Sep 12, 2022
10 Landmark International Constitutional Cases
Constitutional Law is one of the most sought-after subjects in law. While India has a comprehensive constitutional framework (the largest in the world), there are several other Constitutions which are substantive, including that of the United States of America and Canada. In this article, the authors attempt to highlight 10 landmark constitutional cases from a few such jurisdictions.
JURISDICTION: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1. Marbury Vs. Madison
Court: United States Supreme Court
Citation: 5 US 137 (1803)
Year: 1803
Facts: John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 presidential elections. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which established new courts, and additional judges, and increased the president's authority over judicial nominations. Adams and his party tried to frustrate his successor by using the Act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The Senate gave its approval to the appointments, but they would not take effect until the Secretary of State gave them their commissions.
In the District of Columbia, William Marbury had been named Justice of the Peace; however, his commission had not yet been delivered. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order James Madison, the newly appointed secretary of state, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions.
Issues:
Were the plaintiffs entitled to their commissions?
Can they file a legal claim for their commissions?
Does the Supreme Court have the power to mandate that their commissions be delivered?
Judgement: The Court determined that Madison's refusal to provide the commission was illegal, but it did not issue a writ of mandamus requiring Madison to produce Marbury's commission. Instead, the Court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 provision that allowed Marbury to file his case with the Supreme Court was inherently unconstitutional because it attempted to go beyond what Article III, Section 2 had established as the Court's original authority. Marshall clarified that the right approach to seeking redress was through a writ of mandamus, but concluded that the Court could not issue one. According to Marshall, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. Due to the Supremacy Clause, which puts the Constitution ahead of all other laws, Congress lacked the authority to alter the Constitution through regular legislation.
Marshall went on to say that a writ of mandamus was the appropriate route to seek redress, but concluded that the Court could not issue one. Marshall argued that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause, which places the Constitution before laws, prevents Congress from changing the Constitution through normal legislation. By making this ruling, Marshall created the notion of judicial review, the authority to declare a law unlawful.
2. Miranda Vs. Arizona
Court: United States Supreme Court
Citation: 384 US 436 (1966)
Year: 1966
Facts: This case combines four cases in which the defendant admitted guilt after being subjected to a range of interrogation tactics without being advised of his Fifth Amendment rights. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home on March 13, 1963, and taken to the police station where he was questioned about a kidnapping and rape. Miranda gave a written confession to the police after a two-hour of interrogation. Despite the defence attorney's objections and the police officers' admission that they did not advise Miranda of his right to an attorney present during the interrogation, the written confession was accepted into evidence at the trial. Miranda was found guilty by the jury. Supreme Court of Arizona said upon appeal that Miranda did not expressly request legal representation, so his constitutional rights were not violated.
Issues:
Does the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination apply to police interrogation of a suspect?
Judgement: In an opinion penned by Chief Justice Earl Warren, five justices made up the majority. Due to the coercive nature of police custodial interrogation, the Court ruled that no confession could be used against a suspect in court under the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to an attorney unless the suspect was made aware of his rights and knowingly and willingly waived them.
3. Brown Vs. Board of Education
Court: United States Supreme Court
Citation: 347 US 483 (1954)
Year: 1954
Facts: This case involved the consolidation of cases involving the racial segregation of public schools in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington, D.C. Due to legislation authorizing racial segregation in public education, African American pupils had been refused admission in each of the cases. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, they said, was violated by this form of segregation. According to Plessy v. Ferguson, which determined that racially segregated public facilities were acceptable as long as they provided equal access to both blacks and whites, the plaintiffs were denied redress in the lower courts.
Issues:
Does the segregation of public schools solely on the grounds of race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Judgement: The Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment's safeguards is inevitably violated by "separate but equal" facilities. According to the court, racial segregation in public schools instilled a sense of inferiority in African American children, which had a severe negative impact on their education and personal development.
4. Roe Vs. Wade
Court: United States Supreme Court
Citation: 410 US 113 (1973)
Year: 1973
Facts: In 1970, Jane Roe sued Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, to overturn a state law that made abortions prohibited unless performed on a woman's life-saving instruction. Roe claimed in her case that the state laws violated her right to personal privacy, which is guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and were unconstitutionally vague.
