Comparison of Constitutions
Comparison of the Indian Constitution with Other Constitutions
The Indian Constitution is often called a "beautiful mosaic" (Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar) because it draws from the constitutions and governance systems of at least 10 countries while creating a uniquely Indian synthesis. The Constituent Assembly, guided by Constitutional Advisor B.N. Rau's comparative study of 60+ constitutions, adopted and adapted features from the British parliamentary system, American Bill of Rights and judicial review, Irish Directive Principles, Canadian strong-centre federalism, Australian concurrent powers, German emergency provisions, South African amendment procedure, Soviet fundamental duties, French republican ideals, and Japanese procedural law — all resting on the massive structural foundation of the Government of India Act 1935. Understanding these borrowings and the specific modifications made by the Assembly is essential for competitive exams and for appreciating why the Indian Constitution works the way it does.
Key Dates
Magna Carta signed in England — foundation of rule of law, due process, and constitutionalism; the philosophical ancestor of all modern constitutions including India's
English Bill of Rights — established parliamentary supremacy, limited monarchy; influenced India's parliamentary system and the concept that the executive is answerable to the legislature
US Constitution adopted at the Philadelphia Convention — established federalism, separation of powers, Bill of Rights (1791), and judicial review (Marbury v. Madison, 1803); key influences on India
British North America Act (Canadian Constitution) — introduced federation with a strong centre and residuary powers at the federal level; directly followed by India
Meiji Constitution (Japan) — established constitutional monarchy; Japan's 1947 Constitution later provided the "procedure established by law" concept for India's Art 21
Australian Constitution came into effect — provided the Concurrent List model, joint sitting mechanism, and freedom of trade provisions adopted by India
Weimar Constitution (Germany) — established a republic with fundamental rights and emergency provisions; influenced India's emergency powers and suspension of FRs
Spanish Constitution — introduced Directive Principles; influenced the Irish Constitution (1937), which in turn influenced India's DPSPs
Government of India Act, 1935 — the single LARGEST source of the Indian Constitution; ~250 of 395 original articles adapted from it; federal scheme, Governor, emergency provisions, PSCs, three lists, judiciary
Soviet Constitution (USSR) — incorporated fundamental duties of citizens alongside fundamental rights; influenced India's Fundamental Duties (added 1976)
Irish Constitution (Constitution of Eire) — incorporated DPSPs (Art 45), nominated Senate members, proportional representation for President; all adopted by India
B.N. Rau (Constitutional Advisor) visited USA (consulted Justice Felix Frankfurter), UK, Canada, and Ireland to study their constitutional systems; prepared comparative notes on 60+ constitutions
Japanese Constitution promulgated under American occupation — provided "procedure established by law" concept (Art 31) that India adopted in Art 21, distinguished from American "due process"
Indian Constitution adopted — the longest written constitution in the world, synthesizing features from 10+ countries with unique Indian innovations into 395 articles, 22 parts, 8 schedules
Kesavananda Bharati — SC created the Basic Structure Doctrine, a uniquely Indian constitutional innovation with no parallel in any other country's jurisprudence
British Influence — Parliamentary System, Rule of Law, and Westminster Conventions
The British constitutional system has had the most pervasive and deep-rooted influence on the Indian Constitution, primarily because India was under British rule for nearly two centuries and Indian political leaders were educated in British universities and trained in British legal traditions. The Government of India Act 1935 — a British statute — served as the structural foundation. Features borrowed from Britain: (1) Parliamentary form of government (Westminster model) — the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers are drawn from the majority party in the Lok Sabha and are collectively responsible to it; the PM is "first among equals"; the government must command the confidence of the lower house; a no-confidence motion can bring down the government; (2) Rule of Law — Dicey's three principles: (a) absence of arbitrary power / supremacy of law, (b) equality before law (no one is above the law — Art 14), (c) constitution is the result of ordinary law; (3) Single citizenship — unlike the American dual citizenship (federal + state), India has only one citizenship for the entire country; (4) Legislative procedure — the process of introducing, debating, and passing Bills follows the Westminster model: first reading (introduction), second reading (general discussion + committee stage), third reading (final vote); Money Bills can only be introduced in the lower house; (5) Speaker's role and office — modeled on the Speaker of the House of Commons: non-partisan, casting vote, maintenance of order, certification of Money Bills; (6) Cabinet government — the collective decision-making of the Cabinet, the PM's role as primus inter pares, the doctrine of collective responsibility (Art 75(3)), individual ministerial responsibility; (7) Bicameralism — Rajya Sabha loosely corresponds to the House of Lords (though with significant differences — RS members are elected, not hereditary/nominated); (8) Prerogative Writs — Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto, borrowed from English common law and available under Art 32 (SC) and Art 226 (HCs); (9) Parliamentary privileges — Art 105 (Parliament) and Art 194 (state legislatures); originally the Constitution explicitly referenced the privileges of the House of Commons; (10) The concept of the "Crown" transformed into the "State" — the Government sues and is sued in the name of the Union/State (Art 300). CRITICAL MODIFICATION: India departed from Britain by having a written, supreme constitution with fundamental rights (the UK has no codified constitution or entrenched bill of rights) and judicial review of legislation (British courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament — parliamentary sovereignty). India also has a republic with an elected President, unlike Britain's hereditary monarchy.
American Influence — Fundamental Rights, Judicial Review, and Federal Structure
The United States Constitution influenced several of the most important features of the Indian Constitution. (1) Fundamental Rights — Part III of the Indian Constitution (Art 12-35) is modeled on the US Bill of Rights (first ten amendments, ratified 1791). However, there are critical differences: the US Bill of Rights uses absolute language ("Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"), while Indian FRs include explicit reasonable restrictions (Art 19(2)-(6) enumerate 8 grounds for restricting the 6 freedoms). Also, Indian FRs are available against the "State" (defined in Art 12 to include government, Parliament, legislatures, local authorities, and "other authorities"), whereas US rights were originally only against federal government (extended to states by the 14th Amendment). (2) Judicial review — the power of the judiciary to declare laws unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution, established in the US by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803); explicitly provided in India through Art 13 (laws inconsistent with FRs are void), Art 32 (Supreme Court), Art 226 (High Courts), and Art 245-246 (legislative competence). (3) Independence of the judiciary — security of tenure, fixed service conditions, and removal only by a quasi-judicial process (impeachment); salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund (cannot be reduced to the disadvantage of a sitting judge). (4) Federal structure — division of powers between Centre and states through enumerated lists (though India's federalism is far more centralized than America's). (5) Written and supreme constitution — the idea of a single document that is the supreme law, against which all other laws are tested. (6) President as head of state — though the Indian President is largely ceremonial (acting on ministerial advice under Art 74), unlike the US President who is the actual executive head. (7) Vice-President — presides over the upper house (Rajya Sabha, Art 89), similar to the US VP presiding over the Senate. (8) Removal of SC/HC judges — the impeachment process (Art 124(4), 217(1)(b)) for proved misbehavior or incapacity is borrowed from the US model. (9) Preamble — the idea of beginning with "We the People" comes directly from the US Constitution.
Irish Influence — DPSPs, Rajya Sabha Nominations, and Presidential Election
The Constitution of Ireland (1937), also known as Bunreacht na hEireann or the Constitution of Eire, influenced several distinctive features of the Indian Constitution. The Irish Constitution was itself a creative blend of the British parliamentary tradition with innovative social policy provisions. (1) Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV, Art 36-51) — borrowed from the Irish Constitution's "Directive Principles of Social Policy" (Article 45). These are non-justiciable guidelines for the state in governance and policymaking — the state shall strive to implement them but no court can compel it. The Irish DPSPs were themselves influenced by the Spanish Constitution of 1931, which first introduced the concept of constitutionalizing social and economic policy objectives without making them enforceable. However, the Indian DPSPs are FAR more detailed and comprehensive than the Irish version — Ireland's Article 45 has only 4 sub-clauses, while India's Part IV spans 16 articles covering everything from equal pay to prohibition of cow slaughter. (2) Nomination of members to the Rajya Sabha — Art 80(1)(a) allows the President to nominate 12 members with special knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art, and social service; modeled on the Irish Seanad (Senate), where the Taoiseach (PM) nominates 11 members. (3) Method of election of the President — the Indian President is elected by an electoral college through the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote (STV), as specified in Art 55; this method is modeled on the Irish presidential election. (4) The concept of a directive that guides state policy without being enforceable — the philosophical framework of creating two categories of rights (justiciable FRs and non-justiciable DPSPs) was directly inspired by the Irish distinction between "Fundamental Rights" (enforceable) and "Directive Principles" (guiding). B.N. Rau visited Ireland specifically to study this feature and met with President Eamon de Valera and Chief Justice of Ireland.
