ABSTRACT
The role of the Supreme Courts in Pakistan, India and the United States is designated in two parts: i) the constitutional powers granted to the Court and ii) interpretation of those powers through common law jurisprudence. This chapter compares the constitutional structure of all three countries. There are basic differences between the American presidential system and the presidential–parliamentary system adopted by Pakistan and India, yet all three nations have rejected legislative supremacy in favor of constitutional supremacy. The adoption of a written constitution that enumerates inviolable civil and political rights is also a structural aspect all three nations share. Looking at the jurisdictional clauses of each constitution, one finds that the Supreme Courts of Pakistan and India have expansive power to address violations of fundamental rights, while the United States Supreme Court is limited to cases and controversies. As a final point, Chapter 4 also looks at the socio-political factors that distinguish Pakistan from both the United States and India. Unlike the comparative examples, Pakistan has experienced a civil war that split the country in half, repeated coups by the military, and the passage of three different constitutions in the country’s first three decades of existence. This creates the need for flexibility in any standard meant to restrain the Court, as the Supreme Court of Pakistan has had to face far more difficult challenges in protecting their Constitution than their American and Indian counterparts.
