Mains · GS Paper II · 10 questions

Comparing constitutions

Every question UPSC has set on this line of the GS Paper II syllabus, newest first — with an approach for each.

Asked in 9 of 11 years

UPSC syllabus (verbatim): “Comparison of the Indian constitutional scheme with that of other countries.” Sub-topics in the detailed syllabus →

2026

GS Paper II 2026 · Q14

15 marks · 250 words

Examine how the separation of powers is practised in India compared to the rigid presidential model of the United States of America. In this context, compare the actual authority of the Indian Prime Minister with that of the President of the USA.

🧭 How to think about this question · directive: “examine / compare”

Decode the demand

Two directives, two parts: 'examine how separation of powers is practised in India compared to the rigid US model' and 'compare the actual authority of the PM with the US President'. Each gets its own heading; the second must use the word 'actual', so talk about real power, not titles.
The issue in one line: India fuses executive and legislature but keeps the judiciary apart; the US walls all three off and makes them check each other.
The trap: writing a textbook list of presidential versus parliamentary features. The examiner wants Articles, cases and a verdict on who is really stronger and in what field.
Carry authority: Article 75(3), Ram Jawaya Kapur, basic structure; Articles I and II of the US Constitution, Marbury, Federalist 51; Tenth Schedule and Article 123 for the PM's real power.

Think in a structure

Open with the two founding choices in one line each, then Ram Jawaya Kapur's phrase as the frame.
Part one as paired points: each Indian feature set against its American opposite, closed by a comparison table a reader can scan.
Part two as fields of power: law-making, ordinances, executive command, tenure, constraints, then a one-line verdict that names where each wins.
End positively with measures that keep a strong PM answerable, and anchor the conclusion on Ambedkar's reason for choosing daily over periodic responsibility.

Facts checked at source (9)· open

Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955): the Indian Constitution has not recognised separation of powers in its absolute rigidity, though the functions of the branches are sufficiently differentiated.Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. v. State of Punjab, 12 April 1955 - Indian Kanoon ↗“The Indian Constitution has not indeed recognised the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the Government have been sufficiently differentiated”
The Supreme Court has held that separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 31 May 2021 (Diary No. 11001/2021) ↗“It is trite to state that separation of powers is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”
Marbury v. Madison (1803), the US case establishing judicial review, is cited in Indian Supreme Court reports.Supreme Court Reports 2018 (official SCR digest, sci.gov.in hosting) ↗“Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S 137 (1803)”
Article II of the US Constitution: the President holds office for a term of four years.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription (US National Archives) ↗“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years”
Article 123: the President may promulgate Ordinances when both Houses of Parliament are not in session.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department, Article 123 ↗“Power of President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament.—(1) If at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session”
Article I of the US Constitution vests all legislative powers in a Congress of the United States.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription (US National Archives) ↗“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”
Federalist No. 51 (Madison) states that ambition must be made to counteract ambition.Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History, Federalist Nos. 51-60 (Library of Congress) ↗“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”
Article II of the US Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription (US National Archives) ↗“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”
The Twenty-second Amendment bars any person from being elected President more than twice.The Constitution: Amendments 11-27 (US National Archives) ↗“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2026, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Guidance: Minimalist IAS, checked 8 Nov 2026 (how we verify). ·

Model answer· 726words · Minimalist IAS

The US Constitution of 1787 vests law-making in Congress and executive power in a separately elected President with a fixed term; India makes the executive a committee of the legislature, with the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Article 75(3)) and only the judiciary kept apart. The Supreme Court's words in Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955), that India has not adopted separation 'in its absolute rigidity', frame both the practice and the real power of the two chief executives.

How separation of powers is practised in India compared with the rigid US model

Fusion of executive and legislature: ministers must be MPs within six months (Article 75(5)) and survive on Lok Sabha confidence; Bagehot called this fusion the 'efficient secret' of parliamentary government.
Functional, not rigid, separation: Ram Jawaya Kapur found the branches' functions 'sufficiently differentiated' though not sealed; Article 50 directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive.
Judiciary as the wall: judicial review under Articles 13, 32 and 226; separation of powers is part of the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973; Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975).
- Supreme Court (2021): 'separation of powers is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution'.
US rigid separation: a separately elected President, a Congress that alone legislates, judges with life tenure; no person serves in two branches at once.
- US Constitution, Article I: 'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States'.
Checks across the wall: presidential veto, Senate consent to appointments and treaties, impeachment, and judicial review since Marbury v. Madison (1803); Madison designed branches to check each other.
- Federalist No. 51: 'Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'

Aspect	India	USA
Executive's origin	Lok Sabha majority	Separate national election
Tenure	While confidence lasts	Fixed four years, removable only by impeachment
Law-making	Government sets agenda; ordinances (Article 123)	Congress alone; President vetoes
Judicial check	Basic structure doctrine	Marbury review, no basic structure

The full answer goes on to cover

Actual authority: Indian Prime Minister versus US President
Way forward: keeping a strong Prime Minister answerable

Read the full model answer (726 words) →

Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 8 Nov 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.

2025

GS Paper II 2025 · Q3

10 marks · 150 words

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’?

Approach · directive: “compare and contrast / what”

What it asks · Compare the source, scope and procedure of clemency powers in India and the USA, set out the limits in each, and explain preemptive pardons.

It asks 3 things — answer each

Compare and contrast: the President's pardoning power in India (Article 72) and in the USA (Article II)
Limits: the constraints on the power in each country
What: explain 'preemptive pardons'

Open with · Both constitutions vest mercy in the head of State: India's President under Article 72 on ministerial advice, the US President personally under Article II, Section 2.

Cover

India: pardon, reprieve, respite, remission, suspension, commutation — for court-martial sentences, offences under Union laws, and all death sentences; Governors under Article 161.
USA: 'reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States' — federal offences only; state crimes lie with governors.
Common ground: an act of executive grace, separate from judicial review of guilt; neither extends to impeachment.
Limits in India: bound by Cabinet advice (Maru Ram, 1980); reviewable for mala fides, arbitrariness or irrelevant considerations (Kehar Singh, 1989; Epuru Sudhakar, 2006).
Also in India: unexplained delay in deciding mercy petitions can justify commutation of a death sentence (Shatrughan Chauhan, 2014).
Limits in the USA: only federal crimes and not impeachment; otherwise very wide and largely unreviewable; self-pardon remains an open question.
Preemptive pardons: granted before any charge (Ex parte Garland, 1866) — Ford's pardon of Nixon (1974), Biden's January 2025 pardons; Indian clemency follows conviction.

Close with · Biddle v. Perovich (1927) made the public welfare the test of clemency; preemptive pardons for allies strain it, while India's advice-and-review model guards it.

Add value (verified)

Article 72 covers every death sentence, whatever the law under which it was imposed.The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, as on 1 May 2024) — Article 72(1)(c) ↗“in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death”
The US pardon clause is confined to federal offences and expressly excludes impeachment.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription — National Archives, Article II, Section 2 ↗“he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Ex parte Garland held that a US pardon can come before any prosecution begins.Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), text via Chan Robles ↗“may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment”
Article 72 applies to the sentence of a convicted person.The Constitution of India ↗“commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence”
Biddle v. Perovich tied clemency to the public welfare.Constitution Annotated: Overview of the Pardon Power (Cornell LII) ↗“the public welfare, not [the individual’s] consent, determines what shall be done”

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·

Model answer· 222words · Minimalist IAS

Both constitutions vest mercy in the head of State: India's President acts under Article 72 on ministerial advice, the US President personally under Article II, Section 2.

India and the USA compared

Aspect	India (Article 72)	USA (Article II)
Who decides	Cabinet advice	President alone
Covers	Union-law offences, court-martial, death sentences	Federal offences only
Judicial review	Limited	Almost none

Forms: pardon, reprieve, respite, remission, suspension, commutation; Governors hold a parallel power (Article 161), as US Governors do.
Common nature: executive grace, not an appeal; the finding of guilt stands.

The full answer goes on to cover

Limits in both countries
What are 'preemptive pardons'?

Read the full model answer (222 words) →

Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.

GS Paper II 2025 · Q13

15 marks · 250 words X-Ray · Core #15

Discuss the evolution of collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA.

Approach · directive: “discuss / critically examine”

What it asks · Trace how the collegium emerged from judicial interpretation of Article 124, then weigh the merits and flaws of India's system against the US model of nomination and Senate confirmation.

It asks 3 things — answer each

Discuss: the evolution of the collegium system in India
Critically examine: the advantages and disadvantages of India's collegium system of appointing Supreme Court judges
Critically examine: the advantages and disadvantages of the US system, with a reasoned verdict

Open with · Article 124(2) requires 'consultation' with the CJI and judges; three judgments turned it into judicial primacy, the collegium, a word the Constitution never uses.

Cover

Evolution: S. P. Gupta (1981) executive primacy; Second Judges case (1993) CJI with two senior judges; Third Judges case (1998) five-member collegium.
NJAC: 99th Amendment and NJAC Act struck down on 16 October 2015; the Memorandum of Procedure remains contested.
India's merits: insulation from patronage, peer assessment; flaws: opacity, delays, a narrow base (32 SC, 17 ST, 103 OBC among 841 HC judges, 2018 to Nov 2025).
USA: nomination with the Senate's 'Advice and Consent' and tenure 'during good Behaviour'; flaw: politicisation, as with Merrick Garland in 2016.
Comparison table; verdict: a reformed collegium with criteria, secretariat and time-limits; UK commission selects 'solely on merit' and encourages diversity.

Close with · SDG target 16.7's call for responsive, inclusive and representative decision-making as the test for a transparent, diverse collegium.

Add value (verified)

The official text records that the 99th Amendment's changes to Article 124 (NJAC) were struck down on 16 October 2015.The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, as on 1 May 2024) — Article 124, footnote ↗“This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs. Union of India in its judgment dated 16-10-2015”
US Constitution, Article II: the President nominates and, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, appoints Supreme Court judges.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription — US National Archives ↗“by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court”
US Constitution, Article III: federal judges hold office during good Behaviour, that is, life tenure.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription — US National Archives ↗“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”
Law Minister's written reply in the Rajya Sabha (Winter Session 2025): of 841 High Court judges appointed from 2018 to 28 November 2025, 32 are SC, 17 ST, 103 OBC and 46 from minorities.Department of Justice, Rajya Sabha replies, Winter Session 2025 (Law Minister's written reply on High Court appointments) ↗“out of 841 Judges . appointed from 2018 till 28.11.2025, 32 belong to SC category”
The UK's Judicial Appointments Commission has statutory duties to select solely on merit, select people of good character and encourage diversity.About us — Judicial Appointments Commission (UK) ↗“select candidates solely on merit select only people of ‘good character’ have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range of persons avai”
SDG target 16.7: ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.Goal 16 — UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sustainable Development ↗“Target 16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels”

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·

Model answer· 346words · Minimalist IAS

Article 124(2) asks the President to appoint Supreme Court judges after 'consultation' with the Chief Justice and other judges. Three judgments turned that consultation into judicial primacy: the collegium, a word the Constitution never uses.

Evolution of the collegium

First Judges case (S. P. Gupta, 1981): consultation did not mean concurrence; the executive had primacy.
Second Judges case (1993): the CJI's opinion, formed with the two senior-most judges, became binding.
Third Judges case (1998): on a Presidential reference, the collegium became the CJI and four senior-most judges.
NJAC episode: the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act (2014) were struck down on 16 October 2015; the revised Memorandum of Procedure remains contested.

The full answer goes on to cover

India's collegium: advantages and disadvantages
The US system: advantages and disadvantages
Verdict and way forward

With 1 table you can reproduce in the exam.

Read the full model answer (346 words) →

2024

GS Paper II 2024 · Q15

15 marks · 250 words X-Ray · Core #32

Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.

Approach · directive: “discuss / compare”

What it asks · Discuss Indian secularism — its constitutional basis and distinctive features — and compare it with the American 'wall of separation'.

It asks 2 things — answer each

Discuss India as a secular state: its constitutional basis and distinctive features (principled distance), with current challenges
Compare with the secular principles of the US Constitution: similarities and differences

Open with · The 42nd Amendment (1976) added 'secular' to the Preamble, and S.R. Bommai (1994) held secularism a basic feature of the Constitution; yet India's secularism differs in design from the American model.

Cover

Basis: no state religion; Articles 25–28 (no religious instruction in wholly state-funded institutions); minority rights (Articles 29–30).
Principled distance: the state may intervene or abstain — untouchability abolished (Article 17), temple entry under Article 25(2)(b); aid to minority institutions, endowments, personal laws.
Challenges: communal polarisation, Uniform Civil Code debate (Article 44), anti-conversion laws.
US: First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses; Jefferson's 1802 'wall of separation'; Article VI bars religious tests.
Differences: mutual exclusion versus principled distance; individual versus individual and community rights; no state role in religious reform in the US.
Similarities: no official religion, freedom of belief and worship, courts as guardians.

Close with · Indian secularism is equal respect with principled distance, not the American wall; its strength depends on even-handed practice and on the Article 51A(e) duty to promote harmony transcending religious diversities.

