The statement "We are under the Constitution, but the constitution is what the Judges say it is" highlights the significance of judicial interpretation in defining the scope and meaning of a constitution. This principle is strongly associated with countries that have a robust system of judicial review.

Judicial Interpretation and Constitutional Applicability

The United States has a long-established tradition of judicial review, where the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution are considered definitive. The quote implies a similar scenario in another country.

• India possesses an independent judiciary with the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court of India plays a critical role in interpreting the Constitution, similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. Landmark cases have established the judiciary's authority to review legislation and executive actions, and its interpretations significantly shape constitutional law.
• U.K. operates under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, where Parliament is the supreme legal authority. While courts interpret laws, they traditionally cannot strike down primary legislation passed by Parliament based on constitutional grounds.
• Switzerland has judicial review, but its federal structure and specific constitutional conventions differ from the direct implication of the quote regarding judicial supremacy in defining the constitution itself.
• Russia has a Constitutional Court, but the extent of its power and independence compared to the U.S. or Indian judiciary is subject to different political and legal contexts.

Therefore, India's constitutional framework, particularly its strong judicial review and the Supreme Court's role in interpreting constitutional provisions, makes the statement most applicable besides the U.S.A.

Conclusion

The principle that the constitution is ultimately defined by judicial pronouncements is highly relevant to India due to its powerful system of judicial review.