The rule of law is codified in a country’s constitution, which serves as its rule book. A comparison of the Indian Constitutional Scheme With That of Other Countries Parliaments and State Legislatures, which is covered in this article, is included in the UPSC Indian Polity and Governance Syllabus.
The rule of law is codified in a country’s constitution, which serves as its rule book. It outlines the structure and primary duties of the government’s three branches: the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Additionally, it establishes citizenship—the relationship between the populace and the government.
Before creating their own, the Indian Constitution’s authors reviewed all the main international constitutions that were in effect at the time. The Indian Constitution, which liberally borrows from other nations, is frequently called “a bag of borrowings.”
Indian Constitution: a bag of borrowings
The Indian Constitution offers a Parliamentary form of government which is federal in structure with certain unitary characteristics.
- The composition is written part, convention as well and judicial interpretation. Derived from various sources. Primarily from the Government of India Act, of 1935.
- From Ireland: Directive Principles of State Policy, Representation of ability in the Rajya Sabha, a system of election of President of India method of nominating members of the Rajya Sabha;
- From the US: Fundamental Rights;
- From Britain: Parliamentary form of Government;
- From Germany: Emergency provision;
- From South Africa: Procedure of amendment with a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the election of the members of the Rajya Sabha etc.
Thus, the Indian Constitution is one of the longest known Constitutions in the world because of the above features.
Comparison of the Indian Constitutional Scheme with Other Countries
The Indian constitutional scheme, as enshrined in the Constitution of India, exhibits several unique features and characteristics that distinguish it from the constitutional schemes of many other countries. While it shares some common elements with other democracies, it also has distinct features that reflect India’s historical, social, and political context.
- Written Constitution: Both France and India have written constitutions, however, France has modified them quite a bit due to instability. It is France’s fifth constitution overall as of right now.
- Governmental System: The leaders of both nations were chosen to serve their respective terms.
- Amendment process: Like how modifications in India are made, the French Constitution can be changed with a 60% majority.
- Republic: Both countries have an elected head of state and are republics.
- Ideals: In the Preamble of its Constitution, India has taken principles from the French Constitution about liberty, equality, and fraternity.
- Emergency provisions: Both countries are capable of providing for emergencies.
- The President of France has greater authority than the Prime Minister under a semi-presidential system, whereas the Prime Minister of India has more authority under a parliamentary system.
- The prime minister of India has a five-year term; the president of France has a seven-year term.
- Philosophic elements: The French Constitution makes no mention of legal due process or procedure established by legislation.
- In contrast to India, which adopted a more principled but imperfect separation of church and state, France adopted a full separation.
- In contrast to India, which is a federal country, France is a unitary state.
- Judicial structure: In contrast to France, where the court is significant, India does not involve the judiciary in the conduct of elections.
- There is no structure like this in India, unlike the French court system, which is divided into judicial courts and administrative courts.
- Unitary/Federal: Each has a federal organization. Canada has residual powers that are centralized, just like India. The Governor for the States and Provinces is appointed by the central government.
- Setup for executives: First past the post is the method used to elect members. Both have an accountable government that answers to the lower house as a whole.
- Judicial structure: The Supreme Court’s nomination process and advisory role are identical to those in India.
- Legislative framework: The entire nation is subject to laws passed by the Parliament.
- Constitution, written or unwritten: India is governed by the written Constitution, whereas Canada is governed by both written and unwritten law.
- Political framework: India has a presidential system, but Canada has a monarchical one.
- Setup for executives: On the advice of the Prime Minister, the monarch appoints the Governor-General in contrast to India, where the President is chosen in an indirect election.
- Citizenship: In contrast to India, which does not provide dual citizenship, Canada has a provision for it.
- Justice system: It has several different legal systems, but India does not.
- Republic: Both countries have an elected head of state and are republics.
- Political framework: Both countries feature a parliament-based system of government in which the Chancellor/Prime Minister is in charge while the President mostly performs ceremonial and administrative tasks.
- Germany has loaned India emergency supplies.
- Each has a federal government.
- Both share characteristics with fundamental rights.
- India has a flexible and rigid constitution, compared to Germany’s rigid one.
- Citizenship: Dual citizenship is permissible in certain situations
- Each has a constitution in writing.
- Legislative framework: The Parliament is the highest legislative body in both countries.
- Both countries’ parliaments consist of two houses, the lowest of which has greater authority than the upper.
- The No-Confidence motion caused the House to be dissolved, much like in India.
- Members of Japan’s Upper House serve six-year terms, and each year, half of the members leave the chamber.
- Philosophic elements: Constitutional and judicial review are supreme.
- The procedure has been set by law in both nations.
- Setup for executives: Japan’s prime minister can be a member of either House, like in India.
- Similar to India, the Lower House is responsible to the Council of Ministers.
- Judicial structure: Japan and India share comparable laws regarding the appointment, removal, and fixed retirement age of judges.
- India has a flexible and rigid constitution, compared to Japan’s rigorous one.
- A unitary state is provided for by the Japanese Constitution.
- Setup for executives: Although in most countries the President appoints ministers at the suggestion of the Prime Minister, this is not the case in India.
- While this does not occur in India, the Japanese parliament elects the prime minister from the party that has the majority.
- Political framework: India is a Republic, but Japan is a constitutional monarchy.
- In contrast to India, which does not require this, all foreign treaties in Japan must be ratified by the Diet.
- Judicial structure: Judges are appointed by the Diet but in India, there is no role of Parliament.
- The Constitution was drafted by both of them.
- Australia and India both have federal legislative systems that include States and Territories.
- Legislative framework: There is a clause that allows for a second reading and refers it to a committee that can make suggestions akin to those made in India.
- Australia provided a concurrent list that India borrowed.
- To break the impasse between the two Houses, combined sessions are allowed in both countries.
- judicial structure: In Australia, as in India, the Supreme Court is the final court to rule on any issue.
- Both countries emphasize the separation of powers and have independent judiciaries.
- The process for appointing and dismissing judges in Australia follows the same guidelines as in India.
- Australia’s states each have their laws regarding declared states of emergency, unlike India.
- In Australia, there is a dual citizenship provision that was added on April 4, 2002.
- Political framework: In Australia, a governor-general stands in for the Queen, who is the head of state for the Commonwealth.
- Legislative framework: Only the electorate can amend the Australian Constitution, and only through a national referendum in which all of the electorate’s adults must vote.
- In contrast to India, where it is elected by a single transferable vote, the upper house is chosen using the list system.
- In India, lower house representatives are chosen for five years, compared to Australia’s three.
- A Constitution has been drafted for each country.
- Fundamental rights are recognized in both countries.
- The preamble serves as the introduction phrase for both countries.
- Vice Presidents are elected in both countries.
- Legislative framework: In the legislatures of both countries, there are state representatives.
- Both countries have an impeachment process in place to remove the president.
- Philosophic elements: The United States is where India got the idea for judicial review.
- The United States is where India got the idea for the legal procedure.
- The several branches of the government are separated in terms of authority.
- The United States has a federal structure similar to that of India.
- The Supremacy of the Constitution in the USA is similar to that in India.
- India’s constitution is both rigid and flexible, in contrast to the USA’s rigid structure.
- Political framework: India has a parliamentary system of governance, whereas the USA has a presidential one.
- Setup for executives: In the USA, the president is chosen directly by the electorate; in India, the president is chosen by a different process.
- Amenability: In 200 years, the US Constitution has only been altered 27 times.
- In contrast to India, where the Union has this authority, the states in the United States have it.
- judicial structure: Judges must retire at a certain age in India, although in the USA, judges can work till they are in excellent health.
- Every State has a unique Constitution and Supreme Court, which India does not have.
- Both countries have a parliamentary system of government.
- Rule of Law is now a part of India thanks to Britain.
- Setup for executives: The cabinet system is present in both countries.
- There are two separate heads of government for each country.
- Both countries’ parliaments are represented by a variety of parties.
- Amenability: Like in India, a simple majority is required to pass, alter, or repeal British law.
- Judicial structure: Judges can be fired in the same way as in India.
- Written/Unwritten: India has a written constitution, but the UK only has a small percentage of its unwritten constitution covered in writing.
- The UK is a unitary state with a flexible constitution.
- Political framework: India is a Republic, whereas the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.
- Provide dual UK citizenship.
- In India, the Prime Minister may come from either House of Parliament, unlike the UK, where he must be chosen from the lower House.
- Legislative framework: A former speaker does not have a political affiliation in the UK because of the custom that once a speaker, always a speaker. However, in India, the speaker is still a party member.
- In the UK, Parliament is the ultimate power, whereas the Indian Constitution is.
- Russia Executive configuration: In both nations, the President appoints the prime minister.
- Legislative framework: Similar to India, the Lower House is more powerful.
- Both of them include a clause outlining essential rights.
- Political Framework: While India has a parliamentary type of government, Russia has a semi-presidential administration.
- Setup for executives: In the event of the president’s demise or resignation in Russia, the prime minister takes over as president; in India, the vice president assumes that role.
- In India, there is no restriction on the number of consecutive terms a president may serve, unlike in Russia.
- In Russia, the President is more powerful, whereas, in India, the Prime Minister is more influential.
- The term of the Russian president is 6 years, compared to the Indian president’s 5 years.
- Legislative framework: In India, the First Past the Post System is used to elect members of the Lower House, whereas, in Russia, the Proportional Representation System is used.
- Judicial set-up: In contrast to India, Russia does not have a single integrated judicial system.
Although India’s constitution borrowed from other nations in many ways, it was an effort to make sure that the government functioned effectively, fairly, and responsibly. It makes certain that the government abides by the law. It creates a system of checks and balances to guarantee that the government follows the right legislative process when passing new laws or amending existing ones.
- Historical background of the Indian Constitution.
- Constitution of India: List of All Articles (1-395) and Parts (1-22).
- Indian Constitution Parts and Articles.
- Parts of Indian Constitution: A brief overview.
- Schedules of Indian Constitution: A brief overview.
- Must-Know Articles of Indian Constitution: A brief overview.
Article Written By: Atheena Fathima Riyas