Home/Indian Polity/Comparison of Constitutions
Comparison of Constitutions
The Constitution of India draws inspiration from various sources, including the constitutions of the United Kingdom, the United States, and other nations. While it shares certain features like a federal structure and fundamental rights, the Indian Constitution is uniquely tailored to the country’s diverse needs and historical context.
Its comprehensive nature and the rigorous amendment process make it a robust framework for India’s vibrant democracy.
Share
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution. (Answer in 250 words) [UPSC 2024]
Model Answer India as a Secular State Secularism is fundamental to modern democratic governance, guaranteeing the separation of religion from the state. In India, secularism is constitutionally enshrined, ensuring that no religion is favored by the state. The term "secular" was officially added to tRead more
Model Answer
India as a Secular State
Secularism is fundamental to modern democratic governance, guaranteeing the separation of religion from the state. In India, secularism is constitutionally enshrined, ensuring that no religion is favored by the state. The term “secular” was officially added to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment in 1976.
Constitutional Guarantee
The Indian Constitution emphasizes secularism by ensuring religious freedom, equality, and state neutrality towards all religions. Articles 25-28 guarantee the right to freedom of religion and the management of religious affairs, fostering inclusivity.
Pluralistic Society
India’s secular state embodies pluralism, promoting equality among diverse religious communities. The separation of personal laws respects religious autonomy, guiding civil matters like marriage and inheritance. For instance, the Hindu Marriage Act (1955) and the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (1937) reflect this approach.
Judicial Protection
India’s judiciary plays a crucial role in balancing secularism with personal faith. Landmark cases such as the Shah Bano case (1985) and the Sabarimala Judgment (2018) illustrate the tensions between religious practices and constitutional rights.
Secular Policies
Government programs, like the Midday Meal Scheme (1995) and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (2001), ensure equitable access to services irrespective of religion, reinforcing the nation’s secular commitment.
Comparison with US Secular Principles
Constitutional Enshrinement and Political Neutrality
Both India and the US emphasize the separation of religion from the state. The First Amendment in the US and Articles 25-28 in India prohibit the establishment of a state religion.
Freedom of Religion
Both countries guarantee individual religious freedoms. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution parallels the First Amendment in protecting the right to practice religion freely.
Judiciary’s Role
Courts in both nations uphold secular values. The US Supreme Court’s Engel v. Vitale (1962) and India’s Kesavananda Bharati (1973) reaffirm the importance of secularism.
Protection Against Discrimination
Legal frameworks in both countries protect citizens from religious discrimination. The Civil Rights Act in the US and Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution ensure equal rights.
Differences with US Secular Principles
Does the anti-defection law in India reduce the power of individual Members of Parliament, limiting constructive debates on policy matters? How does this situation compare to the freedom enjoyed by Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom? What lessons can India learn from this comparison? Share your opinion. (200 words)
Model Answer Introduction The anti-defection law (ADL) in India, introduced through the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, aims to prevent political instability by discouraging elected representatives from changing parties. While it has served its purpose of ensuring stability, there are concerns tRead more
Model Answer
Introduction
The anti-defection law (ADL) in India, introduced through the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, aims to prevent political instability by discouraging elected representatives from changing parties. While it has served its purpose of ensuring stability, there are concerns that it may undermine individual Members of Parliament (MPs) by limiting their freedom to engage in constructive debates and make independent decisions.
Impact of the Anti-Defection Law on MPs in India
Freedom Enjoyed by MPs in the United Kingdom
Conclusion
India could benefit from reassessing the balance between party discipline and individual freedom of MPs. Drawing lessons from the UK, India might allow more independent decision-making while maintaining party unity, leading to a more vibrant parliamentary democracy and better governance.
See lessEven though pressure groups play an important role in governance, there have been issues surrounding transparency in the representativeness of the groups and their funding as well as their relationship with the government. Discuss.
Pressure groups are also known as interest or lobbying groups. They play an important part in the democratic society because they hold different portfolios of the communities and affect the policy outcomes. However, few criticisms have been made with regard to their openness, sample selection, and aRead more
Pressure groups are also known as interest or lobbying groups. They play an important part in the democratic society because they hold different portfolios of the communities and affect the policy outcomes. However, few criticisms have been made with regard to their openness, sample selection, and affiliation to the government.
Online? Publicity of Higher Education Institutions Transparency and Accountability
Another problem is that most pressure groups are not very clear on how they fund or operate. The origins of funding, techniques of exercising influence, and the extent of such influence over public policy are frequently not well defined or easily discernible. This can lead to an apprehension of assertion and corruption within the altogether faulty system.
Representativeness
Another problem is the question of whose interest a pressure group represents. Some organizational interests may be vested within a restring section of society while others maybe given an over arching mandate. It may cause some groups to have a blunt power or financial authority more than the others, for instance, the executive has more power than the legislative.
Relation with government
The relationship between pressure groups and the government can also be got complicated at times This relationship may also be problematic. There is a possibility where some of these pressure groups have some relationship with government in that they are affiliated to some of the government official thus compromise the proficiency of these groups. More over, such theories post that the government might fast benefit those pressure groups that have power, while ignoring those minoritarians.
Such issues raise the importance of more openness and accountability in the functions of pressure groups. Such might be made to be through legal compulsory declarations on their funding, sever legislation against pressure groups on lobbyings, as well as publicity concerning pressure groups on the political operations. Lastly, an effort must be made so that it constitutes voices that can stand against some types of discrimination during policy formulation.
See lessHow does the interpretation of the right to freedom of speech and expression in India differ from that in the United States? Discuss with reference to relevant case laws. (200 words)
Model Answer Interpretation of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression in India vs. the United States The right to freedom of speech and expression is protected as a fundamental right in both India and the United States, but its interpretation and scope differ significantly due to the constituRead more
Model Answer
Interpretation of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression in India vs. the United States
The right to freedom of speech and expression is protected as a fundamental right in both India and the United States, but its interpretation and scope differ significantly due to the constitutional frameworks and cultural contexts in each country.
Scope of Protection
In the United States, the First Amendment provides robust protection for freedom of speech, covering political speech, commercial speech, and even offensive or controversial expressions, unless they fall into specific categories such as incitement to violence, obscenity, or defamation. A landmark case exemplifying this broad protection is Texas v. Johnson (1989), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that flag burning as a form of political protest was protected under the First Amendment.
In contrast, India’s interpretation of freedom of speech is subject to “reasonable restrictions” as outlined in Article 19(2). These restrictions cover areas such as public order, defamation, and morality. For example, the Supreme Court of India has upheld restrictions on speech that could disturb public order or harm religious sentiments, as seen in the Amish Devgan case, where the Court allowed multiple FIRs against the journalist for allegedly defaming a Sufi saint.
Press Freedom
Both nations protect press freedom, but the scope is different. In the U.S., press freedom is absolute, guaranteed under the First Amendment, whereas in India, the press enjoys freedom as part of Article 19(1)(a), but this is more subject to judicial scrutiny and reasonable restrictions. In recent cases like Media One, the Indian Supreme Court intervened to restore the ban on a news channel, emphasizing the nuanced balance between press freedom and national security concerns.
Obscenity and Hate Speech
The U.S. uses a clear standard for obscenity based on whether material appeals to prurient interests and lacks significant literary, political, or artistic value (Miller v. California, 1973). India’s interpretation is more conservative, as seen in the Ranjit D. Udeshi case, where the sale of an unexpurgated version of Lady Chatterley’s Lover was banned due to its explicit sexual content.
Hate speech is another area of divergence. While the U.S. provides broad protection to speech, including offensive or hate-filled expressions (unless it incites imminent violence), India allows restrictions on hate speech, especially when it involves communal or religious intolerance.
Conclusion
In essence, while both countries value freedom of speech, India’s constitutional framework imposes more restrictions based on public order, decency, and religious sentiments, reflecting the country’s socio-cultural values, whereas the U.S. adopts a more expansive view of free speech with fewer limitations. The degree of freedom, therefore, varies significantly, with India’s approach being more cautious and context-specific.
See lessCompare and contrast the affirmative action policies in India and the United States. (200 words)
Model Answer Comparison of Affirmative Action Policies in India and the United States Affirmative action policies aim to redress historical inequalities and provide opportunities for marginalized groups. However, the nature, scope, and implementation of these policies differ significantly between InRead more
Model Answer
Comparison of Affirmative Action Policies in India and the United States
Affirmative action policies aim to redress historical inequalities and provide opportunities for marginalized groups. However, the nature, scope, and implementation of these policies differ significantly between India and the United States.
1. Genesis and Purpose
In India, affirmative action stems from the caste-based discrimination prevalent for centuries, with the reservation policy focusing on Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Its primary goal is to promote social and economic equality by addressing inequalities related to caste, income, and gender.
In the United States, affirmative action was introduced in response to racial and ethnic discrimination, particularly against African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. It aims to mitigate systemic prejudice based on race, ethnicity, and gender, focusing on creating equal opportunities in education and employment.
2. Scope and Implementation
In India, the reservation system is extensive, applying not only in education but also in employment, promotions, and legislative bodies. The quotas are fixed at 50% (as per the Indra Sawhney case) for SCs, STs, and OBCs.
In contrast, affirmative action in the USA is narrower, primarily targeting education and employment. The system offers preferential treatment in college admissions, hiring practices, and scholarships, but the scope varies by state and institution, and no fixed quotas are established.
3. Targeted Groups
In India, affirmative action targets the marginalized groups within the caste system, notably SCs, STs, and OBCs. It also includes economic factors to some extent, especially with the recent 103rd Amendment, which introduced reservations for economically weaker sections (EWS).
In the USA, the primary focus is on racial minorities such as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, although other minority groups can also benefit.
4. Legal Framework
In India, affirmative action is constitutionally mandated, with clear provisions under Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 46. These articles empower the government to create reservation policies for marginalized communities.
In the USA, affirmative action is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but has evolved through legislation (e.g., the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and judicial rulings, most recently with the Supreme Court limiting its scope in college admissions.
5. Emerging Trends
India has been expanding its reservation system, including the EWS category, to address income-based inequalities. Meanwhile, in the USA, the trend has been towards reducing the scope of affirmative action, with court decisions such as the 2023 ruling limiting race-conscious admissions in colleges.
In conclusion, while both India and the USA have adopted affirmative action to address historical discrimination, the focus, implementation, and legal frameworks differ, reflecting each country’s unique historical and social context.
See lessHow does the judicial system of India compare to those of the United States of America (U.S.A.) and the United Kingdom (U.K.)? (200 words)
Model Answers Comparison of Judicial Systems: India, USA, and UK The judicial systems of India, the USA, and the UK, though rooted in democratic principles, differ in structure, powers, and scope of authority. India vs. USA In both India and the USA, the Constitution is the supreme law, and the judiRead more
Model Answers
Comparison of Judicial Systems: India, USA, and UK
The judicial systems of India, the USA, and the UK, though rooted in democratic principles, differ in structure, powers, and scope of authority.
India vs. USA
In both India and the USA, the Constitution is the supreme law, and the judiciary has the power of judicial review. However, the scope of judicial review is broader in the USA, allowing its judiciary to review both federal and state laws extensively. India’s judicial review is more limited, focused primarily on constitutional matters and ensuring laws are in alignment with the Constitution.
India operates under the “procedure established by law,” whereas the USA follows “due process of law,” which demands fairness in legal procedures. The Indian Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction mainly in federal matters, while the US Supreme Court has broader jurisdiction, including state and federal cases. Additionally, India’s Supreme Court has the discretion to grant Special Leave to Appeal (Article 136), which the U.S. system does not offer. India also has an advisory jurisdiction (Article 143), absent in the U.S. system (Source: Indian Constitution).
India vs. UK
India’s judicial system is unified, with the Supreme Court overseeing both central and state matters. In contrast, the UK has separate legal systems for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, with the UK Supreme Court acting as the final appellate body. India practices a blend of judicial supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the UK operates on parliamentary supremacy, limiting judicial review of parliamentary acts. India has explicit provisions for judicial review in its Constitution, unlike the UK, where judicial review depends on the courts’ discretion (Source: UK Constitution).