Add value (verified)

Article 25(2)(b) lets the State legislate for religious reform — something the American model would not allow.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 25(2)(b) — Legislative Department ↗“providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.”
S.R. Bommai (1994): the nine-judge bench held secularism a basic feature of the Constitution.S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), Supreme Court — Indian Kanoon ↗“that secularism is a basic feature of our Constitution”
The First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.The Bill of Rights: A Transcription — US National Archives ↗“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association coined the 'wall of separation'.Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802) — Library of Congress ↗“thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”
Article VI of the US Constitution bars religious tests for office.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription — US National Archives ↗“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”
Article 51A(e) makes promoting harmony across religious lines a fundamental duty.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 51A(e) — Legislative Department ↗“to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities”

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2024, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·

Model answer· 332words · Minimalist IAS

The 42nd Amendment (1976) added 'secular' to the Preamble, which now describes India as a 'SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC'; in S.R. Bommai (1994) the Supreme Court held secularism a basic feature of the Constitution. Yet India's secularism differs in design from the American model.

India as a secular state

No state religion, equal liberty: freedom of conscience and religion (Articles 25–28), and no religious instruction in institutions wholly maintained out of State funds.
Community rights: religious and linguistic minorities may establish and administer their own educational institutions (Articles 29–30).
Principled distance: the state keeps a distance from all religions so that it can intervene or abstain as equality demands.
Reformist intervention: untouchability is abolished (Article 17), and Hindu temples were opened to all classes under Article 25(2)(b).
Positive engagement: aid to minority institutions, management of religious endowments and recognition of personal laws.
Live challenges: communal polarisation, the Uniform Civil Code debate (Article 44) and anti-conversion laws test the state's even-handedness.

The full answer goes on to cover

Secular principles of the US Constitution
Comparison

With 1 table you can reproduce in the exam.

Read the full model answer (332 words) →

2023

GS Paper II 2023 · Q4

10 marks · 150 words X-Ray · Core #32

Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty.

Approach · directive: “compare and contrast”

What it asks · Compare the two models: Parliament's unlimited legislative power in Britain versus a Parliament bound by a written Constitution in India, noting the points of similarity.

It asks 2 things — answer each

Compare: what the British and Indian Parliaments share (Westminster form and practice)
Contrast: Britain's legally unlimited Parliament versus India's Parliament bound by a written Constitution, judicial review and the basic structure, and how the two converge

Open with · The UK Parliament describes parliamentary sovereignty as making it the supreme legal authority, able to create or end any law; India borrowed the Westminster form but put Parliament under a written Constitution.

Cover

Common ground: Westminster form, responsible executive, head of State on ministerial advice, control of procedure and purse (Article 122 shields Indian proceedings).
Source of power: Britain's Parliament can create or end any law; India's legislates subject to the Constitution (Article 245).
Judicial review: British courts cannot annul an Act; Indian courts void laws abridging fundamental rights (Article 13).
Amendment: Article 368 special majorities and State ratification, limited by the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
Scope and continuity: India's Parliament is confined to its Lists; no British Parliament binds its successor, while India's Constitution binds all.
Convergence: devolution, the Human Rights Act 1998 and EU membership (1973–2020) limit British sovereignty in practice.

Close with · Fifty years after Kesavananda Bharati, India's model is constitutional supremacy in parliamentary form: a strong Parliament, never an unlimited one.

Add value (verified)

UK Parliament: parliamentary sovereignty makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law; courts generally cannot overrule its legislation, and no Parliament can bind future Parliaments.Parliament's authority - UK Parliament ↗“Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change.”
UK Parliament lists the laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty: devolution, the Human Rights Act 1998 and EU entry in 1973 (exit in 2020).Parliament's authority - UK Parliament ↗“The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru. The Human Rights Act 1998. The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973 - and subsequent exit in 2020.”
Article 245(1): Parliament makes laws subject to the provisions of the Constitution.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department, Article 245 ↗“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India”
Article 122(1): the validity of proceedings in Parliament cannot be questioned in court on the ground of irregularity of procedure.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department, Article 122 ↗“The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.”

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2023, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·

Model answer· 222words · Minimalist IAS

The UK Parliament calls parliamentary sovereignty the principle that makes it the supreme legal authority, able to create or end any law. India borrowed this Westminster form but placed Parliament under a written Constitution.

Comparing: the common ground

Westminster form: an executive answerable to the lower House; a head of State acting on ministerial advice.
Internal autonomy: both Houses control procedure and purse; Indian courts cannot question parliamentary proceedings for procedural irregularity (Article 122).

The full answer goes on to cover

Contrasting the two approaches
Converging in practice

With 1 table you can reproduce in the exam.

Read the full model answer (222 words) →

2022

GS Paper II 2022 · Q14

15 marks · 250 words X-Ray · Core #56

Critically examine the procedures through which the Presidents of India and France are elected.

Approach · directive: “critically examine”

What it asks · Compare the two procedures, one indirect and one direct, and critically assess how each suits its system of government.

