Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 (a) Where the court relies on foreign precedents for guidance on general constitutional principles and when necessary to; (b) Where the court frames the issue posed for adjudication and/or to formulate evaluative test and frameworks; (c) To distinguish the countrys context from the foreign one 9; (d) To read in the Constitution implied or unenumerated rights10. It can be said that though this Court has been liberally relying upon the judgments of the constitutional courts of other countries, particularly when it comes to human rights discourse, at the same time, in certain situations, note of caution is also 8 Thiruvengadam, The Use of Foreign Law in Constitutional Cases in India and Singapore (2010) 9 Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan & Anr., 1959 Supp (1) SCR 528 10 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594 added to give a message that the judgment of other jurisdiction cannot be relied blindly and it would depend as to whether a particular judgment will fit in Indian context or not. As a matter of fact, in Basheshar Nath, the Court discussed the doctrine of waiver in force in the United States and rejected it firmly stating that: :...the doctrine of waiver enunciated by some American Judges in construing the American Constitution cannot be introduced in our Constitution...We are not for the moment convinced that this theory has any relevancy in construing the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. On the contrary, in Romesh Thappar, the Court completely based its decision to strike down a law restricting the free circulation of newspapers on two US precedents, Ex parte Jackson11 and Lovell v. City of Griffin12, and affirmed that the protection of freedom of expression in India follows the maxim of Madison that the Court transposed from its quotation in Near v. Minnesota13, according to which it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. Likewise, the role of foreign precedents in a majority opinion is confirmed in the decision of His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati 11 Ex Parte Jackson, 96 US 727 (1878). 12 Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 US 444 (1938). 13 Near v. Minnesota, 282 US 607 (1931) 717-18. Sripadagalvaru which clarifies Parliaments power to amend the Constitution. At the same time, looking to the use of foreign precedents in this judgment, Justice S.M. Sikri (as His Lordship then was), dealing with the interpretation of Article 368 of the Constitution, first of all, highlighted that: No other Constitution in the world is like ours. No other Constitution combines under its wings such diverse peoples, numbering now more than 550 millions [sic], with different languages and religions and in different stages of economic development, into one nation, and no other nation is faced with such vast socio-economic problems. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 49