Revision summary
India took parliamentary cabinet government, Westminster procedure, and much 1935 institutional design from Britain. Dicey’s rule of law influenced Article 14, but India wrote rights and judicial review into the text. Federal lists, the Governor, and emergencies also travel from the 1935 Act. Austin’s cornerstone argument treats this as a new nation’s charter, not a colonial statute continued. Parliamentary sovereignty in the British sense was refused.
Model answer
Introduction
The Constitution of India is a written republican charter, not an unwritten British one. The imprint of the British Constitution is still clear in parliamentary government, cabinet responsibility, and several offices copied from Westminster and from the Government of India Act, 1935.
Body
What was taken
- A parliamentary executive: the President is a constitutional head, and the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, which follows the British cabinet model.
- Rule of law, in A. V. Dicey’s sense of regular law and official liability, informed equality before the law in Article 14, even though India added a written bill of rights that Britain then lacked.
- A bicameral Union Parliament, a Speaker, questions, and an opposition are Westminster forms.
- The Comptroller and Auditor General, the public service commission, and the single integrated judiciary’s common-law method continue colonial and British institutional habits.
- The Government of India Act, 1935, supplied federal lists, office-of-governor, and emergency provisions that the Constituent Assembly adapted.
What was refused
- India is a republic with a written constitution, judicial review, and fundamental rights, which Granville Austin treated as the legal basis of a new nation, not as a statute of the Crown.
- Federalism, adult franchise from the first general election, and social-revolution Directives are not British parliamentary essentials.
- Ambedkar said the Constitution could work if people who ran it were good; the text itself rejected an unwritten convention as the only guarantee.
- Basic structure after Kesavananda Bharati (1973) is a judicial limit unknown to Dicey’s parliamentary sovereignty.
How to state the imprint
- The imprint is strongest in daily parliamentary practice and in 1935 institutional furniture.
- The identity of the Constitution is still Indian: written limits, rights, and a social programme that Westminster in 1950 did not enact as higher law.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD B[British imprint] --> C[Cabinet responsibility] B --> D[Dicey rule of law] B --> A[1935 Act furniture] I[Indian identity] --> R[Republic rights federalism] I --> K[Kesavananda limits]
Conclusion
British imprint on the Indian Constitution is parliamentary cabinet government, rule-of-law language, and 1935 offices. The Indian text adds a republic, rights, federalism, and judicially enforced limits that Dicey’s sovereign parliament did not know.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Environmentalism of the poor.
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q5). View answer →
-
Is India a Westminster system without change?
It is a parliamentary system with a written constitution, a republic, federalism, and judicial review, which Westminster in 1950 did not combine in that way.
-
Did the British Constitution give India fundamental rights?
No. Britain then relied on ordinary statutes and conventions. Part III is an Indian and comparative borrowing, not a British imprint in the same sense.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Constitutional morality in the Indian Constitution. -
2022 · Q5(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
The Preamble of the Indian Constitution reflects itself as a 'social contract'. Elucidate. -
2022 · Q8(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
The making of the Indian Constitution is described as an attempt towards a 'social revolution'. Comment -
2021 · Q5(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
"The Constitution makers faced the great task of forging a common national identity in the face of unparalleled social and cultural diversity in India." Comment. -
2021 · Q8(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Explain how caste as a social category is also becoming a political category in the democratic politics of India
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science.
Political Theory
The normative approach asks what political life ought to be and argues about justice, liberty, and obligation. Plato, Aristotle, the contract theorists, Mill, and Rawls are central practitioners. Easton and Dahl supply empirical maps of systems and decisions that cannot replace the question of right. Communitarian critics warn that abstract persons can hide real communities. Indian Parts III and IV show that a constitution is itself a public set of ought-statements.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights.
Political Theory
Multicultural theory treats culture as a condition of using liberty, not as a private hobby. Kymlicka, Taylor, Parekh, and Walzer argue for recognition and, in some cases, group rights. Indian Articles 25 to 30 and linguistic states are the constitutional form of that argument. Ambedkar’s Article 17 and sex-equality limits block a group veto over civil liberty. The perspective fails if it either ignores minorities or traps persons inside the group.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
State of Nature as State of War (Hobbes).
Political Theory
Hobbes’s state of nature is a state of war: a condition of known readiness to fight where there is no common power. Competition, diffidence, and glory are the three causes of quarrel. Natural equality of vulnerability makes pre-emptive violence rational. The sovereign ends the war by monopolising judgment and force. Locke, Mill, and constitutional democracy keep a common power and then limit it, which Hobbes refused as a right against the sovereign.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.