It asks 3 things — answer each

Examine: how the President of India is elected — electoral college, method, nomination and disputes
Examine: how the President of France is elected — direct two-round vote, term and sponsorship rules
Critically: the strengths and weaknesses of each procedure, and whether each fits its constitutional role

Open with · India's President must act on ministerial advice (Article 74), while France's President, directly elected since 1962, holds real power; each election procedure follows from that.

Cover

India: an electoral college of elected MPs and elected MLAs, including Delhi and Puducherry (Article 54); nominated members and Legislative Councils do not vote.
Method: proportional representation by single transferable vote, secret ballot; weighted votes for uniformity among States and parity with the Union (Article 55).
Entry and disputes: 50 proposers, 50 seconders, Rs 15,000 deposit; disputes go only to the Supreme Court (Article 71).
France: five-year term by direct universal suffrage, at most two consecutive terms (Article 6); absolute majority, else a run-off between the top two (Article 7).
France's filter: 500 sponsorships from elected officials across at least 30 departments; the Constitutional Council oversees the election (Article 58).
Critique, India: suits a constitutional head and avoids a rival mandate, but party arithmetic decides and citizens have no direct voice.
Critique, France: direct legitimacy and a majority winner, but concentrated, personalised power and polarised run-offs.

Close with · Each method fits its office; direct election in India would create a second popular mandate at odds with Article 74's advice rule.

Add value (verified)

Article 54 fixes the electoral college for the President of India, made up of elected members of Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 54 — Legislative Department ↗“The President shall be elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of— (a) the elected members of both Houses of Parliament; and (b) the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States.”
Article 74(1): the President acts in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department ↗“There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice”
French Constitution, Article 6: the President is elected for five years by direct universal suffrage and may serve at most two consecutive terms.Constitution of 4 October 1958 (English text) - Elysee, French Presidency ↗“The President of the Republic shall be elected for a term of five years by direct universal suffrage. No one may carry out more than two consecutive terms of office.”
French Constitution, Article 7: an absolute majority is needed; otherwise a second ballot between the top two is held fourteen days later.Constitution of 4 October 1958 (English text) - Elysee, French Presidency ↗“If such a majority is not obtained on the first ballot, a second ballot shall take place on the fourteenth day thereafter.”
French Constitution, Article 58: the Constitutional Council oversees the presidential election, hears complaints and proclaims results.Constitution of 4 October 1958 (English text) - Elysee, French Presidency ↗“The Constitutional Council shall ensure the proper conduct of the election of the President of the Republic. It shall examine complaints and shall proclaim the results of the vote.”
France has elected its President by direct universal suffrage since 1962, which raised the office's constitutional weight.Constitution of 4 October 1958 (English text) - Elysee, French Presidency ↗“the establishment of the election of President of the Republic through direct universal suffrage starting in 1962”

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2022, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·

Model answer· 332words · Minimalist IAS

India's President must 'act in accordance with' the advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 74); France's President, directly elected since 1962, is the real centre of executive power. Each election procedure follows from that difference in role.

How the President of India is elected

Electoral college (Article 54): elected members of both Houses of Parliament and of the State Assemblies, including Delhi and Puducherry; nominated members and Legislative Councils do not vote.
Weighted vote (Article 55): proportional representation by single transferable vote, by secret ballot; an MLA's vote is weighted by the State's population, and all MPs' votes together equal those of all the States.
Entry and disputes: 50 proposers, 50 seconders and a Rs 15,000 deposit; disputes go only to the Supreme Court (Article 71).

The full answer goes on to cover

How the President of France is elected
Critical examination

With 1 table you can reproduce in the exam.

Read the full model answer (332 words) →

2021

GS Paper II 2021 · Q13

15 marks · 250 words X-Ray · Core #21

Analyze the distinguishing features of the notion of Right to Equality in the Constitutions of the USA and India.

Approach · directive: “analyze”

What it asks · Compare how the two Constitutions frame equality (text, reach, exceptions and judicial tests) to bring out what is distinctive in each.

It asks 3 things — answer each

Analyse how the two Constitutions frame the right to equality: text, scope and persons covered
Analyse the distinctive features: affirmative action, horizontal reach and judicial tests
Bring out the underlying philosophies (formal versus substantive equality)

Open with · The US guarantees 'equal protection of the laws' through one clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868); India writes a five-Article Right to Equality (Articles 14–18) aimed at dismantling caste hierarchy.

