Comparison of Constitutions

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

• India: The Indian Constitution is a written document, framed by a Constituent Assembly in 1949, and is the longest constitution in the world.
• UK: The UK has an unwritten constitution, based on statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, and the Crown’s prerogative.
• Source: Indian Constitution, UK Constitutional Law.

2. Republic vs. Constitutional Monarchy

• India: India is a Republic, where the head of state is the President, elected indirectly by the people.
• UK: The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, with a hereditary monarch as the head of state.
• Source: Indian Constitution, UK Constitutional Laws.

3. Rigidity vs. Flexibility

• India: The Indian Constitution is a blend of rigidity and flexibility; some provisions require a special majority for amendments, while others cannot be altered (the Basic Structure doctrine).
• UK: The UK’s constitution is highly flexible, with laws amendable by Parliament using only a simple majority.
• Source: Indian Constitution (Article 368), UK Constitutional Law.

4. Federal vs. Unitary System

• India: India follows a federal system, with a division of powers between the Union and the States.
• UK: The UK follows a unitary system where all legislative powers rest with the British Parliament, and Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are not politically autonomous.
• Source: Indian Constitution (Part XI), UK Constitutional Practice.

5. Constitutional Supremacy vs. Parliamentary Sovereignty

• India: In India, the Constitution is supreme, and laws passed by Parliament are subject to judicial review.
• UK: In the UK, Parliamentary Sovereignty prevails, and courts cannot challenge the validity of laws passed by Parliament.
• Source: Indian Constitution (Judicial Review), UK Constitutional Practice.

6. Ministerial Provisions

• India: In India, a person not elected to Parliament can still be appointed as a minister for a maximum of six months.
• UK: In the UK, only Members of Parliament (MPs) can be appointed as ministers.
• Source: Indian Constitution (Article 75), UK Parliamentary Rules.

7. Role of the Speaker

• India: In India, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha may remain a member of their political party and their election can be contested.
• UK: In the UK, the Speaker must resign from their political party, and their position is uncontested.
• Source: Indian Parliamentary Rules, UK Speaker’s Convention.

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.

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.

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

1. Reduced Bargaining Power: MPs are often reluctant to voice criticism of their party’s policies or leadership due to the risk of disqualification, limiting their ability to negotiate or influence policy decisions.
2. Stifling Constructive Debate: The law discourages dissent within parties, resulting in a lack of diverse viewpoints and reducing the quality of policy debates.
3. Reduced Accountability: MPs may refrain from voting against their party line even when it contradicts the views of their constituents, diminishing their responsiveness and accountability.
4. Suppression of Conscience: The ADL curtails MPs’ ability to vote according to their personal beliefs on moral or social issues.
5. Erosion of Trust: The law is often used by party leaders to punish dissent, eroding public trust in the political system and reducing democratic participation.

Freedom Enjoyed by MPs in the United Kingdom

1. Conscience Votes: In the UK, MPs are free to vote according to their conscience on issues like moral or social concerns, allowing them to represent their constituents more effectively.
2. Whip Conventions: While defying a “three-line whip” in the UK can lead to expulsion from the party, MPs retain their seat as independents, unlike in India, where they are disqualified from the House.
3. Internal Party Democracy: UK political parties encourage open debate and participation in decision-making, ensuring that diverse views are considered in policymaking.
4. Constituent Service: UK MPs focus more on serving their constituents, fostering a stronger connection between representatives and voters. For instance, in 2021, 55 MPs from Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s party voted against their own government’s proposal for stricter lockdown restrictions.

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.