Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-ckh7h Total loading time: 0.393 Render date: 2022-07-03T08:09:12.823Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Free Expression and Judicial Power in Colombia, India, and South Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2020

Abstract

The growth of judicial power globally has renewed scholarly debates about who benefits from increased judicial authority. Using original data, we examine the full universe of constitutional free expression decisions issued by three apex courts—in Colombia, India, and South Africa—across three categories of disputes that feature a diverse array of rights claimants. By so doing, we shed light on the limits of elite-driven accounts of judicial empowerment. We find that even where constitutional courts are empowered by elites seeking to advance their own interests, activist courts can develop a practice of rights-protection that benefits a diverse range of less powerful actors. Moreover, regardless of whether the speech claimants are elite or non-elite actors, these three apex courts regularly rule in favor of free expression for dissenting or unorthodox speech acts. In sum, where issues are peripheral to the governing regime’s core interests, relatively powerless actors are sometimes able to use legal processes to advance their rights and interests.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Bar Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article draws on research supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (Award No. 1535250).

References

Andersen, Ellen Ann. Out of the Closet and into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Baviskar, Amita. “Public Interest and Private Compromises: The Politics of Environmental Negotiation in India.” In Law Against the State: Ethnographic Forays into Law’s Transformations. Edited by Eckert, Julia M., Donahoe, Brian, Stümpell, Christian, and Biner, Zerrin Özlem, 171–201. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Gautam. “The Conservative Constitution: Freedom of Speech and the Constituent Assembly Debates.” In The Indian Constituent Assembly: Deliberations on Democracy. Edited by Bhatia, Udit, 103–29. London: Taylor & Francis, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhushan, Prashant. “Public Interest Litigation: Supreme Court in the Era of Liberalization.” In Indian Judiciary and Politics. Edited by Dua, B. D., Singh, M. P., and Saxena, Rekha, 163–76. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2007.Google Scholar
Bhuwania, Anuj. Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Botero, Sandra. “Judges, Litigants, and the Politics of Rights Enforcement in Argentina.Comparative Politics 50, no. 1 (2018): 169–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinks, Daniel M., and Blass, Abby. The DNA of Constitutional Justice in Latin America: Politics, Governance, and Judicial Design. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinks, Daniel M., and Gauri, Varun. “The Law’s Majestic Equality? The Distributive Impact of Judicializing Social and Economic Rights.Perspectives on Politics 12, no. 2 (2014): 375–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cepeda-Espinosa, Manuel José.The Judicialization of Politics in Colombia: The Old and the New.” In The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America. Edited by Sieder, Rachel, Schjolden, Line, and Angell, Alan, 67103. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.Google Scholar
Chandrachud, Abhinav. Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India. London: Penguin Books, 2017.Google Scholar
Cichowski, Rachel A.Courts, Rights, and Democratic Participation.Comparative Political Studies 39, no. 1 (2006): 5075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, Clark D.The World’s Most Powerful Court: Finding the Roots of India’s Public Interest Litigation Revolution in the Hussainara Khatoon Prisoners Case.” In Liberty, Equality, and Justice: Struggles for a New Social Order. Edited by Sathe, S.P. and Narayan, Sathya, 8396. Lucknow, India: Eastern Book Company, 2003.Google Scholar
Dhavan, Rajeev. Litigation Explosion in India. Bombay: Tripathi, 1986.Google Scholar
Dugard, Jackie. “Can Human Rights Transcend the Commercialization of Water in South Africa? Soweto’s Legal Fight for an Equitable Water Policy.Review of Radical Political Economics 42, no. 2 (2010): 175–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Charles R.Do Bills of Rights Matter? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.American Political Science Review 90, no. 4 (1996): 765–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Charles R.. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Jodi S. Judicial Reform as Political Insurance: Argentina, Peru, and Mexico in the 1990s. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. “Snakes and Ladders: Suo Moto Intervention and the Indian Judiciary.Florida International University Law Review 10, no. 1 (2014): 6983.Google Scholar
Gargarella, Roberto. “Deliberative Democracy, Dialogic Justice and the Promise of Social and Economic Rights.” In Social and Economic Rights in Theory and Practice: Critical Inquiries. Edited by García, Helena Alviar, Klare, Karl E., and Williams, Lucy A., 105–20. New York: Routledge, 2014.Google Scholar
Gargarella, Roberto, Domingo, Pilar, and Roux, Theunis, eds. Courts and Social Transformation in New Democracies: An Institutional Voice for the Poor? Hampshire, UK: Ashgate, 2006.Google Scholar
Gauri, Varun, and Brinks, Daniel M., eds. Courting Social Justice. Judicial Enforcement of Social and Economic Rights in the Developing World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillman, Howard. “How Political Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875–1891.American Political Science Review 96, no. 3 (2002): 511–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gloppen, Siri, and Kanyongolo, Fidelis Edge. “Courts and the Poor in Malawi: Economic Marginalization, Vulnerability, and the Law.International Journal of Constitutional Law 5, no. 2 (2007): 258–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gloppen, Siri, and Kanyongolo, Fidelis Edge. “The Role of the Judiciary in the 2004 General Elections in Malawi.East African Journal of Peace and Human Rights 12, no. 2 (2006): 279317.Google Scholar
