Judicial Responses to World Health Organization Norms: A Comparative Analysis of General Repercussion Cases from the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court and the Indian Supreme Court

This qualitative empirical analysis explores the judicial responses of Supreme Courts in Brazil and India to World Health Organization (WHO) norms from January 1, 2010, to January 15, 2024, in general repercussion cases. Focusing on the period before and after the global pandemic, the study employs deductive and inductive methods to examine the influence of WHO norms on the decision-making processes of national authorities. The research aims to answer specific questions related to the referral of national authorities to the WHO, factors influencing the adoption of WHO norms by judicial, legislative, or executive decision- makers, the major health challenges addressed by national instruments, and the most cited WHO norms by India and Brazil during this period. One of the main findings is that Brazil generally integrates a wide range of WHO norms directly into its legal system, whereas India tendsto use them more as complementary guidelines. According to the data analysis, when it is compared to the Indian Supreme Court, Brazilian Supreme Court gave precedence to interpretations that align with WHO's international standards, highlighting the significance of global health regulations over national concerns. Moreover, it was observed that Brazil shows stronger support for WHO standards on environmental and electromagnetic issues, often citing them directly in court cases, while India references them less frequently and typically in a supplementary, non-binding role.