Revision summary
Indian secularism: Preamble, Articles 25–28, Bommai as basic structure, personal laws, State reform of Hindu law and regulation of temples. US secularism: First Amendment establishment and free exercise, Everson’s wall, Engel on school prayer, no millet personal law. India practises principled distance and social reform; the United States practises non-establishment. Minority educational rights under Article 30 have no US analogue of that form. Neither wall nor distance is a finished peace with majoritarian politics. Comparison is of method, not of piety.
Model answer
Introduction
Both India and the United States refuse a theocratic State. They do not refuse it in the same grammar. India is a secular republic that regulates and reforms religion while funding aspects of it. The United States is a disestablished republic that spends more energy on a wall between church and Congress. Comparison is about those methods, not about which people are more devout.
Body
India as a secular state
Indian secularism is equal respect plus the power to reform.
- Peg: The Preamble, after the 42nd Amendment, describes India as secular; in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India the Court treated secularism as a basic feature even apart from that word.
- Peg: Articles 25 to 28 guarantee profession, practice and propagation, subject to public order, morality and health, and let the State throw open Hindu public institutions and regulate the economic side of religion.
- Peg: Articles 15, 16 and 17 outlaw caste in the public sphere; family law is still largely personal law unless a Uniform Civil Code is made under Article 44.
- Peg: Parliament reformed Hindu law in 1955–56; States run many temple boards; Article 30 protects minority educational institutions — principled distance, not absence.
United States principles
The First Amendment is two clauses, not a social-reform kit.
- Peg: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and it shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
- Peg: Everson v. Board of Education used Jefferson’s wall of separation and applied the establishment clause to the States.
- Peg: Engel v. Vitale held that a school-sponsored prayer, even a nondenominational one, breached that wall.
- Peg: There is no millet-style personal-law system by church; a federal statute recoding a majority religion’s family law, on the pattern of the Hindu Code, would be unthinkable.
Compare
Neither model is a copy; both struggle with majority sentiment.
- Peg: Indian secularism is often called positive: minority rights, the State as social reformer of majority personal law, religious equality as a project.
- Peg: US secularism is negative in the older sense: no established church, free exercise, no Uniform Civil Code to unify communities.
- Peg: India’s live tension is reform versus equal respect; America’s is public religion versus the wall.
- Peg: Transplanting Jefferson’s wall would freeze Article 17 and Hindu-code reform; transplanting Indian temple control to the US would explode the establishment clause.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD IN[India] --> D[Principled distance] D --> R[Reform personal law temple] US[USA] --> W[Wall of separation] W --> E[No establishment] W --> F[Free exercise] D --> EQ[Equal respect]
Conclusion
India’s secularism is equal respect plus the power to reform. The US model is disestablishment plus free exercise. Both check theocracy; only India writes the State in as a social reformer of religion.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
The Citizens' charter has been a landmark initiative in ensuring citizen-centric administration. But it is yet to reach its full potential. Identify the factors hindering the realisation of its promise and suggest measures to overcome them.
Next question in the 2024 paper (Q16). View answer →
-
Is India pseudo-secular because it regulates temples?
The text allows regulation of economic and social aspects and opening of Hindu institutions. That is a design, not a slip. Whether boards are fair is a separate governance question.
-
Does the United States have no religious politics?
It has plenty. It channels them through elections and free exercise, not through a Hindu Code Bill.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q3 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'? -
2024 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees, with particular reference to "one nation - one election" principle. -
2024 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity. -
2023 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
"Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy". Comment. -
2023 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
" The Construction of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society". Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty. -
2023 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the constitutional perspectives of Gender Justice with the help of relevant Constitutional Provisions and case laws. -
2023 · Q13 · GS II · 15 marks
Account for the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments since mid 1990s. -
2022 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
Discuss the role of the Vice -Presidents of India as the chairman of the Rajyasabha.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees, with particular reference to "one nation - one election" principle.
Indian Constitution
Tarkunde, Goswami, Law Commission 170/255 and the Election Commission have long asked for ceilings on party spend, faster petitions, and inner-party democracy. Candidate spend is capped; party spend is not, which is why money still dominates the poll. ADR disclosure and Lily Thomas reduced opacity and the conviction cushion; they did not end criminalisation. ONOE, as framed by the Kovind committee, promises one Model Code freeze, lower cost and less policy freeze. Federal cost: truncated Assemblies, President’s Rule risk, and nationalisation of State polls. Simultaneity is not a substitute for audited party finance and a statutory Code. Reform that works is a package, not a single polling date.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
Explain and distinguish between Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals. Whether they entertain civil as well as criminal cases?
Separation of Powers
Lok Adalat is a Legal Services Authorities Act forum: conciliation, award as a decree, generally no appeal. It hears civil matters and compoundable criminal cases, not non-compoundable crime. Arbitration is contractual under the 1996 Act: civil-commercial disputes, Section 34 challenge, no criminal trial. Booz Allen and Vidya Drolia mark what cannot be sent to a private tribunal. Permanent Lok Adalats for public utilities are a statutory hybrid, still not private arbitration. The working distinction is public compromise at little cost versus paid private adjudication.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
"The growth of cabinet system has practkally resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy." Elucidate.
Parliament and State Legislatures
Articles 74–75 keep the Cabinet responsible to the Lok Sabha; that is the legal core of parliamentary government. Whips and the Tenth Schedule, ordinances and money-bill classification have moved real initiation to the Cabinet. This is practical marginalisation of the floor, not a legal repeal of Parliament. PAC, standing committees, Rajya Sabha and the floor test still bite. Keisham Meghachandra pressed Speakers to decide disqualification on a clock. A narrower anti-defection law would restore some of the supremacy the quote says is lost. The examiner’s misspelling does not change the demand: show practice squeezing text, not text dying.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.