(a) Mechanisms for protecting and integrating marginalized groups.
(b) Distribution of power between the center and the periphery.
(c) The role of judicial review in shaping constitutional interpretation and implementation.
(d) The efficacy of safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms in light of security concerns.
Discuss how these differences impact the governance and developmental trajectories, particularly in regions like Arunachal Pradesh. (250 words, 15 marks)
Topic: Comparison of the Indian constitutional scheme with that of other countries
- Address each part of the question: borrowing, adaptation, and the impact on Arunachal Pradesh.
- Choose three countries providing distinct constitutional frameworks (federal, unitary, indigenous focus).
- Focus on the four specified comparison parameters (marginalized groups, power distribution, judicial review, fundamental rights/security).
- Relate the discussion back to governance and development in Arunachal Pradesh.
- Critical analysis means highlighting both strengths and weaknesses.
- Constitutionalism: Limited government, rule of law, protection of rights.
- Federalism: Division of power between central and state governments.
- Unitary System: Centralized government with delegated power.
- Indigenous Rights: Recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous populations.
- Judicial Review: Power of courts to invalidate laws violating the constitution.
- Fundamental Rights: Basic rights guaranteed to individuals.
- Security Concerns: Balancing individual liberties with national security.
- Marginalized Groups: Socially excluded or disadvantaged populations.
(b) **Power Distribution:** India’s quasi-federal structure, while sharing power, retains a strong center. In contrast, Canada has a more decentralized federalism, affording provinces greater autonomy. The UK, as a unitary state, concentrates power at the center, delegating authority to local entities. Arunachal Pradesh benefits from specific provisions under Article 371H, but still relies heavily on central funding, a dependence that contrasts with the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by Canadian provinces.
(c) **Judicial Review:** India’s robust judicial review, as seen in cases impacting tribal land rights and environmental regulations in Arunachal Pradesh, shapes constitutional interpretation far more actively than in the UK, where parliamentary sovereignty reigns. Canada’s judicial review, similar to India’s, can invalidate laws, especially those affecting indigenous rights, yet the Indian Supreme Court’s proactive role in socio-economic justice sets it apart.
(d) **Fundamental Rights and Security:** Balancing security with fundamental rights is a constant challenge. While all three nations grapple with this, India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), applicable in parts of Arunachal Pradesh, represents a more significant restriction on fundamental rights compared to security measures in the UK or Canada. The Indian context, influenced by insurgency and border disputes, often necessitates stricter security protocols, potentially impacting the full enjoyment of rights.
These differences significantly impact governance in Arunachal Pradesh. The Indian model’s focus on tribal welfare and development programs, coupled with legal protections, shapes its developmental trajectory. However, the dependence on central funding and the application of AFSPA create unique challenges, potentially hindering long-term sustainable development and local empowerment.
- ARUNACHAL PRADESH PSC Mains Tests and Notes Program 2025
- ARUNACHAL PRADESH PSC Prelims Exam - Test Series and Notes Program 2025
- ARUNACHAL PRADESH PSC Prelims and Mains Tests Series and Notes Program 2025
- ARUNACHAL PRADESH PSC Detailed Complete Prelims Notes 2025