Cover

Text: the US has one Equal Protection Clause; India has Articles 14–18, including abolition of untouchability and of titles.
Scope: Article 14 joins British 'equality before law' with American 'equal protection of laws'; it covers any person, Articles 15 and 16 cover citizens.
Affirmative action: India's text permits special provisions for backward classes, SC/ST, women and EWS (103rd Amendment, 2019); the US relies on judicial doctrine.
Horizontal reach: Articles 15(2) and 17 bind private conduct; US equal protection covers only State action, leaving private bias to the Civil Rights Act, 1964.
Judicial tests: India uses reasonable classification and non-arbitrariness (Royappa, Maneka Gandhi); the US uses tiers of scrutiny; Brown (1954) ended 'separate but equal'.
Philosophy: India pursues substantive equality; US doctrine leans towards formal, individual and 'colour-blind' equality.

Close with · Ambedkar warned that India was entering a 'life of contradictions', political equality amid social inequality; India's equality code uses the State to close that gap.

Add value (verified)

Article 15(2) bars disabilities based only on religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth in access to shops, restaurants, hotels and places of entertainment and in the use of wells, tanks, roads and public places maintained from State funds or for public use: an equality guarantee that reaches private conduct.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 15(2) - Legislative Department ↗“(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds”
Article 14 combines equality before the law with equal protection of the laws, and extends to any person.Constitution of India (as on 2024), Legislative Department, Government of India ↗“14. Equality before law.—The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form; Article 18 abolishes titles.Constitution of India (as on 2024), Legislative Department, Government of India ↗“17. Abolition of Untouchability.—“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden.”
The economically weaker sections clauses of Articles 15 and 16 were inserted by the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019.Constitution of India (as on 2024), Legislative Department, Government of India ↗“Ins. by the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, s. 2 (w.e.f. 14-1-2019).”
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overruled the 'separate but equal' principle of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), holding segregated schools inherently unequal under the Fourteenth Amendment.Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - US National Archives, Milestone Documents ↗“It signaled the end of legalized racial segregation in the schools of the United States, overruling the "separate but equal" principle set forth in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case.”
Ambedkar's closing speech in the Constituent Assembly (25 November 1949) warned of a 'life of contradictions': political equality alongside social and economic inequality.Constituent Assembly Debates, 25 November 1949 - constitutionofindia.net (CLPR) ↗“On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.”

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2021, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·

Model answer· 353words · Minimalist IAS

The US Constitution guarantees 'equal protection of the laws' through a single clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). India's framers wrote a five-Article Right to Equality (Articles 14–18) to dismantle an unequal caste society. Both bar arbitrary State discrimination, but they differ in text, reach and philosophy.

How the two Constitutions frame equality

One clause versus a code: US equality grows from one clause read by courts; India spells out equality before law, non-discrimination, equal opportunity, abolition of untouchability and abolition of titles.
Two traditions in Article 14: it joins the British 'equality before the law' with the American 'equal protection of the laws'.
Persons covered: Article 14 protects any person, while Articles 15 and 16 protect citizens; the US clause protects any person within a State's jurisdiction.

Feature	USA	India
Text	One clause	Articles 14–18
Private bias	Statute (Civil Rights Act, 1964)	Articles 15(2), 17
Judicial test	Tiers of scrutiny	Reasonable classification

The full answer goes on to cover

Distinguishing features
Underlying philosophy

Read the full model answer (353 words) →

2020

GS Paper II 2020 · Q4

10 marks · 150 words X-Ray · Core #15

The judicial systems in India and UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices.

Approach · directive: “highlight”

What it asks · Compare the two systems: where they are moving closer (independence, appointments, rights review, procedure) and where they remain apart (constitutional supremacy, structure, trial practice).

It asks 2 things — answer each

Highlight the key points of convergence in judicial practice between India and the UK
Highlight the key points of divergence

Open with · India and the UK share the common-law tradition, but India's courts work under a written Constitution while the UK's work under parliamentary sovereignty.

Cover

Convergence: the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created a UK Supreme Court (opened October 2009), separating the top court from the House of Lords.
Appointments insulated from the executive: the independent Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales; India's Collegium, reaffirmed when the NJAC was struck down (2015).
Rights review: under the Human Rights Act 1998 UK courts read laws compatibly with Convention rights; the Supreme Court held the 2019 prorogation unlawful.
Shared practice and strains: precedent, tribunals, virtual hearings in COVID-19; pendency in India and Crown Court backlogs in the UK.
Divergence in supremacy: Indian courts strike down laws and protect the basic structure; UK courts can only issue a declaration of incompatibility.
Structure, trial and role: India's integrated hierarchy, no juries, PIL and wide writs; the UK's separate jurisdictions, Crown Court juries and a divided profession.

Close with · The two converge on independence and rights review but diverge on supremacy: no UK court can strike down legislation, while Indian courts guard the basic structure.

