Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi (NUALS). The U.S. law university partner for this workshop was Seattle University School of Law, Seattle. The workshop was attended by over 30 students from the two universities. 10 others were also in attendance—including faculty members, U.S. Consulate staff, and the CLPR team.
The workshop was anchored around freedom of speech—particularly, hate speech. A list of reading materials was shared with the workshop participants in advance to facilitate an informed discussion. The workshops comprised of 4 sessions.
9:30 am – 11:30 am – Session I: Constitutional Founding
CLPR resource persons reviewed important strands of the U.S. and Indian constitution-making projects and posed a provocative question to the participating students: ‘were the American and Indian constitution-making processes democratic?’.
The student discussion that followed, steered by CLPR, invoked different aspects of the two countries’ constitution-making processes. While doing so, students were able to better appreciate concepts like constitutionalism and democratic legitimacy—as well as their relevance in making sense of the constitutional founding of the U.S. and India.
- Making of the U.S. Constitution compiled by CLPR
- Constitution Making in India: A Primer by Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Vineeth Krishna
- Excerpts from The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of A Nation by Granville Austin (Oxford India Paperbacks, 1999)
- Excerpts from The Federalist by Jack N. Rakove (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003)
- The Making of India’s Constitution, YouTube, CLPR Trust
Presentation Slides: Session I Part I
CLPR resource persons introduced the Federalist Papers and the Constituent Assembly Debates to the students. The session focused on how the framers of U.S. and Indian Constitutions engaged with the separation of powers through a simulation exercise.
Students were divided into groups, each adopting the persona of a U.S. and Indian Constitution framer. They were asked to engage with a hypothetical situation that involved the separation of powers. This exercise reinforced the importance of primary constitutional history materials and their relevance in contemporary debates.
- Excerpts from Indian Constituent Assembly Debates on Separation of Powers
- Federalist Paper 51 on Separation of Powers
- Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996)
Presentation slides: Session I Part II
Professor Arun Thiruvengadam, Professor of Law, National Law School of India University, was the invited speaker for this session. He tied together the preceding student discussions with the broader question of constitutional interpretation. His remarks were anchored around an important Supreme Court case—Balaji Raghavan v Union of India (1996). This was followed by a student question and answer session.
11.45 am – 1:45 pm – Session II: Freedom of Speech in India and U.S.
CLPR resource persons introduced students to the constitutional and legal architecture surrounding the freedom of speech in the U.S. and India. Students identified the similarities and differences in how the two jurisdictions treated freedom of speech.
- Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
- Excerpts from Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 19 and comparisons to the US Constitution
- Common Interpretation: Freedom of Speech and the Press by Geoffrey R. Stone and Eugene Volokh (National Constitution Centre)
Presentation slides: Session II Part I
CLPR presented students with the overview of how the U.S. and Indian Supreme Courts have adjudicated on freedom of speech cases—particularly those involving obscenity.
A student activity followed where students were presented with an excerpt from the story Lihaaf by Indian writer Ismat Chugtai. They were asked to determine how U.S. and Indian Courts would decide if the excerpt violated freedom of speech. This activity gave students a deeper insight into constitutional debates surrounding freedom of speech in the U.S and India.
- Grove Press v. Gerstein, 378 U.S. 577 (1964)
- Perumal Murugan v. Tamil Nadu W.P. Nos. 1215 and 20375 of 2015 (Mad HC 2017)
Presentation slides: Session II Part II
This session was followed by remarks from Professor Sitharamam Kakarala, Director, School of Policy and Governance, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru. Professor Kakarala argued that comparative Constitutional Law must be based on a sound understanding of the history of modern law. Comparative law must be analysed in the context of time and place. Students found Professor Sitharamam’s remarks valuable in comparing the U.S. and India’s constitutional law and history.
9.00 pm – 11.00 pm – Session III: Interactive Session with Seattle University School of Law Students on Hate Speech
The third session of the workshop brought together students from Seattle University School of Law and NUALS for a two-hour interactive session focusing on hate speech. The CLPR team encouraged students to collaboratively explore the legal architecture of hate speech in the two countries by carefully surveying relevant constitutional provisions and case law. A student discussion followed that compared how the Indian and U.S. Constitutions applied limitations on free speech.
- Hate Speech and the U.S. Constitution by Geoffrey R. Stone (East European Constitutional Review, 1994)
- Excerpts from Law Commission Report No. 267 on Hate Speech (2017)
- Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
Presentation slides: Session III Part I
CLPR resource persons reviewed the approaches of U.S. and Indian Supreme Courts to hate speech through two important cases: Amish Devgan v Union of India (2020) and R.A.V v City of St. Paul 505 (1992). Students watched two video clips and were asked to determine if the clips would be considered hate speech in India and the U.S. This exercise allowed students to apply their learnings on the U.S and Indian Constitutions to a real-world scenario.
- Excerpts from Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020 SCC OnLine SC 994, decided on 07.12.2020)
- Excerpts from R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul 505 [U.S. 377 (1992)]
Presentation slides: Session III Part II
The invited speaker for this session was Nandita Narayan, Assistant Professor, NUALS. Professor Narayan provided a historical sweep of hate speech jurisprudence in the U.S and India. She highlighted the emerging difficulties in regulating speech in our increasingly digital world. Professor Monika Batra Kashyap, Affiliate Faculty, Seattle University of Law, ended the session by linking students’ discussions around hate speech with Critical Race Theory.
9.00 am – 11.00 am – Session IV: Reflections, Feedback, Going Forward and Essay Competition
The CLPR team and workshop participants took time to reflect on the learnings from the preceding sessions. For an hour, students wrote their essays for the essay competition that responded to the prompt: is studying U.S. constitutional history useful in understanding contemporary constitutional developments in India. The top 2 essayists from the competition will be invited to attend the closing ceremony of the workshop series. The 2-day workshop was brought to an end with remarks by Prof. Mini S., Professor and Ms. Nandita Narayan, Assistant Professor from NUALS.
Presentation slides: Session IV
U.S. – India Comparative Constitutional 2.0 – Workshop 3