Canadian Influence — Federation with Strong Centre and Residuary Powers
The Canadian Constitution (originally the British North America Act, 1867, now the Constitution Act, 1867) had a decisive influence on India's federal structure — perhaps the most consequential borrowing after the British parliamentary system. (1) Federation with a strong centre — the Indian model of federalism is often described as "quasi-federal" (K.C. Wheare's term) or "federal with a unitary bias." Following the Canadian pattern, residuary powers vest in the Centre, not in the states. This is the OPPOSITE of the American model, where the 10th Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. The choice of the Canadian over the American model was deliberate — the Assembly was acutely conscious of centrifugal forces (linguistic, religious, caste-based) that could tear India apart and wanted a strong Centre to hold the nation together. (2) Distribution of powers between Centre and states — Art 246 read with the Seventh Schedule establishes three lists: Union List (List I — 100 entries, Parliament exclusive), State List (List II — 61 entries, state legislature exclusive), and Concurrent List (List III — 52 entries, both can legislate, Centre prevails in conflict). Canada has only TWO lists (federal and provincial); India's addition of a Concurrent List is borrowed from Australia. (3) Vesting of residuary powers in the Centre — Art 248 and Entry 97 of the Union List explicitly give Parliament the power to legislate on any matter not enumerated in any of the three lists. (4) Appointment of state Governors by the Centre — Art 155-156 provide for Governors to be appointed by the President (on advice of the Central government) and serve during the President's pleasure; modeled on the Canadian Lieutenant-Governors appointed by the federal government. (5) Advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — Art 143 (President can refer questions of law or fact to the SC for its opinion) is modeled on Section 53 of the Canadian Supreme Court Act. (6) The term "Union of States" — Art 1 describes India as a "Union of States," directly echoing the Canadian formulation. Ambedkar explained in the Assembly: the word "Union" was chosen (instead of "Federation") to emphasize that the Indian federation was not the result of an agreement among sovereign states (as in the US) but was an indestructible union — no state has the right to secede.
Australian Influence — Concurrent List, Joint Sitting, and Freedom of Trade
The Australian Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1901) influenced three specific features of the Indian Constitution. (1) Concurrent List — the concept of a list of subjects on which BOTH the Centre and states can legislate (List III of the Seventh Schedule, 52 entries) was borrowed from Australia. In Australia, the federal Parliament has enumerated powers (Section 51), and states retain residuary powers, but there is an overlap where both can legislate — with federal law prevailing in case of inconsistency (Section 109). India adapted this: the Concurrent List is explicitly enumerated (unlike Australia's implied concurrency), and Art 254 provides that in case of conflict, the Central law prevails unless the state law has received Presidential assent. (2) Joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament — Art 108 provides for a joint sitting of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to resolve deadlocks on ordinary bills (not Money Bills or Constitutional Amendment Bills). The presiding officer at the joint sitting is the Speaker of Lok Sabha (Art 108(4)). This is modeled on the Australian provision for joint sittings (Section 57) to resolve deadlocks between the House of Representatives and the Senate (called "double dissolution" in Australia). Joint sittings have been used only 3 times in Indian parliamentary history: (a) Dowry Prohibition Bill, 1961; (b) Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill, 1978; (c) Prevention of Terrorism Bill (POTA), 2002. (3) Freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse — Art 301 (freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory of India) and Art 302-307 (restrictions on trade/commerce, compensatory taxes, discriminatory taxes) draw from the Australian Constitution's Section 92 (trade, commerce, and intercourse among the states shall be absolutely free). However, India qualifies this freedom extensively through Art 302 (Parliament can impose restrictions in public interest) and Art 304 (states can impose reasonable restrictions with Presidential assent).
German (Weimar) Influence — Emergency Provisions and FR Suspension
The Weimar Constitution of Germany (1919) — the constitution of the Weimar Republic that preceded Nazi Germany — influenced the most controversial features of the Indian Constitution: the emergency provisions. (1) Suspension of Fundamental Rights during Emergency — Art 358 provides that when a National Emergency under Art 352 is in operation, the six freedoms under Art 19 are automatically suspended. Art 359 empowers the President to suspend the right to move courts for enforcement of FRs (except Art 20 and 21, as protected by the 44th Amendment). This power to suspend fundamental rights during a state of emergency was directly inspired by Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which gave the Reich President the power to suspend fundamental rights "if public security and order are seriously disturbed or endangered." (2) Emergency provisions converting federation into unitary state — during a National Emergency, the federal character of the Constitution is transformed: Parliament can legislate on State List subjects (Art 250), the distribution of revenues between Centre and states can be altered (Art 354), and the term of Lok Sabha can be extended (Art 83(2)). This conversion of a federal structure into an effectively unitary one during emergency was modeled on the Weimar experience. The bitter irony is that Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution was used by Adolf Hitler in 1933 to suspend all civil liberties and establish the Nazi dictatorship — a lesson that Indian critics cited during the 1975-77 Emergency when similar provisions were used. The 44th Amendment (1978), passed after the Emergency, added safeguards: Art 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency; Art 359 orders must be laid before Parliament; internal disturbance (renamed "armed rebellion") requires Cabinet's written recommendation. Despite these safeguards, the emergency provisions remain the most debated borrowing in the Constitution.
South African Influence — Amendment Procedure and RS Election
The Constitution of South Africa (the South Africa Act, 1909 — the pre-apartheid constitution, not the post-apartheid 1996 constitution) influenced two specific features. (1) Procedure for amendment of the Constitution — Art 368 provides the procedure for amending the Indian Constitution. The South African Constitution provided for different levels of amendment — some provisions could be amended by ordinary majority, while others required a special majority. India adopted a similar three-tier amendment process: (a) Simple majority — certain provisions can be amended by ordinary legislative process (Art 2, 3 — admission/creation of new states; Art 169 — abolition of Legislative Councils; citizenship; elections; language provisions); these are NOT considered amendments under Art 368; (b) Special majority — most provisions require a majority of the total membership of each House AND two-thirds of members present and voting (Art 368(2)); (c) Special majority PLUS ratification by half the state legislatures — provisions affecting the federal structure require the special majority plus ratification by at least half the states (e.g., election of President, distribution of powers, Seventh Schedule, representation of states in Parliament, Art 368 itself). (2) Election of members to Rajya Sabha — Art 80(4) provides that members of the Rajya Sabha are elected by the elected members of state legislative assemblies through proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. This method of indirect election of the upper house was influenced by the South African Senate's indirect election model.
Japanese Influence — "Procedure Established by Law" vs "Due Process"
The Japanese Constitution (1947), drafted under American occupation but incorporating elements of Japanese legal tradition, influenced one specific but critically important provision. Article 31 of the Japanese Constitution states: "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty, nor shall any other criminal penalty be imposed, except according to procedure established by law." India adopted this formulation in Art 21: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." This was a DELIBERATE choice by the Constituent Assembly — the alternative was the American "due process of law" (5th and 14th Amendments). The difference is crucial: "procedure established by law" means that as long as a law exists prescribing a procedure, the government can deprive a person of life or liberty — the court cannot question the reasonableness or fairness of the procedure. "Due process of law" (American model) allows courts to examine whether the procedure AND the law itself are fair, just, and reasonable — both procedural and substantive due process. The Constituent Assembly, led by Ambedkar, chose the Japanese formulation because they feared that importing "due process" would give the judiciary too much power to strike down social legislation (particularly land reform and nationalization laws) as the US Supreme Court had done in the Lochner era. However, the Supreme Court effectively imported substantive due process through judicial interpretation in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that the "procedure" in Art 21 must be "right, just, and fair" — not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. This judicial transformation made the practical difference between Art 21 and the American due process clause minimal, but the textual origin remains the Japanese Constitution.
French Influence — Republic, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
The French constitutional tradition, rooted in the French Revolution of 1789 and its motto "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite," influenced the ideological foundations of the Indian Constitution. (1) Republic — the concept of a republic (res publica — "public affair"), where the head of state is elected and there is no hereditary ruler or privileged aristocracy, was reinforced by the French Republican tradition. While "republic" as a concept predates France (Rome, Athens), the modern republican movement was most powerfully articulated during the French Revolution. (2) Liberty, Equality, Fraternity — these three ideals appear directly in the Preamble. Liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship) draws from the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789). Equality (of status and of opportunity) reflects the French ideal that all citizens are equal before the law, regardless of birth or privilege. Fraternity (assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation) reflects the French emphasis on brotherhood (fraternite) as the social glue binding citizens in a republic. Dr. Ambedkar explicitly acknowledged the French influence in the Constituent Assembly debates, noting that without fraternity, liberty and equality could not be achieved. The French Revolution also influenced the concept of "social justice" in the Preamble — the idea that political revolution must be accompanied by social transformation. However, India departed from the French tradition in several ways: India adopted a parliamentary system (not the French semi-presidential system), India has a written and rigid constitution (French constitutions have been rewritten multiple times — the current Fifth Republic Constitution dates from 1958), and India combines the French ideals with British parliamentary conventions and American judicial review.
Soviet (USSR) Influence — Fundamental Duties and Social Justice
The Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, 1936 — the "Stalin Constitution") influenced specific features of the Indian Constitution, though this influence is often downplayed in Indian constitutional scholarship. (1) Fundamental Duties — Art 51A (Part IVA), added by the 42nd Amendment (1976) on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee, was directly inspired by the Soviet Constitution. The Soviet Constitution of 1936 was distinctive in including both fundamental rights AND fundamental duties of citizens as integral constitutional features — it held that rights and duties were inseparable, and citizens who enjoyed rights must also fulfill duties towards the state and society. India adopted this concept: the 11 Fundamental Duties (Art 51A(a)-(k)) include duties to respect the National Anthem and Flag, uphold sovereignty and integrity, promote harmony, protect the environment, develop scientific temper, safeguard public property, and provide education for children. (2) Ideals of justice — the Preamble's emphasis on "social, economic, and political" justice was influenced by socialist ideals articulated in the Soviet Constitution (Chapter X, Art 118-121 — right to work, rest, leisure, social security, education). (3) Five-Year Plans — while not a constitutional provision, the concept of centralized economic planning through Five-Year Plans (1951-2017) was adopted from the Soviet model and implemented through the Planning Commission (1950-2014, replaced by NITI Aayog in 2015). (4) The concept of a "welfare state" — the DPSPs (particularly Art 38-43A) reflect the Soviet influence on the Constituent Assembly's thinking about the state's obligation to ensure economic security. However, India rejected the Soviet model of one-party rule, state ownership of all means of production, and suppression of political dissent — opting instead for multi-party democracy, mixed economy, and constitutional protection of civil liberties.
Government of India Act 1935 — The Single Largest Source
The Government of India Act, 1935 is the single most important source of the Indian Constitution — approximately 250 of the original 395 articles were drawn or adapted from it. This Act was the most extensive constitutional legislation passed by the British Parliament for India and served as the structural skeleton over which the Constituent Assembly built the flesh and soul of the Republic. Specific borrowings: (1) Federal scheme — the division of powers between the Centre and provinces (states) through legislative lists; (2) Role of the Governor — the powers and functions of the Governor of a state under the Indian Constitution closely mirror those of the provincial Governors under the 1935 Act; (3) Emergency provisions — the powers of the Centre during emergencies, including the ability to take over state government, were adapted from the 1935 Act (Section 93 — Governor's Rule ≈ President's Rule under Art 356); (4) Public Service Commissions — the UPSC (Art 315-323) and State PSCs were first established under the 1935 Act and continued with modifications; (5) Three legislative lists — the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists in the Seventh Schedule are modeled on the Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent Lists of the 1935 Act; (6) Judiciary — the Federal Court under the 1935 Act became the model for the Supreme Court, and provincial High Courts continued; (7) Administrative structure — the bureaucratic framework, distribution of administrative powers, and the relationship between the central and provincial executives; (8) Office of the Auditor General (Art 148-151); (9) Detailed procedure for financial relations between Centre and states (Art 268-281). Critics, including K. Hanumanthaiya in the Constituent Assembly, complained: "We wanted the music of Veena or Sitar, but here we have the music of an English band." However, Ambedkar defended the borrowing: the 1935 Act was a comprehensive governance framework that had been tested over a decade of actual administration — it would have been impractical to ignore this experience and start from scratch. The crucial difference: the 1935 Act was a colonial statute designed to perpetuate British control with limited self-government; the Indian Constitution transformed this framework into a sovereign, democratic, republican charter with fundamental rights, popular sovereignty, and universal adult franchise.