Add value (verified)

The UK Supreme Court was created by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and opened in October 2009, replacing the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the highest appeal court.The Court and Legal System - The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ↗“The Supreme Court was established by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and opened its doors in October 2009”
Under the Human Rights Act, UK courts can only declare a law incompatible with the European Convention; no UK court can strike it down.The Court and Legal System - The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ↗“No UK court, including the Supreme Court, has the power to "strike down" legislation if it is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The Judicial Appointments Commission is an independent body that selects judicial candidates for England and Wales.Judicial Appointments Commission - GOV.UK ↗“The JAC is an independent commission that selects candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales”

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2020, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·

Model answer· 222words · Minimalist IAS

India and the UK share the common-law tradition, but India's courts work under a written Constitution while the UK's work under parliamentary sovereignty. Recent reforms narrowed some gaps, not the deepest.

Key points of convergence

Separation from the legislature: the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created a UK Supreme Court, opened in October 2009, in place of the House of Lords' Appellate Committee.
Appointments insulated from the executive: the independent Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales; India's Collegium, reaffirmed when the NJAC was struck down (2015).
Rights review: under the Human Rights Act 1998 UK courts read laws compatibly with Convention rights, and held the 2019 prorogation of Parliament unlawful.
Shared practice and strains: precedent, tribunals, virtual hearings in COVID-19; pendency in India, Crown Court backlogs in the UK.

The full answer goes on to cover

Key points of divergence

With 1 table you can reproduce in the exam.

Read the full model answer (222 words) →

2019

GS Paper II 2019 · Q5

10 marks · 150 words X-Ray · Core #21

What can France learn from the Indian Constitution’s approach to secularism ?

Approach · directive: “what can ... learn”

What it asks · Compare France's strict laïcité, which keeps religion out of public life, with India's principled-distance secularism, and identify what France could adopt: recognition and accommodation of diversity.

It asks 2 things — answer each

Contrast France's laïcité with the Indian Constitution's approach to secularism
Identify what France can learn: specific features of the Indian model, with caveats

Open with · France separated Church and State in 1905 and treats public space as neutral; India's Constitution rejects mutual exclusion, respects all faiths, protects individual and community religious freedom and lets the State reform religion.

Cover

Equal respect: Articles 25–28 protect freedom of religion; France bans religious symbols in public schools (2004) and face coverings in public (2010).
Accommodation: the Constitution treats the wearing of kirpans as part of Sikh religion (Article 25, Explanation I), an example of reasonable accommodation of religious dress.
Minority rights: Articles 29–30 let minorities conserve their culture and run educational institutions; France's republican model recognises citizens as individuals, not communities.
Principled distance: the State may intervene to secure equality within religions, as on untouchability (Article 17) and triple talaq (2017), instead of staying aloof.
Public culture: festivals of many faiths are public holidays in India; Article 28 keeps State-funded schools free of religious instruction without banning students' religious identity.
Caveats: India's model has its own problems (personal laws, communal violence, uneven application), while France's reflects its history of Church power; lessons must be adapted.

Close with · S.R. Bommai (1994) made secularism part of the basic structure; India's lesson for France is that secularism can mean equal respect for every faith rather than its exclusion from public life.

Add value (verified)

Article 25 gives the wearing and carrying of kirpans express constitutional protection as part of the profession of the Sikh religion, an instance of accommodation.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 25, Explanation I - Legislative Department ↗“Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.”
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): the Supreme Court held that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 1994), Indian Kanoon ↗“Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The acts of a State Government which are calculated to subvert or sabotage secularism”
Article 28(1): no religious instruction may be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 28 ↗“No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.”

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2019, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·

Model answer· 219words · Minimalist IAS

France separated Church and State by law in 1905, and its laïcité keeps religion out of public space. India's Constitution, as NCERT notes, rejects 'mutual exclusion' and keeps a principled distance from all faiths.

How the two models differ

Aspect	France	India
State and religion	Mutual exclusion	Principled distance
Religious dress	Banned in schools (2004)	Kirpan protected (Article 25)
Minorities	Individuals only	Group rights (Articles 29–30)

The full answer goes on to cover

What France can learn
Caveats

Read the full model answer (219 words) →

2018

GS Paper II 2018 · Q13

15 marks · 250 words

India and USA are two large democracies. Examine the basic tenets on which the two political systems are based.

Approach · directive: “examine”

What it asks · Compare the constitutional foundations of India and the US: what they share and where they differ (executive, separation of powers, federalism, rights, judiciary, amendment, party systems).