See lessAlthough the British had a significant influence on the framing of the Indian Constitution, there are several key differences between the constitutional structures of India and the United Kingdom. Discuss. (200 words)
Model Answers Differences Between the Constitutional Structures of India and the United Kingdom Although the Indian Constitution was greatly influenced by British constitutional practices, there are several key differences between the constitutional schemes of India and the United Kingdom. 1. WritteRead more
Model Answers
Differences Between the Constitutional Structures of India and the United Kingdom
Although the Indian Constitution was greatly influenced by British constitutional practices, there are several key differences between the constitutional schemes of India and the United Kingdom.
1. Written vs. Unwritten Constitution
2. Republic vs. Constitutional Monarchy
3. Rigidity vs. Flexibility
4. Federal vs. Unitary System
5. Constitutional Supremacy vs. Parliamentary Sovereignty
6. Ministerial Provisions
7. Role of the Speaker
Conclusion
Despite the British influence on India’s constitutional design, the differences in their constitutional frameworks are notable, especially in terms of their written and unwritten nature, governance structures, and principles like federalism and sovereignty. These differences reflect the unique political systems of each country, shaped by their own historical, cultural, and political contexts.
See lessJudiciary
Consequently, judicial review is the authority of the judiciary to declare statutes or the execution of law and policy by the executive to be unconstitutional. While it encourages checks and balances among the three branches of government it varies in implementation. In the United States, the powerRead more
Consequently, judicial review is the authority of the judiciary to declare statutes or the execution of law and policy by the executive to be unconstitutional. While it encourages checks and balances among the three branches of government it varies in implementation.
In the United States, the power judicial review, recognized in * the case of Marbury v. Judicial review (Marbury v. Madison* 1803) has placed the judiciary in a very strong position check on the legislative and executive branches. India’s courts are in the same analogous legal position with ability, the “basic structure doctrine,” to warrant this change as well as guard constitutional legitimacy while simultaneously restraining the legislative branch’s amendment-making capacities. Here, the judicial review of the UK focuses on the procedural regularity of administrative decisions because parliamentary supremacy eliminates the possibility of the declaring primary legislation unconstitutional.
Germany and other civil law nations employ constitutional courts to handle such pure constitutional claims, while the ECJ ensures compliance of its member’s laws with the treaty establishing the union. These systems show various levels and approaches of judicial control.
The control of judicial review regrettably hampering the balance of power. Its effect has been to strengthen the call for accountability and rights but has been blamed for judicial encroachment into the domain of policy formulation – undue judicial interference. In this respect, acting as a guardian of the constitution, judicial review improves governance, while the issues arising out of concerns related to the judiciary in the democratic systems are agitating. It will remain basic in support of the rule of law which facilitates a balance power that can function properly.
See lessCompare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty. (150 words)[UPSC 2023]
The concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British and Indian contexts exhibits both similarities and differences. British Approach In the UK, parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the supreme legal authority, capable of creating or ending any law. No other body, including the judiRead more
The concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British and Indian contexts exhibits both similarities and differences.
British Approach
In the UK, parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the supreme legal authority, capable of creating or ending any law. No other body, including the judiciary, can override or nullify parliamentary legislation. This principle is rooted in the unwritten constitution and reflects the supremacy of elected representatives.
Indian Approach
In contrast, India follows a written constitution that limits parliamentary sovereignty. While Parliament can legislate on various matters, its powers are subject to constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court of India can invalidate laws that violate fundamental rights or contravene the Constitution, demonstrating a system of checks and balances.
Comparison
Both systems value legislative authority; however, the UK’s approach is absolute, whereas India’s is conditional. Indian parliamentary sovereignty is thus exercised within a framework of constitutional supremacy, ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected against potential legislative overreach.
See lessIn what ways does the Indian federal-system differ from the federal system in United States of America (USA)? Explain (125 Words) [UPPSC 2018]
Differences Between the Indian Federal System and the U.S. Federal System 1. Nature of Federalism: India: India has a quasi-federal system with a strong central government. The Union Government has significant powers over states, and in case of a conflict, the Union prevails. For example, the ArticlRead more
Differences Between the Indian Federal System and the U.S. Federal System
1. Nature of Federalism:
2. Division of Powers:
3. Judicial Review:
Conclusion: India’s federal system is more centralized compared to the U.S., with greater central authority and overlapping powers between central and state governments.
See less