Issues:
Does a woman's right to have an abortion recognized by the Constitution?
Judgement: The court ruled that while a woman's decision to end her pregnancy is covered by her right to privacy, this right is not absolute and may be limited by the state's legitimate interests in safeguarding the woman's health, upholding appropriate medical standards, and protecting human life. The court set forth the following: Before the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not interfere with or regulate an attending physician's decision, reached in consultation with his patient, that the patient's pregnancy should be terminated; from and after the end of the first trimester and until the point in time when the foetus becomes viable, the state may regulate the abortion procedure only to the extent that such regulation relates to the preterm birth.
JURISDICTION- MALAYSIA
5. Indira Gandhi Vs. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak
Court: Federal Court of Malaysia
Citation: [2018] MLJU 69
Year: 2018
Facts: The respondent, Patmanathan a/l Krishnan, was married to the appellant, Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho. They were married under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act of 1976 ("civil marriage"), and they had three children. The respondent subsequently converted to Islam. A dispute arose after the respondent converted the children to Islam and got custody of the children from the Syariah Court without the appellant's consent. The Registrar of Muallaf delivered to the appellant three certificates of conversion to Islam and a document proving that the children were registered as Muslims. The Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment of 2004 (the Perak Enactment) mandates the two sentences of the Affirmation of Faith, but the children were not present before the Registrar and did not say them. The appellant submitted a judicial review application to the High Court, where it was granted an order to nullify the Certificates. The appellant's divorce petition for a civil marriage was approved, and she was also given custody of the three children. The Order was quashed by the Court of Appeal following an appeal. The appellant, aggrieved, filed an appeal.
Issues:
Whether the High Court has the authority to review the actions of the Registrar?
Whether a child of a civil marriage who is less than 18 must follow the law before the registrar records his conversion.
Whether the Certificates can be granted without the approval of the surviving mother and father of a child from civil marriage?
Judgement: The Federal Court decided that the High Court has the authority to review the Registrar's judgement because such judicial authority is fundamental to the Federal Constitution's basic structure and is not disregarded by article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The Federal Court further declared that because articles 96(1) and 106(b) of the Perak Enactment are not being met, the Registrar lacks authority to issue the Certificates. It was determined that the appellant and the husband must both agree before the Certificates can be issued based on a purposive interpretation of Article 12(4) read with the Eleventh Schedule of the Federal Constitution and the application of sections 5 and 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961.
JURISDICTION- CANADA
6. Schachter Vs. Canada
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Citation: [1992] 2 SCR 679
Year: 1991
Facts: Shalom Schachter applied for benefits to be able to care for his child once his wife returned to work. He first asked to be granted maternity benefits under section 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971. Later, he modified his request to include "paternity benefits" under Section 32 of the Act, which was granted to adoptive parents and may be shared between them. Mr Schachter's request was denied and A Board of Referees rejected his appeal. He filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that the denial of benefits was a violation of his rights to equality protected by section 15 of the Charter.
Issues:
Does Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act need to be invoked if it is determined that Section 32 of the Unemployment Insurance Act generates unequal benefits?
Does Section 24(1) of the Charter grant the court the authority to rule that natural parents are entitled to benefits under Section 32 on the same terms as adoptive parents?
Judgement: The Federal Court found that Section 32 was discriminatory because it treated biological parents and adoptive parents differently. The S. 32 benefits were extended to natural parents by the court. The decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court decided not to extend the benefits to biological parents. According to the majority of the court, the benefit was not sufficiently inclusive. However, the provision shouldn't be immediately struck down because doing so would deny many others access to it while providing Mr Schacter with no benefit at all.
7. R Vs. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Citation: [1985] 1 SCR 295
Year: 1985
Facts: Police officers from Calgary visited the Big M location on a Sunday in May 1982 that was open to the public. In addition to the sale of groceries, plastic cups, and a bicycle lock, they saw several other transactions. Then, Big M was charged with unlawfully selling goods on a Sunday in violation of Section 4 of the Lord's Day Act. The charge was dismissed in a 1983 trial by a Provincial Court judge who ruled that the Lord's Day Act was unconstitutional. The Alberta Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's appeal as well. The Crown then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Issues:
What is religion according to Section (2)(a)? Is this infringement of Section 2(a) protected by Section (1)?