It asks 2 things — answer each

Examine the shared tenets: popular sovereignty, written constitution, rights, judicial review, federalism, rule of law
Examine where the tenets differ: form of executive, separation of powers, nature of federalism, rights philosophy, judiciary and amendment, party system

Open with · Both constitutions begin with the people, yet Ambedkar told the Constituent Assembly on 4 November 1948 that India's draft had preferred more responsibility to more stability; that choice separates the two systems.

Cover

Shared tenets: popular sovereignty, a supreme written constitution, enforceable rights, judicial review (Marbury v. Madison, 1803; Kesavananda Bharati, 1973), federalism and the rule of law.
Responsibility versus stability: India's Council of Ministers answers to the Lok Sabha (Article 75(3)); the US President has a fixed four-year term, removable only by impeachment.
Separation of powers: strict with checks and balances in the US; fused executive and legislature in India.
Federation: India is a 'Union of States' that Ambedkar called indestructible, with single citizenship; the US has a dual polity, dual citizenship, two Senators per State.
Rights and State purpose: limited government in the US; Directive Principles, reservations and Article 21's 'procedure established by law' in India.
Amendment and party system: rigid US amendment and two parties; flexible Indian amendment limited by basic structure, and multi-party coalitions.

Close with · India grafted American judicial review and written rights onto British responsible government and its own goal of social transformation, choosing daily accountability over fixed-term stability.

Add value (verified)

Article 75(3) sets out the core of India's parliamentary system: the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 75(3) — Legislative Department ↗“The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People.”
Ambedkar, introducing the Draft Constitution on 4 November 1948, said the parliamentary executive was chosen for responsibility over stability.Constituent Assembly Debates, 4 November 1948 - Constitution of India (constitutionofindia.net) ↗“The Draft Constitution in recommending the Parliamentary system of Executive has preferred more responsibility to more stability.”
Ambedkar contrasted the US non-parliamentary executive, assessed periodically by the electorate, with the parliamentary executive assessed daily and periodically.Speech of President Pranab Mukherjee quoting Dr B.R. Ambedkar's 4 November 1948 speech - President of India ↗“In England, where the Parliamentary system prevails, the assessment of responsibility of the Executive is both daily and periodic.”
Ambedkar described the Indian Federation as an indestructible Union that no State may secede from.Constituent Assembly Debates, 4 November 1948 - Constitution of India (constitutionofindia.net) ↗“the Federation not being the result of an agreement no State has the right to secede from it. The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible.”
Article II of the US Constitution vests executive power in a President with a four-year term.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription - US National Archives ↗“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years”
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department ↗“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·

Model answer· 351words · Minimalist IAS

Both constitutions open with the people: the American with 'We the People', the Indian with 'We, the people of India'. Both are federal democracies under written constitutions. Yet on 4 November 1948 Ambedkar told the Constituent Assembly that India's draft, by choosing the parliamentary executive, 'has preferred more responsibility to more stability'. That choice separates the two systems.

Basic tenets the two systems share

Popular sovereignty: authority flows from the people through periodic free elections.
Constitutionalism: a supreme written constitution with enforceable fundamental rights and the rule of law.
Judicial review: born in the US with Marbury v. Madison (1803); in India guarded by the basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
Federalism: powers divided between the Centre and the units.

The full answer goes on to cover

Basic tenets on which they differ

With 1 table you can reproduce in the exam.

Read the full model answer (351 words) →

The Syllabus X-Ray of this syllabus line

1 of its 6 sub-topics is High

0 Core · 1 High · 3 Steady · 2 Rare

HighJudiciary & judicial review compared · 3 questions

The X-Ray ranks all 928 sub-topics of the UPSC syllabus by what UPSC has asked since 2016. The 78 Mains Core sub-topics are behind 66% of Mains questions.

See the whole X-Ray →

The same ground in Prelims

Making of the Constitution, Preamble & featuresPrelims PYQs

From the UPSC Blog

More of GS Paper II

Quick answers

How many UPSC Mains questions have been asked on Comparing constitutions?

10 questions in GS Paper II from 2016 to 2026, asked in 9 of 11 years, most recently in 2026. Each is above, newest first, with the demand, an approach and a model answer.

What does the UPSC syllabus say on Comparing constitutions?

The GS Paper II syllabus line reads, in UPSC's words: “Comparison of the Indian constitutional scheme with that of other countries.”

Where are the GS Paper II PYQs topic-wise as a free PDF?

The GS Paper II syllabus-wise PDF — every question since 2016 under its syllabus line, with an approach — is a free download on the Vault's downloads page (one sign-up, no cost).

Free · Daily Updates Join Minimalist IAS on Telegram or WhatsApp A PYQ every morning, the Daily Brief and the Sunday quiz. Free, no sign-up. Join Telegram Join on WhatsApp →