Reply to Borgen

I think you will get conflicting views on your question. My hunch is that as a general rule the lawyers litigating human rights cases in Indian courts are motivated by international human rights norms but typically will argue domestic law to the judges, with healthy reference to persuasive authority from English courts. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to do legal research in India and therefore a firm conclusion on your question of judicial receptivity to such arguments is not possible. Certainly one can find repeated instances in which the Supreme Court of India relies on decisions of the House of Lords, as well as instances in which they are invited to apply international law standards (such as in defining what constitutes rape, see Sakshi v. Union of India, 2004 Indlaw SC 466 discussed here) but refrains from doing so. As for international law arguments, while I am not aware that it has adopted a doctrine akin to Charming Betsy, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Darusz v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 605, discussed here, has indicated that the fundamental rights in the 1949 Indian Constitution are in consonance with the rights embodied in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and should be so interpreted. The timing of the two instruments is of course highly relevant to this conclusion.