The Indian Constitution Compared: Sources, the UK and the USA
Sources of the Indian Constitution and a feature-by-feature comparison with the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland — executive, federalism, rights, judicial review, amendment.
SyllabusGS II · Comparison of the Indian constitutional scheme with that of other countries
Prerequisites: Constitutional Framework · Federalism and Centre-State Relations
The Hook: “Nobody Holds Any Patent Rights”
On 4 November 1948, Dr B.R. Ambedkar moved the Draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly. Critics had called it a patchwork of foreign constitutions and a copy of the Government of India Act, 1935. Ambedkar replied that there was nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing: “Nobody holds any patent rights in the fundamental ideas of a Constitution.” What mattered, he argued, was how the borrowed ideas were adapted to Indian conditions.
That defence frames this chapter: what did India take from other constitutions, what did it change, and how does the result compare with the originals?
The Core Concept
1. Where the features came from
The single largest source is the Government of India Act, 1935 — the administrative and federal skeleton. Political philosophy came from the Objectives Resolution and the freedom movement. Specific institutions came from many countries:
| Source | Features adopted |
|---|---|
| Government of India Act, 1935 | Federal scheme, office of Governor, judiciary, Public Service Commissions, emergency provisions, administrative details |
| United Kingdom | Parliamentary government, rule of law, legislative procedure, single citizenship, Cabinet system, prerogative writs, parliamentary privileges, bicameralism |
| United States | Fundamental Rights, independence of the judiciary, judicial review, impeachment of the President, removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges, post of Vice-President |
| Ireland | Directive Principles of State Policy, nomination of members to the Rajya Sabha, method of election of the President |
| Canada | Federation with a strong Centre, residuary powers with the Centre, appointment of State Governors by the Centre, advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court |
| Australia | Concurrent List, freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, joint sitting of the two Houses |
| Weimar Germany | Suspension of Fundamental Rights during an emergency |
| USSR | Fundamental Duties; ideals of justice — social, economic and political — in the Preamble |
| France | Republic; ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Preamble |
| South Africa | Procedure for amendment of the Constitution; election of members of the Rajya Sabha |
| Japan | “Procedure established by law” (Article 21) |
2. Why a parliamentary and not a presidential executive?
In the same speech of 4 November 1948, Ambedkar compared the two systems. The American system, he said, gives more stability but less responsibility; the British system gives more responsibility but less stability. The Draft Constitution preferred responsibility — daily accountability of the executive to the legislature — over a fixed-term executive.
graph LR
A[Parliamentary - India, UK] --> B[Executive drawn from and responsible to legislature]
B --> C[Can be removed by no-confidence motion]
D[Presidential - USA] --> E[Executive separate from legislature]
E --> F[Fixed four-year term; removal only by impeachment]3. India and the United Kingdom
| Feature | India | United Kingdom |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution | Written and codified | Uncodified — statutes, conventions, judicial decisions |
| Supremacy | Constitution — Parliament’s laws can be struck down | Parliament — courts cannot strike down primary legislation |
| Head of State | President, indirectly elected for five years | Hereditary monarch |
| Nature of State | Republic; federal with unitary bias | Monarchy; unitary, with devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland |
| Ministers | Must be MPs, or become one within six months (Article 75(5)) | Members of Parliament by convention |
| Legal responsibility of ministers | No countersignature system; courts cannot inquire into advice to the President (Article 74(2)) | Ministers countersign official acts of the Crown |
| Top court | Supreme Court since 1950, with judicial review | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom since 2009 (Constitutional Reform Act, 2005); earlier the House of Lords |
| Upper House | Rajya Sabha — mostly indirectly elected, represents States | House of Lords — not elected |
4. India and the United States
| Feature | India | United States |
|---|---|---|
| Executive | Parliamentary; President is nominal head; PM and Council of Ministers hold real power | Presidential; President is both head of State and government |
| Term of executive | Government lasts as long as it has Lok Sabha confidence | Fixed four-year term; two-term limit (22nd Amendment) |
| Citizenship | Single | Dual — of the United States and of the state of residence |
| State constitutions | One Constitution for Union and States | Each state has its own constitution |
| Residuary powers | Union (Article 248) | States (10th Amendment) |
| Upper House | Rajya Sabha — seats in proportion to population | Senate — two senators per state, equal representation |
| Vice-President | Ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha | President of the Senate |
| Judicial review standard | “Procedure established by law” (Article 21), read since Maneka Gandhi (1978) to require a fair, just and reasonable procedure | “Due process of law” (5th and 14th Amendments) |
| Amendment | Initiated only in Parliament; special majority; ratification by half the States for federal provisions (Article 368) | Proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress (or a convention called on the application of two-thirds of the states); ratified by three-fourths of the states |
| Removal of head of State | Impeachment for “violation of the Constitution” (Article 61); two-thirds of total membership of each House | House of Representatives impeaches; Senate convicts by two-thirds |
| Federal character | “Indestructible Union of destructible States” — Parliament can reorganise States (Article 3) | “An indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States” (Texas v. White, 1869) |
5. Canada, Australia and Ireland — the specific borrowings
- Canada: like India, a federation with a strong Centre and residuary powers at the Centre; provincial heads (Lieutenant Governors) are appointed by the federal government — the model for Indian Governors. Its Supreme Court’s advisory role parallels Article 143.
- Australia: a Concurrent List and the guarantee of free trade and commerce across the federation (India: Articles 301–307); joint sittings to resolve deadlocks (India: Article 108).
- Ireland: the Irish Constitution of 1937 contains “Directive Principles of Social Policy” that are not enforceable in courts — the model for Part IV. Ireland also nominates members to its Senate, the model for the 12 nominated Rajya Sabha members (Article 80).
6. What makes India’s Constitution distinctive
- Synthesis of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy: Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973); courts can review laws, but within the text’s limits.
- Blend of rigidity and flexibility: three types of amendment — simple majority (outside Article 368), special majority, and special majority with ratification by half the States.
- Integrated judiciary and All India Services in a federal system.
- Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles alongside enforceable rights.
- Length and detail: originally 395 articles, 22 Parts and 8 Schedules — one of the longest written constitutions in the world.
Memory Anchors
Source mnemonic — first letters of the big five borrowings:
- Ireland → Instructions to the State (DPSP)
- Australia → All-shared list (Concurrent List)
- Canada → Centre-strong federation, residuary powers
- USA → Unalienable rights (Fundamental Rights), judicial review
- Kingdom (UK) → King-in-Parliament system (parliamentary government)
“I ACcept UK” → Ireland, Australia, Canada, USA, UK.
Odd sources: Weimar = Withdrawal of rights in emergency; USSR = duties; Japan = “procedure established by law”; South Africa = amendment procedure and Rajya Sabha elections.
One-line Mains hooks:
- Ambedkar: “more responsibility” (parliamentary) over “more stability” (presidential).
- Granville Austin described the Indian Constitution as “first and foremost a social document”.
For Prelims
- DPSP — Ireland; Fundamental Duties — USSR; Concurrent List — Australia; residuary powers with Centre — Canada.
- Suspension of Fundamental Rights in emergency — Weimar Germany.
- “Procedure established by law” — Japan; “due process of law” — USA.
- Amendment procedure and election of Rajya Sabha members — South Africa.
- Parliamentary privileges, prerogative writs, single citizenship — UK.
- Vice-President and impeachment of the President — USA.
- The largest single source is the Government of India Act, 1935.
For Mains
- Dimensions: executive (parliamentary vs presidential; stability vs accountability); federal (holding-together vs coming-together federations); judicial (review, basic structure, due process); rights (enforceable FRs vs non-justiciable DPSPs); amendment (flexibility vs rigidity).
- Keywords: holding-together federation, coming-together federation, constitutional supremacy, parliamentary sovereignty, separation vs fusion of powers, checks and balances, constitutional borrowing, constitutional morality.
- Value-addition: Ambedkar’s 4 November 1948 speech; Kesavananda Bharati (1973); Maneka Gandhi (1978) bringing a due-process-like standard into Article 21; Texas v. White (1869) for US federalism; K.C. Wheare’s “quasi-federal” description of India.
Common Traps
Practice
Prelims
Consider the following pairs:
| Feature of the Indian Constitution | Borrowed from |
|---|---|
| 1. Directive Principles of State Policy | Ireland |
| 2. Concurrent List | Australia |
| 3. Residuary powers with the Centre | Canada |
| 4. Suspension of Fundamental Rights during emergency | Weimar Germany |
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?
Solution
All four are correctly matched. Note the common distractors: residuary powers with the states is the US model; Fundamental Duties come from the USSR.
Answer: D
Which of the following features of the Indian Constitution distinguish it from the constitutional system of the United Kingdom?
- A written, codified Constitution
- A parliamentary form of government
- Judicial review of laws made by the legislature
- An elected Head of State
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Solution
India has a written Constitution (UK’s is uncodified), judicial review of legislation (UK Parliament is sovereign), and an elected President (UK has a hereditary monarch). The parliamentary form is shared — India borrowed it from the UK.
Answer: B
The expression “procedure established by law” in Article 21 of the Constitution of India was adopted from the Constitution of:
Solution
Japan. The US Constitution uses “due process of law”. The Constituent Assembly deliberately chose the narrower phrase, though the Supreme Court has since read fairness into it (Maneka Gandhi, 1978).
Answer: A
Mains
“The Indian Constitution is a bag of borrowings.” Critically examine this view with suitable examples.
Solution
Introduction: Critics in and after the Constituent Assembly called the Constitution a patchwork of foreign constitutions and a reworked Government of India Act, 1935. Ambedkar replied that no one holds patent rights in constitutional ideas.
Body:
- Basis of the criticism: the 1935 Act’s federal scheme, Governor’s office and emergency powers; UK’s parliamentary system; US Fundamental Rights and judicial review; Irish Directive Principles; Canadian strong-Centre federation; Australian Concurrent List.
- Why “borrowing” is not copying: adaptation — parliamentary government with an elected President; judicial review without US-style “due process”, later enriched by Maneka Gandhi; federalism with a strong Centre suited to a diverse, newly partitioned nation; DPSPs made “fundamental in governance” (Article 37).
- Indian innovations: basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973); reservation and special provisions for SCs, STs and backward classes; Fifth and Sixth Schedules; Panchayati Raj (73rd and 74th Amendments); integrated judiciary; single election machinery; Fundamental Duties.
- Indian roots: the Objectives Resolution (1946), the freedom movement’s demands (Karachi Resolution, 1931, on Fundamental Rights), and social reform ideals.
Conclusion: The Constitution borrowed institutions but built a distinctly Indian synthesis — a social document (Granville Austin) aimed at a social revolution through democratic means.
Quick Revision
| Point | One-liner |
|---|---|
| Largest source | Government of India Act, 1935 |
| UK | Parliamentary system, rule of law, single citizenship, writs |
| USA | Fundamental Rights, judicial review, impeachment, Vice-President |
| Ireland | DPSP, Rajya Sabha nominations, presidential election method |
| Canada | Strong Centre, residuary powers, Governors appointed by Centre |
| Australia | Concurrent List, trade and commerce, joint sitting |
| Weimar Germany | Suspension of FRs during emergency |
| USSR | Fundamental Duties; social, economic, political justice |
| Japan | “Procedure established by law” |
| South Africa | Amendment procedure; Rajya Sabha elections |
| Ambedkar | Parliamentary = more responsibility; presidential = more stability |
Key Takeaways
- The Constitution borrowed institutions from many sources, but its administrative backbone is the Government of India Act, 1935.
- India chose parliamentary responsibility over presidential stability, and a strong-Centre federation over a US-style compact of states.
- Indian innovations — the basic structure doctrine, social justice provisions and Panchayati Raj — make it a synthesis, not a copy.
Related Topics
- Comparison — quick revision
- Comparison — practice questions
- Constitutional Framework
- Amendment and the Basic Structure
- Centre-State Relations