Gloppen, Siri, Wilson, Bruce M., Gargarella, Roberto, Skaar, Elin, and Kinander, Morten. Courts and Power in Latin America and Africa. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary. Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark A.The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary.Studies in American Political Development 7, no. 1 (1993): 3573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. “On the Blurred Methodological Matrix of Comparative Constitutional Law.” In The Migration of Constitutional Ideas. Edited by Choudhry, Sujit, 3966. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. “The Judicialization of Mega-Politics and the Rise of Political Courts.Annual Review of Political Science 11, no. 1 (2008): 93118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. Comparative Matters: The Renaissance of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Kapiszewski, Diana. High Courts and Economic Governance in Argentina and Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapiszewski, Diana, Silverstein, Gordon, and Kagan, Robert A., eds. Consequential Courts: Judicial Roles in Global Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Thomas M.Beyond Backlash: Assessing the Impact of Judicial Decisions on LGBT Rights.Law & Society Review 43, no. 1 (2009): 151–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Thomas M.. Judicial Politics in Polarized Times. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Thomas M.. “Medium- and Large-N Qualitative Methods in Constitutional Law.” In Handbook on Research Methods in Constitutional Law. Edited by Langford, Malcolm and Law, David S.. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Klug, Heinz. Constituting Democracy: Law, Globalism and South Africa’s Political Reconstruction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, David. “The Reality of Social Rights Enforcement.Harvard International Law Journal 53, no. 1 (2012): 189247.Google Scholar
Langford, Malcolm. “Housing Rights Litigation: Grootboom and Beyond.” In Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa: Symbols or Substance. Edited by Langford, Malcolm, Cousins, Ben, Dugard, Jackie, and Madlingozi, Tshepo, 187225. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Langford, Malcolm, Dugard, Jackie, Madlingozi, Tshepo, and Cousins, Ben. “Concluding Perspectives.” In Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa: Symbols or Substance. Edited by Langford, Malcolm, Cousins, Ben, Dugard, Jackie, and Madlingozi, Tshepo, 421–58. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Lovell, George I. Legislative Deferrals: Statutory Ambiguity, Judicial Power, and American Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Maldonado, Daniel Bonilla.Introduction: Toward a Constitutionalism of the Global South.” In Constitutionalism of the Global South: The Tribunals of India, South Africa, and Colombia. Edited by Maldonado, Daniel Bonilla, 137. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, Michael W. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Menon, Nivedita. “Environment and the Will to Rule: Supreme Court and Public Interest Litigation in the 1990s.” In The Shifting Scales of Justice: The Supreme Court in Neo-Liberal India. Edited by Suresh, Mayur, and Narrain, Siddharth. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan, 2014.Google Scholar
Moog, Robert. “Delays in the Indian Courts: Why the Judges Don’t Take Control.Justice System Journal 16, no. 1 (1992): 1936.Google Scholar
Moustafa, Tamir. The Struggle for Constitutional Power: Law, Politics, and Economic Development in Egypt. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NeJaime, Douglas. “Winning Through Losing.Iowa Law Review 96, no. 3 (2011): 9411012.Google Scholar
Peretti, Terri Jennings. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puga, Mariela. Litigio Y Cambio Social En Argentina Y Colombia. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 2012.Google Scholar
Ray, Arnab. “On Kissing, Bollywood and Rebellion.” New York Times, February 25, 2013.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Garavito, César, and Rodríguez, Diana Franco, . Radical Deprivation on Trial: The Impact of Judicial Activism on Socioeconomic Rights in the Global South. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michel. “Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis.” In The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Edited by Herz, Michael and Molnar, Peter, 242–89. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, Theunis. The Politics of Principle: The First South African Constitutional Court, 1995–2005. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez Urribarri, Raul A., Schorpp, Susanne, Randazzo, Kirk A., and Songer, Donald R.. “Explaining Changes to Rights Litigation: Testing a Multivariate Model in a Comparative Framework.Journal of Politics 73, no. 3 (2011): 391405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheingold, Stuart A. The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. “The Success of Judicial Review and Democracy.” In On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Edited by Shapiro, Martin and Stone Sweet, Alec, 149–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Mahendra Pal.Inconclusive Overview of Judicial Activism in India.” In Indian Judiciary and Politics. Edited by Dua, B. D., Singh, M. P. and Saxena, Rekha, 122–41. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2007.Google Scholar