Unique Indian Features — Not Borrowed from Any Constitution
Despite borrowing extensively, the Indian Constitution has several features that are uniquely Indian or significantly modified from any foreign source. (1) Length and detail — with 395 articles originally, now ~470+ articles, 25 Parts, and 12 Schedules, it is the LONGEST written constitution in the world; by comparison, the US Constitution has only 7 articles and 27 amendments; (2) Blend of rigidity and flexibility — three-tier amendment process (simple majority, special majority, special majority + state ratification); neither purely rigid (like the US, requiring supermajority + state ratification for all amendments) nor purely flexible (like the UK, where any law can be changed by ordinary legislation); (3) Basic Structure Doctrine — judicially created in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973); no other country's judiciary has established a comparable limitation on the amending power; it is considered India's most significant contribution to global constitutional jurisprudence; (4) Integrated judicial system — unlike the US (separate federal and state court systems) or the UK (historically no judicial review), India has a single hierarchy (SC → HCs → District Courts → Subordinate Courts) with the power of judicial review at every level; (5) Panchayati Raj as a constitutional institution — the 73rd (rural) and 74th (urban) Amendments (1992) made local self-government a constitutionally mandated institution with elections, reservations, and devolution of powers; no other constitution has comparable provisions; (6) Comprehensive SC/ST/OBC provisions — Art 15(4), 16(4), 17, 46, 330-332, 338-342, Fifth Schedule, Sixth Schedule, Ninth Schedule — no other constitution has such detailed affirmative action and protection mechanisms for historically disadvantaged groups; (7) Three types of emergencies — National (Art 352), State/President's Rule (Art 356), Financial (Art 360) — each with distinct triggers, effects, and safeguards; (8) Twelve Schedules — covering territories, salaries, oaths, Council allocations, Scheduled Areas, tribal councils, Union/State/Concurrent Lists, languages, land reform/reservation laws (Ninth Schedule), anti-defection (Tenth Schedule), Panchayats (Eleventh Schedule), Municipalities (Twelfth Schedule); (9) Single citizenship with universal adult franchise from Day 1 — India adopted universal adult suffrage immediately (Art 326), unlike the US (which took until 1920 for women, 1965 for effective African American suffrage) or the UK (universal suffrage only from 1928); (10) Combination of parliamentary sovereignty with judicial review — a synthesis of British and American systems that creates a unique constitutional balance.
B.N. Rau's Comparative Study — The Research Behind the Borrowings
The comparative borrowings in the Indian Constitution were not accidental but the result of systematic research by B.N. Rau (Benegal Narsing Rau), the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly. Rau was an ICS officer-turned-constitutional scholar who studied the constitutions of over 60 countries and prepared detailed analytical notes for the Assembly. His research trips in 1946-47 were crucial: (1) United States — Rau met Justice Felix Frankfurter of the US Supreme Court, who advised him on judicial review, the Bill of Rights, and the dangers of importing "due process" (Frankfurter warned that "due process" had been used by conservative US courts to strike down progressive social legislation in the Lochner era, 1905-1937); this advice directly influenced the Assembly's choice of "procedure established by law" (from Japan) over "due process" for Art 21; (2) United Kingdom — Rau studied parliamentary conventions, the Speaker's role, the Cabinet system, and the relationship between the Crown and Parliament; (3) Canada — Rau studied the BNA Act's federal structure, particularly how residuary powers were vested in the federal government, how Governors were appointed, and how the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court worked; (4) Ireland — Rau met President Eamon de Valera and Chief Justice of Ireland, studying the DPSPs, the nominated Senate, and the presidential election system. Rau's initial draft (approximately 243 articles and 13 schedules) was the starting point for the Drafting Committee's work. Granville Austin called Rau "the single most important individual in the framing of the Constitution, after Ambedkar." Without Rau's comparative research, the Assembly would not have had the informed basis on which to select, adapt, and synthesize features from diverse constitutional traditions.
Scholarly Descriptions of the Indian Constitution
Several eminent scholars and constitutional authorities have offered memorable characterizations of the Indian Constitution that capture its unique nature. (1) K.C. Wheare (British political scientist) — called it "quasi-federal": "federal in form but unitary in spirit" — the strong Centre, Governor's appointment by President, single citizenship, integrated judiciary, emergency provisions, and All-India Services give it a unitary tilt; (2) Ivor Jennings (British constitutional scholar) — called it "the longest and most detailed constitutional document the world has seen" — noting that its verbosity was both a strength (precision, coverage) and a weakness (rigidity, lawyer's document); (3) Granville Austin (American political scientist) — called it "first and foremost a social document" — arguing that the majority of its provisions (especially FRs, DPSPs, reservation provisions) are aimed at achieving a social revolution by democratic means; Austin also called it "the most important political venture since that originated in Philadelphia in 1787"; (4) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — "All constitutions in their main provisions must look similar... What is necessary is that it must be able to effectively meet the needs of the country"; (5) Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar (Drafting Committee member) — called it "a beautiful piece of mosaic" — drawn from many sources but creating a uniquely Indian pattern; (6) D.D. Basu (noted constitutional scholar) — described it as "both federal and unitary according to the requirements of time and circumstances"; (7) K. Hanumanthaiya (Constituent Assembly member, critic) — "We wanted the music of Veena or Sitar, but here we have the music of an English band" — criticizing excessive British/Western influence; (8) H.V. Kamath (Assembly member) — called it "the parrot of many constitutions" — a criticism that Ambedkar directly addressed. These descriptions are frequently tested in UPSC and SSC exams.
Critical Assessment — "Borrowed" vs "Adapted" Constitution
The question of whether the Indian Constitution is merely a "borrowed" or "derivative" document has been debated since the Constituent Assembly itself. Critics like K. Hanumanthaiya, H.V. Kamath, and Somnath Lahiri argued that the Constitution was too heavily influenced by Western models and failed to incorporate indigenous Indian traditions of governance (Panchayat systems, Buddhist Sangha decision-making, Arthashastra principles). Defenders, led by Ambedkar, made several counter-arguments: (1) All modern constitutions borrow from each other — the US Constitution drew from Montesquieu (France), Locke (England), and classical Rome; the Australian Constitution drew from the US and UK; borrowing is universal; (2) The borrowing was not mechanical — each feature was studied, debated, and adapted to Indian conditions. Indian FRs include provisions for Indian realities (abolition of untouchability — Art 17, reservation provisions — Art 15(4)/16(4), protection of minority educational institutions — Art 30) absent in the US Bill of Rights; (3) The synthesis itself is unique — no other constitution combines British parliamentary government, American judicial review, Irish directive principles, Canadian federalism, and detailed affirmative action provisions in the same framework; (4) The Assembly created features with no foreign parallel — the Basic Structure Doctrine, Panchayati Raj, the comprehensive scheduling system, three types of emergencies, and the blend of rigidity and flexibility; (5) The Constitution has WORKED — India has maintained democracy for 75+ years despite extreme poverty, diversity, and regional tensions, unlike most post-colonial nations that experienced military coups or constitutional breakdowns within years of independence. The scholarly consensus, best expressed by Granville Austin: the Indian Constitution is not merely a borrowed document but a creative synthesis that adapted global constitutional traditions to India's unique challenges of diversity, development, and democracy.
Exam Significance — Most Frequently Tested Borrowings
This topic is tested in virtually every competitive exam. The most frequently tested borrowings (in order of exam frequency): (1) DPSPs from Ireland — the single most tested fact; (2) Federation with strong centre from Canada — especially "residuary powers with Centre" (Art 248); (3) Concurrent List from Australia; (4) Fundamental Duties from USSR/Soviet Union; (5) Judicial review from USA; (6) Parliamentary system from UK; (7) "Procedure established by law" from Japan (Art 21); (8) Emergency provisions/suspension of FRs from Germany (Weimar); (9) Amendment procedure from South Africa; (10) GoI Act 1935 as the single largest source. Common traps: (a) Single citizenship — from UK, NOT Canada (this is frequently wrong in options); (b) Advisory jurisdiction of SC — from Canada, NOT Australia; (c) Freedom of trade — from Australia, NOT Canada; (d) Concurrent List — from Australia, NOT Canada (Canada has only 2 lists); (e) RS nominations — from Ireland, NOT UK House of Lords; (f) "Due process" vs "procedure established by law" — India chose Japan, NOT US. Match-the-following and "consider the following statements" formats are the most common question types. The scholarly descriptions (Wheare — "quasi-federal"; Austin — "social document"; Jennings — "longest and most detailed"; Ayyar — "beautiful mosaic") are also regularly tested.
Relevant Exams
One of the highest-frequency topics across ALL competitive exams. Direct "which feature from which country" questions appear in nearly every SSC CGL, UPSC Prelims, and banking paper. Match-the-following format is the most common question type. Key traps: single citizenship from UK (not Canada), advisory jurisdiction from Canada (not Australia), Concurrent List from Australia (not Canada), RS nominations from Ireland (not UK). Scholarly descriptions of the Constitution are tested at UPSC level.