How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)Indiaandrsquo;s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > How does Indias federal structure differ from...

Join the Discussion on the App

How does India's federal structure differ from that of the United States?

a)
Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.
b)
States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.
c)
The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.
d)
India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Daily Current Affairs MCQ: 1st November 2024

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United State...

India's federal structure is characterized by an emphasis on unbreakable unity, as indicated in the Constitution, while the United States allows for distinct state sovereignty. In India, the central and state governments have overlapping powers within a unified framework, which is designed to address the country’s vast diversity and maintain national unity. An additional fact to note is that this design of federalism in India aims to mitigate regional disparities and promote social cohesion, contrasting with the historical context of states' rights in the U.S.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Passage:The President’s notification of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 2019 of August 5 amends Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and scraps its 65-year-old predecessor, The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of May 14, 1954. By junking the 1954 Order, the notification takes away the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of Kashmir. It has effectively allowed the entire provisions of the Constitution, with all its amendments, exceptions and modifications, to apply to the area of Jammu and Kashmir. This is evident from the text of the August 5, 2019 notification. For one, the 2019 notification “supersedes” the 1954 Order. And two, it declares that “all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. It is important to note that Article 370(1)( c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India, unless new overriding laws are made. The August 5 notification has been issued under Article 370 of the Constitution. In short, the government has employed Article 370, which had once protected the 1954 Order giving special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to scrap the sexagenarian Order.So far, the Parliament had only residuary powers of legislation in J&K. This included enacted of laws to prevent terror and secessionist activities, for taxation on foreign and inland travel and on communication. Now, the Centre has proposed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill of 2019, which says the new Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would be administered/governed like the Union Territory of Puducherry.The tabling of the proposed Reorganization Bill is also proof that the long reign of the 1954 Order has ended. The 1954 Order had introduced a proviso to Article 3, namely that “no Bill providingfor increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in Parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that State". That power of the State Legislature to give prior consent does not exist anymore. This has provided a free hand to the Centre to table the Re-organization Bill.The 1954 Order had also brought into existence Article 35A. This Article gave the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir exclusive power to define classes of persons who are/shall be permanent residents of the State; to confer permanent residents special rights and privileges and impose restrictions upon other persons from outside the State; make laws and conditions for State government employment, acquisition of immovable property, settlement rights, scholarships and other forms of aid from the State government.With the removal of the 1954 Order, the power of the State Legislature ceases to exist and Parliamentary laws, including that of reservation, would apply to Jammu and Kashmir as it does in other parts of the country. The government called this the end of “positive discrimination” and the closing of the “chasm” between residents of J&K and citizens of other parts of the country. The removal of the 1954 Order further also negates a clause which was added to Article 352. The Order had mandated that no proclamation of Emergency on grounds “only of internal disturbance or imminent danger shall have effect” in the State unless with the concurrence of the State government.The second part of the August 5, 2019 notification deals with the addition of a new clause to Article 367 which amends the proviso to clause (3) of 370. Article 367 deals with the applicability of the General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,.The August 5 notification amends the expression “Constituent Assembly”, contained in the proviso to clause (3) of Article 370, to mean “Legislative Assembly”.Clause (3) of Article 370 gives the President power to end the special rights and privileges of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the 1954 Order. However, the clause carries a rider. That is, the President would have to first get the consent of the Constituent Assembly of J&K before issuing such a notification. This rider or check on the President’s power was intended to give the people of the State a say in their own future. Now, theConstituent Assembly has ceased to exist since 1956, when it was dissolved. The Assembly, at the time of its dissolution, had said nothing about the abrogation of Article 370. Consequently, Article 370, though it resides among the ‘temporary provisions’ of the Constitution, is deemed have become a permanent feature of the Constitution.The August 5 notification has tided over this obstacle of a non-existent ‘Constituent Assembly’ by amending the expression in the proviso to ‘Legislative Assembly’. Ideally, any such amendment to the name of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ would require the assent of the Constituent Assembly itself. Besides, an amendment in Article 370 should have undergone the constitutional amendment procedure envisaged under Article 368 of the Constitution.But the government can, on the other hand, argue that the amendment made in its August 5 notification only applies to Jammu and Kashmir and not the entire Dominion of India, and so, does not require a constitutional amendment. This point of contention may reach the Supreme Court, where several petitions on the constitutionality of Article 35A, and in consequence Article 370, are pending for adjudication.Q.The legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir passes a law against the 100th Amendment Act of Parliament of India passed in 2015 in its session held on 20-1-20. The Speaker of the House attends the session and calls it path-breaking in the ethos of federal democracy where the legislative Assembly can pass a law showing true spirit of dissent against the Union.