Stohler, Stephan. Reconstructing Rights: Courts, Parties, and Equality Rights in India, South Africa, and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec. The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suresh, Mayur, and Narrain, Siddharth, eds. The Shifting Scales of Justice: The Supreme Court in Neo-Liberal India. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan, 2014.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal, and Vallinder, Torbjörn, eds. The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York: New York University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Uprimny, Rodrigo. “The Constitutional Court and Control of Presidential Extraordinary Powers in Colombia.Democratization 10, no. 4 (2003): 4669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Bruce M.Institutional Reform and Rights Revolutions in Latin America: The Cases of Costa Rica and Colombia.Journal of Politics in Latin America 1, no. 2 (2009): 5985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Bruce M., and Gianella-Malca, Camila. “Overcoming the Limits of Legal Opportunity Structures: LGBT Rights’ Divergent Paths in Costa Rica and Colombia.Latin American Politics and Society 61, no. 2 (2019): 138–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ABP Pvt. v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1228.Google Scholar
Ajay Goswami v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 493.Google Scholar
Babulal Parate v. Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884.Google Scholar
Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975).Google Scholar
Bijoe Emmanuel v. Kerala, AIR 1987 SC 748.Google Scholar
Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, AIR 1996 SC 1846.Google Scholar
C-616/97 (1997).Google Scholar
Case v. Minister of Safety and Security, 1996 (3) SA 617 (CC).Google Scholar
Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, AIR 2000 SC 2773.Google Scholar
Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, AIR 2006 SC 3346.Google Scholar
Dr. Das Rao Deshmukh v. Kamal Kishore Nanasaheb Kadam, AIR 1996 SC 391.Google Scholar
Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, AIR 1996 SC 1113.Google Scholar
Du Plessis v. De Klerk, 1996 (3) SA 850.Google Scholar
Ebrahim Suleiman Sait v. M.C. Mohammed, AIR 1980 SC 354.Google Scholar
Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578.Google Scholar
Express Publications (Madurai) v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1950.Google Scholar
Government of the Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom, 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC).Google Scholar
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554.Google Scholar
Islamic Unity Convention v. Independent Broadcasting Authority, 2002 (4) SA 294 (CC).Google Scholar
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 481.Google Scholar
Kameshwar Prasad v. Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166.Google Scholar
Kesavananda Bharati v. Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.Google Scholar
Laugh It Off Promotions CC v. South African Breweries International Finance BV ta Sabmark International, 2006 (1) SA 144 (CC).Google Scholar
Le Roux v. Dey, 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC).Google Scholar
Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate, 2010 (7) SCC 398.Google Scholar
MEC for Education Kwazulu Natal v. Pillay, 2008 (1) SA 474 (CC).Google Scholar
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863.Google Scholar
National Union of Public Service & Allied Workers obo Mani v. National Lotteries Board, 2014 (3) SA 544 (CC).Google Scholar
Novva ADS v. Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, AIR 2008 SC 2941.Google Scholar
O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812.Google Scholar
Odyssey Communications v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, AIR 1988 SC 1642.Google Scholar
P. Narayana Bhat v. Tamil Nadu, AIR 2001 SC 1736.Google Scholar
Phillips v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 2003 (3) SA 345.Google Scholar
Print Media South Africa v. Minister of Home Affairs, 2012 (6) SA 443 (CC).Google Scholar
Radhey Shyam Sharma v. Post Master General Central Circle Nagpur, AIR 1965 SC 311.Google Scholar
Raj Kapoor v. Laxman, AIR 1980 SC 605.Google Scholar
Raja Kulkarni v. Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 73.Google Scholar
Ram Singh v. Delhi, AIR 1951 SC 270.Google Scholar
Ramji Lal Modi v. Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620.Google Scholar
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881.Google Scholar
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, AIR 2010 SC 3196.Google Scholar
Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 SC 1091.Google Scholar
South African National Defence Union v. Minister of Defence I, 1999 (4) SA 469 (CC).Google Scholar
South African National Defence Union v. Minister of Defence II, 2007 (5) SA 400 (CC).Google Scholar
Sri Baragur Ramachandrappa v. Karnataka, 2007 (5) SCC 11.Google Scholar
SU-626/15 (2015).Google Scholar
T-104/96 (1996).Google Scholar
T-1059/01 (2001).Google Scholar
T-1083/02 (2002).Google Scholar
T-170/99 (1999).Google Scholar
T-263/98 (1998).Google Scholar
T-391/07 (2007).Google Scholar
T-403/92 (1992).Google Scholar
T-434/11 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
T-505/00 (2000).Google Scholar
T-602/96 (1996).Google Scholar
T-706/96 (1996).Google Scholar
Tasco Luc De Reuck v. Director of Public Prosecutions Witwatersrand Local Division, 2004 (1) SA 406 (CC).Google Scholar
Tata Press v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, AIR 1995 SC 2438.Google Scholar
Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).Google Scholar
Defence Act, No. 44 of 1957 (South Africa).Google Scholar
Films and Publications Act, No. 65 of 1996 (South Africa).Google Scholar
Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act, No. 37 of 1967 (South Africa).Google Scholar
Representation of the People Act, No. 43 of 1951 (India).Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Free Expression and Judicial Power in Colombia, India, and South Africa
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Free Expression and Judicial Power in Colombia, India, and South Africa
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Free Expression and Judicial Power in Colombia, India, and South Africa
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *