Sources of the Indian Constitution: Borrowed Features

By Dooit UPSC expert · 13 September 2026 · 11 min read

The Indian Constitution is often called a "borrowed bag" — and critics have used that phrase to mock it. In three decades of teaching Polity, I have learned to turn that criticism into one of the most reliable sources of prelims marks you will ever find. Learn the sources properly, and a whole family of questions becomes free.

Almost every year, the prelims paper carries a matching-style question — "Match the feature with the country it was borrowed from" — and every year a large chunk of aspirants gets it wrong because they crammed a list the night before and confused Ireland with America, or Canada with Australia. This post fixes that permanently. We will go source by source, understand why each feature was taken, and build a memory system that survives exam-hall pressure. Treat it as a topic you never want to lose marks on again.

Why the framers "borrowed" — and why that is a strength

When the Constituent Assembly began its work, India already had decades of constitutional experience under British-era statutes, and the world had a stock of mature democratic constitutions to study. Dr B. R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, was blunt about the choice: he said there was nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing, because a constitution framed so late in the day could hardly claim novelty in its fundamentals. The genius, he argued, lay not in inventing from scratch but in selecting the best-tested provisions and adapting them to Indian realities.

So when you read "borrowed", do not read "copied". Every borrowed feature was reshaped. The parliamentary system was taken from Britain but married to a written, supreme Constitution India's framers trusted more than an unwritten one. Fundamental Rights came from America but were paired with reasonable restrictions and Directive Principles the US Constitution never had. This is synthesis, not imitation — and that is exactly the nuance the examiner rewards in a Mains answer while the matching format tests the raw sourcing in prelims.

The master table: every source at a glance

This is the table to internalise. Read it top to bottom until the pairings feel obvious, not memorised. Notice that the domestic Act contributes the structural skeleton, while foreign constitutions contribute specific principles and offices.

The Government of India Act, 1935 — the biggest single source

If a prelims question asks which single source contributed the most, the answer is the Government of India Act, 1935. Roughly two-thirds of the Constitution's provisions can be traced to it in some form. This makes sense: the framers were not writing on a blank page — they were governing a country that already ran on this Act, so continuity mattered. The federal structure, the division of powers between the Centre and the units, the office of Governor, the pattern of the judiciary, the Public Service Commissions and the framework of emergency powers all descend from 1935. When people call our Constitution a "lawyer's paradise" of administrative detail, this Act is the reason.

The British Constitution — the machinery of everyday government

Britain gave India the day-to-day working system of democracy. The parliamentary form of government — a Council of Ministers responsible to the popularly elected House — is the defining British import. Alongside it came the rule of law, the concept of a single citizenship even in a federation, the cabinet system, the law-making procedure, parliamentary privileges, bicameralism, and the prerogative writs that make Article 32 and Article 226 so powerful. Remember: the British system is unwritten, yet India chose to write its rules down. That deliberate departure is a favourite discussion point in Mains.

The US Constitution — rights and the courts

From the United States, India drew the "rights and courts" bundle. The very idea of a justiciable list of Fundamental Rights, enforceable against the state, is American in origin. So is judicial review — the power of courts to strike down unconstitutional laws — along with the independence of the judiciary, the impeachment process for the President, the procedure for removing judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and the office of the Vice-President (who, like the US Vice-President, presides over the Upper House). If you want a deeper walk-through of how the Constitution was assembled feature by feature, read our companion post on the making of the Indian Constitution.

The Irish Constitution — principles, not rights

Ireland's most famous gift is the Directive Principles of State Policy — the non-justiciable goals in Part IV that guide the state towards social and economic democracy. The Irish had themselves borrowed the idea from Spain, a nice fact to drop in a Mains answer. Ireland also supplied the method of electing the President of India and the practice of nominating members to the Rajya Sabha for their expertise in fields like literature, science, art and social service. A common exam trap is to swap Ireland's "Directive Principles" with America's "Fundamental Rights" — never confuse the two.

Canada and Australia — the shape of the federation

Both these federal countries shaped India's own federal design, and students routinely mix them up. Keep them apart with one idea each:

• Canada = a strong Centre. India took from Canada its federation with a powerful Union, the vesting of residuary powers in the Centre, the appointment of state Governors by the Centre, and the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Canada, like India, uses the word "Union" rather than a loose league of states.
• Australia = the sharing mechanisms. India borrowed the Concurrent List, the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse across the country, and the provision for a joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament to resolve deadlocks.

A reliable hook: think "Canada gives the centralising features, Australia gives the coordinating features." Residuary powers and Governors sit with Canada; the Concurrent List and joint sittings sit with Australia.

The smaller sources that examiners love

These contribute only one or two items each, which is precisely why they are asked — they are easy to forget and easy to swap. Fix them firmly:

• Weimar Constitution (Germany): the suspension of Fundamental Rights during a national emergency.
• Soviet Constitution (USSR): Fundamental Duties (added later by the 42nd Amendment) and the ideal of justice — social, economic and political — enshrined in the Preamble.
• French Constitution: the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Preamble, and the concept of the Republic.
• South African Constitution: the procedure for amending the Constitution and the election of members of the Rajya Sabha.
• Japanese Constitution: the phrase and concept of "procedure established by law" — the standard that anchors Article 21.

Two of these are perennial favourites. Fundamental Duties come from the Soviet Constitution (not Fundamental Rights, which are American). And "procedure established by law" is Japanese, deliberately chosen over the American "due process of law" — a distinction that later became central to the Maneka Gandhi case and the expansion of Article 21.

How UPSC actually tests this topic

Prelims almost never asks a source in isolation. It asks you to match, and it plants deliberate swaps: DPSP shown against the USA, Fundamental Duties shown against Britain, the Concurrent List shown against Canada. If you have learned the story rather than a flat list, these swaps jump out at you instantly. In Mains, the same knowledge appears as a discussion prompt — "The Indian Constitution is a bag of borrowings. Critically examine." — where you are expected to acknowledge the borrowing, then argue that the adaptation and synthesis make it original. Never write a Mains answer that only lists sources; write one that shows judgement.

Common mistakes that cost easy marks

1. Confusing Fundamental Rights with Fundamental Duties. Rights = USA; Duties = USSR. This single swap probably loses more marks than any other in the topic.
2. Assigning DPSP to America. Directive Principles are Irish. America gave enforceable Rights, not aspirational principles.
3. Mixing Canada and Australia. Residuary powers and Governors = Canada; Concurrent List and joint sitting = Australia.
4. Forgetting the 1935 Act. Aspirants obsess over foreign constitutions and forget that the biggest domestic source is a colonial statute.
5. Treating "borrowed" as "unoriginal" in Mains. That reading is exactly what the examiner wants you to challenge.

What India did not borrow — its own contributions

To answer this topic with authority, remember that several defining features are distinctly Indian. The single, integrated judiciary (unlike the dual court systems of the USA), single citizenship in a federal set-up, the detailed provisions for a strong Centre that can behave almost unitarily in an emergency, and the elaborate scheme balancing Fundamental Rights against Directive Principles all reflect Indian choices. The framers borrowed materials, but the architecture — a quasi-federal, socially transformative Constitution designed for a vast and diverse country — is their own. That is the closing line every strong Mains answer needs.