Judgement: The Supreme Court ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional and violated section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it lacked a true secular foundation and served only to create an essentially religious state requirement. As a result, the law was declared invalid. Section 52 of the Constitution Act of 1982, in contrast to Section 24 of the Charter, which is for those whose rights are violated, specifies that unconstitutional laws can be deemed invalid, which allowed the drug store to prevail. Since a company cannot practise any religion because it is not a natural person, there was no infringement on the corporation's right to freedom of religion.
8. R Vs. Oakes
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Citation: [1986] 1 SCR 103
Year: 1986
Facts: David Oakes, the respondent, was accused of violating Section 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act by unlawfully possessing a drug for trafficking (NCA, since replaced by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in 1996). Eight 1-gram vials of cannabis resin in the form of hashish oil were among the items the police discovered in Oakes' possession. The officers found $619.45 after taking him to the police station and conducting additional searches there. The accused denied drug trafficking and admitted to the police that he spent $150 on 10 vials of hash oil for personal use. He claimed that the cash they had discovered came from a worker's compensation cheque that he had cashed. The defendant chose not to testify throughout the trial. The judge decided that there was evidence of drug use. The accused then filed a motion asserting that the NCA's Section 8 provision, which required the accused (Oakes) to demonstrate that he did not have the drug for trafficking, violated his constitutional right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty under Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His argument was successful at trial and at the Court of Appeal, which held chat the reverse onus provision in Section 8 was unconstitutional. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Issues:
Does Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act impose a presumption of guilt in contravention of Section 11(d) of the Charter?
Judgement: The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that, even though drugs are a scourge, Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act violates the right to a presumption of innocence guaranteed by Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to Section 8, a person is believed to have planned to traffic in drugs if they are discovered in their possession. This amounts to a restriction on rights and freedoms that, under section 1 of the Charter, cannot be justified in a society that is free and democratic.
9. Vriend Vs. Alberta
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Citation: [1998] 1 SCR 493
Year: 1998
Facts: Vriend was dismissed from his job as a lab coordinator at King's College, a private, Christian university, for no other reason than his sexual orientation. Mr Vriend attempted to appeal the dismissal but was unsuccessful. He also attempted to file a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission but was unable to do so because the Individuals' Rights Protection Act (the IRPA) does not list sexual orientation as a protected ground.
Vriend and others filed a motion to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench asking the court to declare that sexual orientation is read into the IRPA as a protected ground. The trial judge agreed and granted the declaration; however, the Alberta Court of Appeal reversed the judgement. Mr Vriend and the others filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada.
Issues:
Does the Charter include government omissions, such as decisions not to include particular provisions in legislation?
Judgement: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the exclusion of sexual orientation as grounds for discrimination in the act created a disparity that prevented people from receiving equal benefits and legal protection based on their sexual orientation. The court ruled that this was a violation of Section 15 of the charter that could not be justified under Section 1 and ordered that sexual orientation be incorporated into provincial legislation.
JURISDICTION: SOUTH AFRICA
10. S Vs. Makwanyane
Court: Constitutional Court of South Africa
Citation: 1995 (6) BCLR 665
Year: 1995
Facts: The Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court found the two accused guilty on four counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and one count of robbery with aggravating circumstances. On all counts of murder, they were given the death penalty, and on the others, they got long prison terms. They filed an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court challenging their convictions and sentences. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals against the convictions and concluded that, given the circumstances of the murders, the defendant should be given the harshest sentence permitted by law.
Issues:
Is the death sentence as it is stated in the Criminal Procedure Act Section 277(1)(a) constitutionally permissible? Or is it permitted under the Constitution?
What are the implications of section 241(8) of the interim constitution?
Judgement: The court decided that the death penalty violates the fundamental rights to which every human being is entitled and that it does so within the parameters of the constitutional provisions. Section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act was declared unconstitutional.
LegalBots.in wishes you all the best!