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?

View answer

Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of 'the State' in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21.In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law.Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty to take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(

View answer

Over the course of the last few weeks, as we have found ourselves in the throes of a pandemic, one of the striking features of governance has been the signal role played by State Chief Ministers across India.Even before the Union government invoked the DisasterManagement Act, 2005, many State governments triggered the ......(1)........ Act, 1897, and installed a series of measures to combat what was then an oncoming onslaught of COVID-19.Equally, though, as much as State governments have taken up positions of leadership, they have repeatedly found themselves throttled by the limitations of the extant federal arrangement. There are varying accounts of what Indian federalism truly demands. But what is manifest from a reading of the Constitution is that it creates two distinct levels of government: one at the Centre and the other at each of the States. The ....(2)....... Schedule to the Constitution divides responsibilities between these two layers.Q.The Concurrent List contains subjects on which Parliament as well as State Legislature both can legislate. In case there is conflict in the parliamentary and state legislation, What will happen?

View answer

Direction: Read the passage given below and answer the question that follows.There was a time, even till the early 1980s, when Parliament, notwithstanding the odd aberration, distinguished itself as a chamber for both profound debate and high eloquence on matters of national concern and beneficial legislation. An MP knew his vote mattered and therefore there was an incentive to participate in making better laws for the country or even holding his own government to account if the need arose. The best example of that was Feroze Gandhi, who was the Nehru government’s greatest bete noire in the 1950s.All that started changing with the passage of the Anti-Defection Law in 1985. The statement of objects and reasons of the said law eloquently avowed that “The evil of political defections has been a matter of political concern. If it is not combated it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles that sustain it.”However, in the past 35 years of its existence, it has only ended up raising the bar of defection from retail to wholesale. Conceived as a legal fiat to enforce political morality, it has ended up completely sucking out the essence of democracy from our legislative institutions. It has turned them into halls of whip-driven tyranny where MPs and MLAs are precluded from exercising their wisdom in terms of their conscience, common sense and constituency interests.Today the political party that gives any person a ticket to contest on its symbol exerts complete control over their mind and soul. The ordinary Indian who stood in the queue on a blistering midsummer morning to exercise her franchise and elect each and every Member of Parliament becomes just an apparition.Surely the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution, when they opted for universal adult suffrage, did not countenance a template whereby electoral preferences would be exercised by an individual elector but legislative power would reside in a political party? Beheld from this standpoint, the Tenth Schedule is an encroachment on the original canons of the Constitution if not the basic structure doctrine itself.That is why at 2 pm in the afternoon when the House meets for government legislative business, on the days it is functioning, there is hardly any attendance, for every MP knows that legislation drafted by some joint secretary in the Government of India would be mechanically passed or opposed, depending on the whip issued. Hardly any bills get referred to the parliamentary standing committees.Q. Which of the following is not a premise of author’s argument in favour of need for ‘universal adult suffrage’?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice How does Indias federal structure differ from that of the United States?a)Both countries have equal power distribution between states and the central government.b)States in India have more legislative power than those in the U.S.c)The Indian Constitution explicitly mentions federalism, while the U.S. Constitution does not.d)India’s federalism emphasizes unbreakable unity, whereas the U.S. system allows distinct state sovereignty.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam