Comparison of Indian Constitutional Scheme With Other Countries

Different countries across the world have various principles on which the government of the country governs. It provides the citizens a means to act in a certain way.

But, not all constitutions are alike as a constitution of a country is made keeping in mind a lot of factors like demography, population, composition, and more.

To make a judgment about how well the Indian Constitution is, it becomes important for an individual to look at the other constitutions and compare them with the constitution of our country. Let us see the comparison of the Indian Constitutional Scheme with other Countries Constitution.

Comparison of Indian Constitutional Scheme With Other Countries

For the comparison of the Indian Constitution with that of other countries, it becomes vital to look at some of the features of the Indian constitution. The features are as follows-

Written Constitution

With a written constitution, one means that the constitution of India is a written, formal document, which contains –

a) the rules that are to be followed by the citizens of the country.
b) the rights that shall be exercised by the citizens.
c) and a constitutional settlement.

It is also usually said that the Indian Constitution was written by the lawyers, for the lawyers, as it contains a bunch of coding languages.

The Indian Constitution is the longest written constitution across the world.

The constitution of Britain is an unwritten constitution, where only a small part of the British Constitution is in a text form. However, the constitutions of the USA, Japan, and France are like that of India.

Blend of Rigidity and Flexibility

The Indian Constitution is a blend of Rigidity and Flexibility. Where it gives authority to the parliament and the president to make amendments to it, at the same time requires a strict process to be followed and taken care of.

The Indian constitution is known to be more flexible than rigid. The constitutions of the USA and Japan are more rigid as it can be amended by congress only by the means of a special process, as prescribed in the constitution.

The constitution of Britain does not require any specific procedure to be followed for the amendment of any act, hence it is a more flexible constitution.

A Federal System with Unitary Bias

A unitary system is where the country is governed by a single unit that is the constitutionally created legislature. Whereas, a federal system is where sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing body and subsequent political parties.

In India, we have a federal system with a unitary bias. That means, normally the system of the government is federal but the constitution provides a choice to the parliament to transform itself into a unitary system, as and when the need arises.

The USA is a federal state, just like India. However, countries like Japan, France, and Great Britain follow a unitary system of Government.

Parliamentary Form of Government

A parliamentary form of government is where the government executive is responsible to the legislature for its policies and acts. Whereas, a presidential form of government is where the executive and the legislature are separated.

The Indian Constitution provides for a parliamentary form of government both at the center and the state. Britain and Japan also follow a parliamentary form of government. However, the USA and France follow a presidential form of government.

Synthesis of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Supremacy

The meaning of the term Sovereignty is ‘Supreme Power’. Parliamentary sovereignty means that the utmost power has been granted to the parliament. It is overall the government institutions, including the executive and judiciary.

Unlike the British Parliament, the parliament of India is not a sovereign body, and the utmost power in the country is granted to the supreme court. It must be noted that one of the most vital features of the British Constitution is its parliamentary sovereignty.

The Constitution of France also provides parliamentary sovereignty but has limited powers. The Constitution of the USA and Japan is similar to that of India, in this regard.

An Integrated and Independent Judiciary

The Indian Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, which means that the government works under the provisions mentioned in the constitution. The judiciary has to act as a guardian of fundamental rights and liberties extended to the citizens.

FR, DPSP, FD

Fundamental Rights were made with a motive of promoting social and political democracy that is meant to establish a government of laws. In India, the fundamental rights were borrowed from the American Bill of Rights.

The Fundamental Rights that are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution are Right to equality, Right to freedom, Right to freedom of Religion, Right against exploitation, Cultural and Educational Rights, and Right to constitutional remedies.

Unlike India, the fundamental rights of the USA are absolute. Japan also has a bunch of fundamental rights, however, no such rights are mentioned in the constitution of Britain.

The fundamental duties are the rights of a citizen towards the country. Fundamental duties mentioned in the Indian Constitution were borrowed from the constitution of the USSR. It must be noted that no other major country has mentioned fundamental duties in their constitution.

The Directive Principles mentioned in the Indian Constitution were borrowed from the Constitution of Ireland. The directive principles are not enforceable, but the state shall keep in mind various factors while formulating rules and regulations.

Conclusion

So we have seen Comparison of Indian Constitutional Scheme With Other Countries. It becomes difficult to compare the constitutions of different countries.

The constitutions vary from each other in terms of population composition, history of struggle, geography, and demography. Indian Constitution, being a bag of borrowings, has features of different countries across the world.

Though it is borrowed one shall not ignore the fact that the Indian Constitution is unique in its way. The constitution of the country shall be flexible and hold the right to be changed with the changing times and the changing interests of its citizens.