Home/upsc: history of constitution
- Recent Questions
- Most Answered
- Answers
- No Answers
- Most Visited
- Most Voted
- Random
- Bump Question
- New Questions
- Sticky Questions
- Polls
- Followed Questions
- Favorite Questions
- Recent Questions With Time
- Most Answered With Time
- Answers With Time
- No Answers With Time
- Most Visited With Time
- Most Voted With Time
- Random With Time
- Bump Question With Time
- New Questions With Time
- Sticky Questions With Time
- Polls With Time
- Followed Questions With Time
- Favorite Questions With Time
How did the Government of India Act, 1935 influence the constitutional framework of post-independence India? (200 words)
Model Answer Introduction The Government of India Act, 1935, was a significant step towards India's self-governance under British colonial rule. It laid down several provisions that were later incorporated into India’s Constitution after independence. Sir Ivor Jennings even referred to the Indian CoRead more
Model Answer
Introduction
The Government of India Act, 1935, was a significant step towards India’s self-governance under British colonial rule. It laid down several provisions that were later incorporated into India’s Constitution after independence. Sir Ivor Jennings even referred to the Indian Constitution as a “Carbon Copy of the 1935 Act,” highlighting its influence on the post-independence legal and constitutional framework.
Influence of the Government of India Act, 1935 on India’s Post-Independence Constitutional Framework:
Points of Differences
Conclusion
As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar noted, borrowing ideas from existing frameworks is not plagiarism but a method of learning and building upon them. While the Government of India Act, 1935, profoundly shaped the Indian Constitution, the latter remains a transformative document that reflects India’s unique aspirations for a just, democratic, and sovereign nation.
See lessDid the Government of India Act, 1935 lay down a federal constitution? Discuss. (200 words) [UPSC 2016]
The Government of India Act, 1935, was a significant piece of legislation that aimed to provide a framework for the governance of British India. While it introduced several federal features, it did not establish a fully federal constitution. Federal Features of the Act: Federal Structure: The Act crRead more
The Government of India Act, 1935, was a significant piece of legislation that aimed to provide a framework for the governance of British India. While it introduced several federal features, it did not establish a fully federal constitution.
Federal Features of the Act:
Federal Structure: The Act created a federal structure by dividing powers between the central government and provincial governments. It provided for a federation of British India and the princely states, though the princely states were largely autonomous and did not participate directly in the federal system.
Division of Powers: It outlined a division of powers between the central and provincial legislatures. The Act included a Federal List, a Provincial List, and a Concurrent List, detailing areas of exclusive and shared jurisdiction.
Federal Court: The Act established a Federal Court to adjudicate disputes between the central and provincial governments, adding a judicial mechanism to the federal structure.
Limitations:
Central Dominance: Despite the federal features, the Act maintained considerable central control. The Governor-General and Governors had significant powers, including the ability to dissolve provincial legislatures and veto legislation, which limited the autonomy of the provinces.
Limited Federalism: The federation was not fully realized as the princely states were not integrated into the federal system in practice. They retained substantial autonomy and were only loosely connected to the central government.
Lack of True Federal Balance: The central government had extensive powers, including overriding provincial legislation, which did not provide a balanced federal structure.
Conclusion:
See lessWhile the Government of India Act, 1935, introduced federal principles, it did not lay down a fully federal constitution. It was more of a hybrid system with significant central control and limited provincial autonomy. The true federal nature of India was established later with the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950, which created a more balanced federal structure with greater autonomy for states.
Analyze the decision to adopt a single-chamber Parliament, as opposed to a bicameral legislature. What were the arguments for and against this choice, and how has it impacted the legislative process?
The decision to adopt a single-chamber Parliament, as opposed to a bicameral legislature, was a significant and much-debated issue during the Constituent Assembly Debates. Arguments in Favor of a Single-Chamber Parliament: Efficiency and Expediency: The proponents argued that a unicameral system wouRead more
The decision to adopt a single-chamber Parliament, as opposed to a bicameral legislature, was a significant and much-debated issue during the Constituent Assembly Debates.
Arguments in Favor of a Single-Chamber Parliament:
Efficiency and Expediency: The proponents argued that a unicameral system would enable quicker decision-making and more efficient legislative processes, which was crucial for a newly independent nation facing numerous challenges.
Avoiding Legislative Deadlocks: The concern was that a bicameral legislature could lead to deadlocks between the two houses, hindering the passage of important legislation.
Representation of the People: The Constituent Assembly members believed that the directly elected Lok Sabha would be a better reflection of the will of the people, as compared to an indirectly elected upper house.
Precedent of the Government of India Act, 1935: The Government of India Act, 1935, which served as a reference point, had established a unicameral legislature at the central level.
Arguments Against a Single-Chamber Parliament:
Checks and Balances: Critics argued that a bicameral system would provide an important system of checks and balances, preventing the concentration of power in the hands of a single chamber.
Representation of Diverse Interests: An upper house could have ensured the representation of diverse interests, such as those of the states, minorities, and other marginalized groups.
Deliberation and Scrutiny: A bicameral legislature would allow for more thorough deliberation and scrutiny of legislation, leading to better-quality laws.
Precedent of Other Federal Democracies: Many other federal democracies, such as the United States and Australia, had adopted bicameral legislatures.
Ultimately, the Constituent Assembly decided to opt for a single-chamber Parliament, the Lok Sabha, as the primary legislative body at the Union level. This decision has had several implications:
Concentration of Power: The absence of an upper house has resulted in a greater concentration of power in the Lok Sabha and the Union government.
Scrutiny and Deliberation: The lack of an upper house has been criticized for reducing the level of scrutiny and deliberation on legislation.
Representation of States: The absence of an upper house has been seen by some as undermining the representation of states in the legislative process.
However, the Indian Parliament has evolved over time, with the introduction of the Rajya Sabha as an indirectly elected upper house, which now plays a role in the legislative process, albeit with limited powers compared to the Lok Sabha.
The decision to adopt a single-chamber Parliament, with its trade-offs, has been a significant aspect of the Indian constitutional framework, reflecting the unique political and historical context of the time.
See lessAssess the role of the Constituent Assembly Debates in shaping the unique Indian model of federalism, which combines features of both the unitary and federal systems.
The Constituent Assembly Debates played a pivotal role in shaping the unique Indian model of federalism, which combines features of both the unitary and federal systems. During the debates, there was extensive discussion on the appropriate form of government for the newly independent India. The framRead more
The Constituent Assembly Debates played a pivotal role in shaping the unique Indian model of federalism, which combines features of both the unitary and federal systems.
During the debates, there was extensive discussion on the appropriate form of government for the newly independent India. The framers of the Indian Constitution were influenced by the experiences of various federal democracies, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, as well as the unitary system of the United Kingdom.
The key aspects of the Indian federal model that emerged from the Constituent Assembly Debates include:
Unitary Bias: While adopting a federal structure, the Constitution grants significant powers to the Union government, reflecting a unitary bias. For instance, the Union government has the power to create new states or alter the boundaries of existing states.
Strong Center: The Indian federation is characterized by a strong central government with the President, Prime Minister, and Union Cabinet playing a dominant role. The Union government has exclusive jurisdiction over subjects like defense, foreign affairs, and macroeconomic policy.
Integrated Judiciary: India has a unified judicial system with the Supreme Court at the apex, unlike the dual judiciary found in some other federal countries. This ensures uniformity in the interpretation and application of laws.
Emergency Provisions: The Constitution empowers the Union government to declare emergencies, which can lead to the suspension of state autonomy and the centralization of decision-making authority.
Cooperative Federalism: While the Indian model is tilted towards the Union, it also incorporates elements of cooperative federalism. This is reflected in the Concurrent List, which allows both the Union and states to legislate on subjects of shared interest.
The Constituent Assembly debates witnessed intense discussions on the appropriate balance between the Union and the states. Ultimately, the framers opted for a federal structure with a strong unitary bias, which was seen as best suited to address India’s diversity, size, and the need for national integration in the post-independence era.
This unique federal design has evolved over time, with the Supreme Court playing a crucial role in interpreting the constitutional provisions and maintaining the balance between the Union and the states.
See lessDiscuss the inclusion of provisions for the protection of linguistic and religious minorities, as well as the safeguards for the representation of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other marginalized communities.
The Constitution of India includes several provisions aimed at protecting the rights and interests of linguistic and religious minorities, as well as safeguarding the representation of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other marginalized communities. The key provisions in this regard are: LingRead more
The Constitution of India includes several provisions aimed at protecting the rights and interests of linguistic and religious minorities, as well as safeguarding the representation of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other marginalized communities. The key provisions in this regard are:
Linguistic Minorities:
Article 29 guarantees the right of any section of citizens to conserve their distinct language, script, and culture.
Article 350A requires states to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education for children belonging to linguistic minority groups.
Religious Minorities:
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
Article 30 gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes:
Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Article 16 provides for reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens.
Article 330 and 332 provide for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, respectively.
Article 335 recognizes the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State.
Other Marginalized Groups:
The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 provides for 10% reservation in educational institutions and government jobs for the economically weaker sections of society.
See lessThe Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 empowers tribal communities through Panchayati Raj institutions in scheduled areas.
The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provide legal safeguards against discrimination and atrocities.
The framers of the Indian Constitution were cognizant of the country’s diversity and the need to protect the rights of various minority and marginalized groups. These provisions aim to promote social justice, ensure equitable representation, and prevent discrimination, thereby strengthening the inclusive character of Indian democracy.
Analyze the provisions for the establishment of an independent judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the apex court. Discuss the framers' intent behind ensuring the judiciary's separation from the executive and legislative branches.
Here is an analysis of the provisions for establishing an independent judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the apex court, and the framers' intent behind ensuring the judiciary's separation from the executive and legislative branches: The framers of the U.S. Constitution placed great emphasis on estRead more
Here is an analysis of the provisions for establishing an independent judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the apex court, and the framers’ intent behind ensuring the judiciary’s separation from the executive and legislative branches:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution placed great emphasis on establishing an independent and co-equal judiciary as a vital part of the system of checks and balances. The Constitution grants the judicial power of the federal government to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts established by Congress, as outlined in Article III.
The key provisions for establishing an independent judiciary include:
Appointment of Judges: Article II gives the President the power to nominate judges to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. This shared power between the executive and legislative branches was intended to prevent any one branch from having unilateral control over the judiciary.
Lifetime Tenure: Article III states that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”, effectively granting them lifetime tenure. This was designed to insulate judges from political pressure or retaliation, allowing them to make impartial decisions without fear of losing their positions.
Undiminished Compensation: Article III also prohibits Congress from reducing the compensation of federal judges. This was meant to further protect judicial independence by ensuring judges’ salaries could not be used as a means of influence or punishment.
The framers’ intent behind establishing this separation of powers was to prevent any one branch from becoming too dominant and to create a system of “checks and balances” where each branch could limit the power of the others. They recognized the vital role an independent judiciary would play in upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of citizens, even against the actions of the other branches of government.
By insulating the courts from political pressure, the framers aimed to make the judiciary a neutral arbiter that could interpret the law and the Constitution fairly, without being swayed by the shifting winds of partisan politics. This safeguard was seen as essential for maintaining the rule of law and preserving the democratic system envisioned in the Constitution.
Overall, the framers’ design for an independent federal judiciary, with the Supreme Court at the apex, was a crucial component of the system of checks and balances that is a hallmark of the U.S. Constitution.
See lessAnalyze the role of the Constituent Assembly Debates in shaping the final text of the Constitution. Highlight key discussions and disagreements that arose during the deliberations and how they were resolved.
The Constituent Assembly Debates played a pivotal role in shaping the final text of the Indian Constitution. The deliberations were marked by extensive discussions, disagreements, and negotiations among the diverse representatives, reflecting the complexity and the ambitious scope of the constitutioRead more
The Constituent Assembly Debates played a pivotal role in shaping the final text of the Indian Constitution. The deliberations were marked by extensive discussions, disagreements, and negotiations among the diverse representatives, reflecting the complexity and the ambitious scope of the constitution-making process.
Some of the key discussions and disagreements that arose during the Constituent Assembly Debates and the manner in which they were resolved include:
Form of Government:
See lessThere was a debate between the proponents of a parliamentary system and those advocating for a presidential system of government.
The Constituent Assembly ultimately opted for a parliamentary system, with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet being responsible to the elected legislature.
Centre-State Relations:
There were concerns about the appropriate balance of power between the Union and the states, particularly regarding the distribution of legislative, executive, and financial powers.
The final text of the Constitution established a quasi-federal structure, with the Centre retaining significant powers while also granting autonomy to the states in certain domains.
Fundamental Rights:
The inclusion and scope of fundamental rights were extensively discussed, with debates surrounding the protection of individual liberties and the need to balance them with the broader public interest.
The Constituent Assembly incorporated a comprehensive list of fundamental rights, with provisions for their enforcement through the judiciary.
Directive Principles of State Policy:
The Constituent Assembly deliberated on the inclusion of non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy, which were intended to guide the government in the formulation of policies and laws.
Despite their non-justiciable nature, the Directive Principles were recognized as essential for the socio-economic transformation of the country.
Provisions for Minorities and Marginalized Communities:
There were extensive discussions on the protection of the rights and interests of minority communities, as well as the provisions for the upliftment of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other disadvantaged groups.
The Constituent Assembly incorporated safeguards for minority representation, reservation policies, and special provisions for the welfare of marginalized communities.
Language and the Official Language:
The issue of language and the designation of an official language for the Union was a contentious topic, with debates around Hindi, English, and the recognition of regional languages.
The Constituent Assembly ultimately recognized both Hindi and English as official languages, with provisions for the inclusion of regional languages in administration and education.
Citizenship and the Rights of Refugees:
The Constituent Assembly deliberated on the criteria for Indian citizenship and the rights and protections to be accorded to refugees and displaced persons.
The final text of the Constitution included provisions for the acquisition and loss of Indian citizenship, as well as safeguards for the rights of refugees.
The Constituent Assembly Debates were marked by the spirit of compromise, accommodation, and a deep commitment to the ideals of democracy, secularism, and social justice. The discussions and disagreements were resolved through extensive negotiations, amendments, and the incorporation of diverse perspectives, resulting in a Constitution that has withstood the test of time and remained a living document, adaptable to the evolving needs of the nation.
Evaluate the inclusion of Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution. What was the underlying philosophy behind these non-justiciable principles, and how have they influenced the policy and legislative agenda of successive governments?
The inclusion of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in the Indian Constitution was a unique and significant feature, reflecting the framers' vision for the socio-economic transformation of the country. The underlying philosophy behind the DPSP can be understood through the following key aspRead more
The inclusion of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in the Indian Constitution was a unique and significant feature, reflecting the framers’ vision for the socio-economic transformation of the country. The underlying philosophy behind the DPSP can be understood through the following key aspects:
Socio-Economic Justice: The DPSP were intended to provide a framework for the creation of a social order based on justice, equality, and the promotion of the welfare of the people. They aimed to address the historical inequities and disparities in Indian society.
Balancing Individual Rights and Societal Welfare: While the Constitution guaranteed fundamental rights to individuals, the DPSP sought to balance these rights with the broader goal of promoting the common good and the welfare of the entire population.
Guiding Principle for Governance: The DPSP were envisioned as a set of non-justiciable principles that would serve as a guiding light for the government in formulating policies and enacting laws to achieve the socio-economic objectives of the Constitution.
Aspirational Goals: The DPSP represented the long-term, aspirational goals of the nation, which were to be gradually realized through the concerted efforts of the government and the people.
The influence of the DPSP on the policy and legislative agenda of successive governments has been significant, albeit with varying degrees of impact:
Policy Formulation: The DPSP have influenced the formulation of various national policies, such as the National Health Policy, the National Education Policy, and the National Policy for Older Persons, among others. These policies have sought to address the socio-economic concerns outlined in the DPSP.
Legislative Initiatives: Several laws and amendments have been enacted by the government to give effect to the DPSP, such as the Minimum Wages Act, the Equal Remuneration Act, and the Right to Education Act.
Judicial Interpretation: While the DPSP are non-justiciable, the courts have, on numerous occasions, used them as a guiding principle in interpreting the fundamental rights and balancing individual liberties with societal welfare.
Political Discourse and Manifesto: The DPSP have featured prominently in the election manifestos and political discourse of various political parties, underscoring their continued relevance and importance in the national agenda.
However, the implementation and realization of the DPSP have faced several challenges:
Resource Constraints: The achievement of the DPSP is often hindered by the limited financial and administrative resources available to the government, particularly at the state and local levels.
See lessCompeting Priorities: Governments may sometimes prioritize economic growth and development over the immediate fulfillment of the DPSP, leading to a potential trade-off between short-term gains and long-term societal transformation.
Lack of Justiciability: The non-justiciable nature of the DPSP means that the courts cannot directly enforce them, limiting their legal enforceability and the ability of citizens to seek redress for their non-implementation.
Changing Political Priorities: The shifting political landscape and the varying ideological orientations of successive governments can lead to fluctuations in the emphasis placed on the DPSP and their implementation.
In conclusion, the inclusion of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution reflects the framers’ vision of a welfare state and a more equitable and just society. While their influence on policymaking and legislation has been significant, the realization of the DPSP continues to be a work in progress, faced with resource constraints, competing priorities, and the inherent challenges of their non-justiciable nature.
Examine the inclusion of emergency provisions in the Constitution, which grant extraordinary powers to the Union government during times of crisis. Discuss the debates around the scope and limits of these provisions.
The inclusion of emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution was a crucial and contentious aspect of its drafting. These provisions grant extraordinary powers to the Union government during times of crisis, allowing it to respond swiftly and decisively to situations that threaten the nation's seRead more
The inclusion of emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution was a crucial and contentious aspect of its drafting. These provisions grant extraordinary powers to the Union government during times of crisis, allowing it to respond swiftly and decisively to situations that threaten the nation’s security, stability, and functioning. The debates around the scope and limits of these provisions centered on balancing the need for effective crisis management with the protection of democratic principles and individual freedoms.
Emergency Provisions in the Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution outlines three types of emergencies:
National Emergency (Article 352): Proclaimed during a situation of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
State Emergency or President’s Rule (Article 356): Imposed when a state government is unable to function according to the provisions of the Constitution.
Financial Emergency (Article 360): Declared when the financial stability or credit of India or any part of its territory is threatened.
Key Debates and Considerations
Scope and Necessity of Emergency Powers:
Proponents’ View: Supporters argued that strong central powers were necessary to maintain national unity and integrity, especially given India’s diverse and newly independent status. They believed that the Union government needed the ability to act decisively in times of crisis to prevent the disintegration of the nation.
Opponents’ View: Critics feared that these provisions could be misused to undermine state autonomy and suppress dissent. They were concerned about the potential for abuse of power and the impact on federalism and democracy.
Checks and Balances:
Proponents’ View: Proponents highlighted the inclusion of procedural safeguards, such as requiring parliamentary approval for the declaration and continuation of emergencies. They argued that these checks would prevent arbitrary use of emergency powers.
Opponents’ View: Critics argued that the safeguards were insufficient. They pointed out that the ruling party’s dominance in Parliament could lead to rubber-stamping of emergency declarations without thorough scrutiny.
Historical Context and Precedents:
The framers were influenced by the experiences of other countries and the need to ensure the survival of the state in the face of internal and external threats. The inclusion of emergency provisions was seen as a way to address potential challenges to India’s sovereignty and stability.
Impact on Fundamental Rights:
Proponents’ View: Supporters contended that temporary suspension of certain rights might be necessary to restore order and protect the greater good during emergencies. They emphasized that fundamental rights would be reinstated once the emergency was over.
Opponents’ View: Critics feared that suspending fundamental rights could lead to human rights abuses and the erosion of civil liberties. They stressed the need for stringent oversight to protect citizens’ rights even during emergencies.
Experience and Lessons from the Emergency of 1975-1977
The proclamation of a National Emergency by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975, ostensibly due to internal disturbances, led to widespread misuse of emergency powers. This period saw the suspension of fundamental rights, censorship of the press, and the arrest of political opponents. The Emergency of 1975-1977 highlighted the potential for abuse and underscored the importance of robust safeguards.
Post-Emergency Reforms
In response to the lessons learned, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced several reforms:
Stricter Conditions: The term “internal disturbance” was replaced with “armed rebellion” to narrow the grounds for declaring a National Emergency.
See lessParliamentary Approval: Enhanced requirements for parliamentary approval and periodic reviews of emergency proclamations were instituted.
Protection of Rights: Safeguards were strengthened to protect citizens’ fundamental rights during emergencies.
Evaluate the decision to adopt a single, common citizenship for all Indians, as opposed to the option of state-based citizenships. What were the considerations and debates surrounding this choice?
The decision to adopt a single, common citizenship for all Indians, rather than state-based citizenships, was a significant and deliberate choice during the framing of the Indian Constitution. Here are the key considerations and debates surrounding this decision: Considerations for a Single, CommonRead more
The decision to adopt a single, common citizenship for all Indians, rather than state-based citizenships, was a significant and deliberate choice during the framing of the Indian Constitution. Here are the key considerations and debates surrounding this decision:
Considerations for a Single, Common Citizenship
National Unity: A primary consideration was to foster a sense of national unity and integration. Given India’s vast diversity in terms of languages, cultures, and religions, a common citizenship was seen as a way to unite the country and strengthen national identity.
Equality and Non-discrimination: A single citizenship ensures equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of the state in which they reside. This prevents discrimination based on state affiliation and promotes a sense of equality among all Indians.
Simplification of Legal and Administrative Processes: Having a single citizenship simplifies legal and administrative processes. It eliminates the complexities and potential conflicts that could arise from multiple layers of citizenship and the corresponding legal rights and responsibilities.
Mobility and Economic Integration: A common citizenship facilitates free movement of people across state borders, which is essential for economic integration and growth. It allows individuals to live, work, and conduct business anywhere in the country without facing state-based restrictions.
Debates and Considerations Against State-based Citizenship
Federal Autonomy: Critics of single citizenship argued that it could undermine the federal structure and the autonomy of states. They feared that centralization could erode the powers and identities of individual states.
Diverse Identities: India’s states often have distinct linguistic and cultural identities. There were concerns that a single citizenship might not adequately respect or represent these diverse identities, leading to feelings of marginalization.
Precedents from Other Countries: Some pointed to federal systems like the United States, where dual citizenship (state and federal) exists. They argued that state-based citizenship could enhance federalism by giving states more control over their affairs and the rights of their residents.
Resolution and Final Decision
Debates in the Constituent Assembly: During the Constituent Assembly debates, proponents of single citizenship, including Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, argued strongly for its necessity in maintaining national unity and preventing divisive regionalism. They emphasized the importance of having a unified nation where citizens are treated equally across all states.
Balance of Federal and Unitary Features: The framers of the Constitution sought to balance federal and unitary features. While they opted for single citizenship, they also provided significant powers to the states and established a federal structure to ensure decentralization and respect for regional diversity.
Acceptance of Diversity within Unity: The decision reflected an acceptance of India’s diversity within a framework of unity. The Constitution recognizes and protects linguistic, cultural, and regional identities through various provisions, while ensuring that all citizens have the same national identity and rights.
Conclusion
See lessThe choice of a single, common citizenship for all Indians was a conscious effort to build a cohesive and integrated nation-state. It aimed to foster national unity, ensure equality, simplify legal frameworks, and facilitate economic integration, while also balancing the need for federal autonomy and respect for regional identities. This decision remains a cornerstone of India’s constitutional framework, reflecting the country’s commitment to unity in diversity.