On a comparative level I found it interesting that they quote Lord Steyn and mention both the Canadian and
American constitutional traditions, (though not the Australian), but all the cases cited are from the Indian Supreme Court itself.
Not exact matches
Powell a Christian, points out in The Moral
Tradition of
American Constitutionalism that
constitutional rhetoric «is a language of permanence, of settled decision, of absolute political value».
The time is ripe for
Americans to reconsider the advantages of crowns — or at least, to reflect on what we might be able to learn from
constitutional monarchies and the longstanding
traditions of England's kings and queens.
And recall as well that the judicial creation of this test (to parallel the express provision in section 1 of the Charter) has been critiqued for being inconsistent with the structure of the Constitution Act 1982 as well as ignoring aboriginal sovereignty and the limitations already placed on aboriginal rights by indigenous laws and
traditions (see e.g. John Borrows, «Frozen Rights in Canada:
Constitutional Interpretation and the Trickster» (1997/98) 22
American Indian L Rev 37 at 59).