Seat Number (In Numbers): 354532

Seat Number (In Words): Three Five Four Five Three Two
Semester: IX
Name of the Course: Comparative Constitution

Ans 1: FACTS: The Indian Parliament has enacted a law authorizing the
Central Government to declare a person as a terrorist. It has been
challenged by a human rights organization before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Examine the nature of judicial review in India and how will it be
applied in this case?
What if the law was enacted by the UK Parliament and the challenge is being
examined by the UK Supreme Court?
ANALYSIS:
Introduction: The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land. The
Supreme Court of India has the supreme responsibility of interpreting and
protecting it. It also acts as the guardian-protector of the Fundamental
Rights of the people. For this purpose, the Supreme Court exercises the
power of determining the constitutional validity of all laws.
It has the power to reject any law or any of its part which is found to be un -
constitutional. This power of the Supreme Court is called the Judicial Review
power. State High Courts also exercise this power but their judgments can
be rejected or modified or upheld by the Supreme Court.
Judicial Review: Meaning
Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to interpret the
constitution and to declare any such law or order of the legislature and
executive void, if it finds them in conflict the Constitution of India.
Judicial Review is the power of the Judiciary by which:
(i) The court reviews the laws and rules of the legislature and executive in
cases that come before them; in litigation cases.
(ii) The court determines the constitutional validity of the laws and rules of
the government; and
(iii) The court rejects that law or any of its part which is found to be
unconstitutional or against the Constitution.
Features of Judicial Review
1. Judicial Review Power is used by both the Supreme Court and
High Courts: Both the Supreme Court and High Courts exercise the
power of Judicial Review. But the final power to determine the
constitutional validity of any law is in the hands of the Supreme Court
of India.
2. Judicial Review of both Central and State Laws: Judicial Review
can be conducted in respect of all Central and State laws, the orders
and ordinances of the executives and constitutional amendments.
3. A Limitations: Judicial Review cannot be conducted in respect of the
laws incorporated in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution.
4. It covers laws and not political issues: Judicial Review applies only
to the questions of law. It cannot be exercised in respect of political
issues.
5. Judicial Review is not automatic: The Supreme Court does not use
the power of judicial review of its own. It can use it only when any law
or rule is specifically challenged before it or when during the course of
hearing a case the validity of any law is challenged before it.
6. Decisions’ in Judicial Review Cases:
The Supreme Court can decide:
(i) The law is constitutionally valid. In this case the law continues to
operate as before, or
(ii) The law is constitutionally invalid. In this case the law ceases to
operate with effect from the date of the judgment.
(iii) Only some parts or a part of the law is invalid. In this case only
invalid parts or part becomes non-operative and other parts continue
to remain in operation. However, if the invalidated parts/part is so
vital to the law that other parts cannot operate without it, then the
whole of the law gets rejected.
7. Judicial Review Decision gets implemented from the date of
Judgement: When a law gets rejected as unconstitutional it ceases to
operate from the date of the judgment. All activities performed on the
basis of the law before the date of the judgment declaring it invalid,
continue to remain valid.
8. Principle of Procedure established by Law: Judicial Review in
India is governed by the principle: ‘Procedure Established by Law’.
Under it the court conducts one test, i.e., whether the law has been
made in accordance with the powers granted by the Constitution to the
law-making body and follows the prescribed procedure or not. It gets
rejected when it is held to be violative of procedure established by law.
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. Undemocratic:
The critics describe Judicial Review as an undemocratic system. It empowers
the court to decide the fate of the laws passed by the legislature, which
represent the sovereign, will of the people.
2. Lack of Clarity:
The Constitution of India does not clearly describe the system of Judicial
Review. It rests upon the basis of several articles of the Constitution.
3. Source of from Administrative Problems:
When a law is struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, the
decision becomes effective from the date on which the judgement is
delivered. Now a law can face Judicial Review only when a question of its
constitutionality arises in any case being heard by the Supreme Court.
Such a case can come before the Supreme Court after 5 or 10 or more years
after the enforcement of that law. As such when the Court rejects it as
unconstitutional, it creates administrative problems. A Judicial Review
decision can create more problems than it solves.
4. Reactionary:
Several critics regard the Judicial Review system as a reactionary system.
They hold that while determining the constitutional validity of a law, the
Supreme Court often adopts a legalistic and conservative approach. It can
reject progressive laws enacted by the legislature.
5. Delaying System:
Judicial Review is a source of delay and inefficiency. The people in general
and the law-enforcing agencies in particular sometimes decide to go slow or
keep their fingers crossed in respect of the implementation of a law. They
prefer to wait and let the Supreme Court first decide its constitutional
validity in a case that may come before it at any time.
On all these grounds the critics strongly criticise the system of Judicial
Review as it operates in India.
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE PRESENT FACTS
 The Central Government will be having the power to declare an individual as
a terrorist. This is a dangerous law which will empower the Central
Government to brand any person as a “terrorist” without following due
process of law. If the authorities declares someone as a terrorist then, they
have full legal power under the existing law to arrest and prosecute him. The
designation of an individual as a terrorist gives the Central government the
power to label and stigmatise an individual as a terrorist even when it
doesn’t have the evidence to actually prosecute and convict him. It is, in
other words, an extra-legal form of punishment.
By using the power of judicial review by the court in India in the present
facts, it will declare this law as invalid as it breach the fundamental right of
an individual as The right of citizens to form association or union that is
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution is subject to the restriction
provided under Article 19(4) of the Constitution. Under Article 19(4) of the
Constitution the State can impose reasonable restrictions, inter alia, in the
interest of sovereignty and integrity of the country.  Imposing restriction
under Article 19(4) of the Constitution also includes declaring an
organization as a terrorist organization.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT
1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
It was held by six judge bench, five judges not agreed to amending
the essential rights under the Indian Constitution. However, in case of
Keshavanand Bharti v. state of Kerala where six judges out of seven
judges held that Parliament modifying influence has and at all portion
of the Constitution can be amended and over ruled the Golaknath
case. The Supreme Court held that the essential rights cannot be
modified in such a method, which will touch the elementary
construction of the Constitution.

2. I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu

This case was seen from Keshvanand Bharti case in which the cases
like Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others (1997),Waman
Rao and others v. Union of India and others (1981), Minerva Mills
Ltd. and others v. Union of India (1980), Indira Nehru Gandhi v.
Raj Narnia (1975), where judicial review was considered as essential
and integral Part of the Constitution of India.

3. Mitthu v. State of Punjab

The Supreme Court of India has struck down Section 303 of Indian
 Penal Code, 1860. This section had made death sentence mandatory.
In case Article twenty-one of the Indian Constitution was illustrated by
the S.C.I. complete its frequent pronouncement.
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN UK
Earlier in UK, the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty which means that
the court has no power to determine the legality of Parliamentary
enactments. In UK there is a system which is based on Legislative
Supremacy and Parliamentary Sovereignty. Earlier, there was no scope of
judicial review in UK, but after the formation European Convention of Human
Rights, the scope of judicial review became wider.
“The UK’s membership of the European Community has brought with it
significant changes to the English legal system and the UK constitution. In
the Administrative Court:
 Claimants may challenge actions and omissions by English public
authorities, and even provisions of an Act of Parliament, on the ground of
breach of Community law.
 Mostly, claims for judicial review may also be on the validity of
administrative decisions and legislations made by the institutions of the
European Union.”36
The Courts in UK are strictly following the principles of judicial review with
regard to administrative actions and secondary legislations. So far as
primary legislations are concerned, they are outside the purview of judicial
review but with some exceptional cases. Administrative actions which are
executive in nature are mostly the subject matter of judicial review in the
present scenario. In, R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department an
immigration detainee who had failed to take his medication for schizo-
affective disorder and had gone on hunger strike, but who did not lack
mental capacity, failed to establish that his detention was unlawful by virtue
of his pre-existing serious mental illness where the facts indicated that his
actions were calculated to avoid deportation.
The claimant applied for judicial review of the lawfulness of his immigration
detention. It was held that there was no doubt that the effect of detention
on a detainee's mental health was a very relevant factor in evaluating what
constituted a "reasonable period" of detention. The Secretary of State's
policy in Chapter 55.10 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance in
relation to the detention of the mentally ill imposed a duty to inquire into the
relevant circumstances of a detainee to assess whether serious mental
illness existed and whether it could be satisfactorily managed in detention.
Further, it was held that where a detainee had capacity, his refusal to
consent to medical treatment put him outside the scope of the Secretary of
State’s policy statements.
Hence in the present matter, In UK there is no specific provision of judicial
review and the law made by the parliament cannot go for judicial review to
that extent as in India.
CONCLUSION
The scope of judicial review is wider in India as compared to UK. Whereas
Indian Constitution is rigid as well as flexible in nature as it has detailed
provisions and it is the bulkiest Constitution in the World. The words and
expressions used in the Indian Constitution are specific and exact. Whereas
in UK, there is no written Constitution and hence, the scope of judicial
review is very limited in nature. In UK, there is no express provision of
judicial review and it totally depends upon the discretion of the Court. There
are specific and extensive provisions of judicial review in the Constitution of
India such as Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, 227, 246 and 372. Though
the term judicial review is not mentioned in these Articles but it is implicit.

Ans 6 (b)
Brown versus Board of Education: In this case, on May 17, 1954,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9–0) that racial segregation in
public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which
prohibits the states from denying equal protection of the laws to any person
within their jurisdictions. The decision declared that separate educational
facilities for white and African American students were inherently unequal. It
thus rejected as inapplicable to public education the “separate but equal”
doctrine, advanced by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896),
according to which laws mandating separate public facilities for whites and
African Americans do not violate the equal protection clause if the facilities
are approximately equal. Although the 1954 decision strictly applied only to
public schools, it implied that segregation was not permissible in other public
facilities. Considered one of the most important rulings in the Court’s
history, Brown v. Board of Education helped inspire the American civil
rights movement of the late 1950s and ’60s.

Background and case

In the late 1940s the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) began a concentrated effort to challenge the segregated
school systems in various states, including Kansas. There, in Topeka, the
NAACP encouraged a number of African American parents to try to enroll
their children in all-white schools. All of the parents’ requests were refused,
including that of Oliver Brown. He was told that his daughter could not
attend the nearby white school and instead would have to enroll in an
African American school far from her home. The NAACP subsequently filed
a class-action lawsuit. While it claimed that the education (including
facilities, teachers, etc.) offered to African Americans was inferior to that
offered to whites, the NAACP’s main argument was that segregation by its
nature was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection
clause. A U.S. district court heard Brown v. Board of Education in 1951,
and it ruled against the plaintiffs. While sympathetic to some of the plaintiffs’
claims, it determined that the schools were similar, and it cited the
precedent set by Plessy and Gong Lum v. Rice (1927), which upheld the
segregation of Asian Americans in grade schools. The NAACP then appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In October 1952 the Court consolidated Brown with three other class-action

school-segregation lawsuits filed by the NAACP: Briggs v. Elliott (1951)
in South Carolina, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward
County (1952) in Virginia, and Gebhart v. Belton (1952) in Delaware; there
was also a fifth case that was filed independently in the District of
Columbia, Bolling v. Sharpe (1951). As with Brown, U.S. district courts had
decided against the plaintiffs in Briggs and Davis, ruling on the basis
of Plessy that they had not been deprived of equal protection because the
schools they attended were comparable to the all-white schools or would
become so upon the completion of improvements ordered by the district
court. In Gebhart, however, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a lower
court’s ruling that the original plaintiffs’ right to equal protection had been
violated because the African American schools were inferior to the white
schools in almost all relevant respects. In Bolling v. Sharpe (1951), a U.S.
district court held that school segregation did not violate the due
process clause of the Fifth Amendment (the equal protection clause was not
relevant since the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to states). The
plaintiffs in Brown, Biggs, and Davis appealed directly to the Supreme Court,
while those in Gebhart and Bolling were each granted certiorari (a writ for
the reexamination of an action of a lower court).
Brown v. Board of Education was argued on December 9, 1952. The attorney
for the plaintiffs was Thurgood Marshall, who later became the first African
American to serve on the Supreme Court (1967–91). The case was reargued
on December 8, 1953, to address the question of whether the framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment would have understood it to be inconsistent with
racial segregation in public education. The 1954 decision found that the
historical evidence bearing on the issue was inconclusive.
DECISION
Writing for the court, Chief Justice Earl Warren argued that the question of
whether racially segregated public schools were inherently unequal, and thus
beyond the scope of the separate but equal doctrine, could be answered only
by considering “the effect of segregation itself on public education.” Citing
the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (1950), which
recognized “intangible” inequalities between African American and all-white
schools at the graduate level, Warren held that such inequalities also existed
between the schools in the case before him, despite their equality with
respect to “tangible” factors such as buildings and curricula. Specifically, he
agreed with a finding of the Kansas district court that the policy of forcing
African American children to attend separate schools solely because of their
race created in them a feeling of inferiority that undermined their motivation
to learn and deprived them of educational opportunities they would enjoy in
racially integrated schools. This finding, he noted, was “amply supported” by
contemporary psychological research. He concluded that “in the field of
public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate
educational facilities are inherently unequal.” In Bolling v. Sharpe he stated
that racial segregation of schools violated due process of law, and, in a
reference to the Brown ruling, noted that “it would be unthinkable that the
same Constitution [which prohibits racially segregated schools] would
impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government.”
In a subsequent opinion on the question of relief, commonly referred to
as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (II), argued April 11–14, 1955,
and decided on May 31 of that year, Warren ordered the district courts and
local school authorities to take appropriate steps to integrate public schools
in their jurisdictions “with all deliberate speed.” This failure to set time limits
helped set the stage for years of conflicts over public school desegregation
and other discriminatory practices.
AFTERMATH
Southern states largely opposed desegregation, and efforts to integrate were
often highly contentious. Notably, violent protests erupted when African
American teenagers attempted to attend a white high school in Little
Rock, Arkansas, in 1957–58. Barred from entering, they were admitted only
after U.S. Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower sent in U.S. troops and took command
of the state’s National Guard. Arkansas’s governor responded by closing all
of Little Rock’s public high schools in 1958–59. Other Southern cities
followed suit, often implementing “school-choice” programs that subsidized
white students’ attendance at private segregated academies, which were not
covered by the Brown ruling. As a result, many Southern schools remained
almost completely segregated until the late 1960s.
Brown v. Board of Education is considered a milestone in American civil
rights history. The case—and the efforts to undermine the decision—brought
greater awareness to racial inequalities and the struggles African Americans
faced. The success of Brown galvanized civil rights activists and increased
efforts to end institutionalized racism throughout American society.
B) Total and partial revision in Switzerland

 There are two methods of amendment of the Swiss constitution. The two
methods are: 1. Process of Total Revision of the Constitution 2. Process of
Partial Revision or Amendment of the Constitution.

1. Process of Total Revision of the Constitution:

A total revision of the constitution means the adoption of a new or totally
revised constitution.

Total revision can be affected in any of the following three possible

ways:
(i) If the Federal Parliament, by an approval of each of its two Houses,
passes a new draft for a total revision of the Constitution, a referendum is
held.

If the new draft gets the approval of the majority of voters as well as of the
Cantons, it comes into operation. Rejection in the referendum by the voters
or by the Cantons or by both, finally rejects the new draft and the old
constitution continues to operate.

(ii) If one House of the Federal Parliament approves a draft for the total
revision of the constitution but the other House rejects it, the issue is
submitted to the people in a referendum. If the majority of the Swiss voters
approve the proposal, the Federal Parliament is dissolved. Fresh elections
are held.

Thereafter, a new Federal Parliament is constituted. It prepares and

approves the draft of a revised (new) constitution. The same is then
submitted to a referendum. If in this second referendum the new
constitution is approved by both the majority of the Swiss voters as well as
the Cantons, the old constitution ceases to operate and the new constitution
comes into operation.

(iii) The proposal for a total revision of the constitution can also come
through an Initiative. If 1,00,000 of the Swiss voters submit a proposal for a
total revision of the constitution, the proposal is submitted to the people in a
referendum. In case the proposal is supported by the majority of voters, the
Federal Parliament then prepares a new constitution and it is put before the
people in a referendum. If the new constitution is approved both by the
majority of voters as well as of the Cantons, it becomes operative and
replaces the old constitution.

After the successful total revision of the 1848 Constitution in 1874, three
unsuccessful attempts at total revision of the constitution were made in
1880, 1935 and 1975. However, the attempt made in 1998-99 proved to be
successful.

Draft of a total revision of the constitution was adopted by the Federal

Parliament on 18 December 1998, it was adopted by a majority of the
people and the Cantons in a referendum on 18 April, 1999, The Federal
Parliament issued a decree for its enforcement on 28 September 1999 and
the New Constitution (Totally revised Constitution) came into operation w.
e .f. 1 January 2000.

2. Process of Partial Revision or Amendment of the Constitution:

A Partial Revision or an amendment of the Constitution can be
initiated and adopted in two ways:
(1) A proposal for a partial revision of the constitution can be made by the
two Houses of the Federal Parliament. Thereafter, the proposal is submitted
to the people in a referendum. If the majority of the people as well as of the
Cantons approves the proposal, the amendment gets incorporated in the
Constitution.

(2) The proposal for a partial revision of the constitution can also come from
the people. If 1, 00,000 of the Swiss voters submit a general proposal for a
partial amendment of the constitution, the same is put before the people in
a referendum. If it gets the approval of the majority of voters, the Federal
Parliament drafts the amendment on the basis of the general proposal made
by the people through an initiative.

This draft is then submitted to the people in a referendum. If the majority of

both the Swiss voters and the Cantons approve it, the amendment gets
incorporated in the constitution. However, if the initiative for a partial
revision, as made by 1, 00,000 Swiss voters, is made in the form of a
complete draft, the draft is discussed by the Federal Parliament.

The Federal Parliament gives its verdict either in its favour or against the
proposed partial revision, in either case, the draft is submitted to the people
in a referendum. If it is approved by a majority of both the people and the
Cantons, the amendment gets incorporated in the constitution.

From the above account, it is clear that the process of amendment of the
Swiss constitution is difficult, cumbersome and complicated. It gets
completed in two stages: Proposal Stage and Approval Stage. The proposal
can come either from the Federal Parliament or through a popular Initiative
by 1, 00,000 Swiss voters.

At the approval stage the amendment proposal has to get the approval of
the majority of both the Swiss Voters as well as of the Swiss Cantons.
However in actual practice, the process has proved to be neither very rigid
nor very complicated. Some eighty partial amendments were successfully
incorporated in the constitution between 1874-1999.
In 1999, the Swiss Constitution was totally revised and consolidated by
incorporating all the amendments made during 1874-1999 as well as by
adding a bill of rights, social goals, more detailed description of the powers
of the Federation and the principles governing relations between the
Federation and the Cantons.
The Swiss Constitution has now 196 Articles, while before this total revision
it had only 123 Articles. The maturity of the Swiss voters and the convention
of working through a general consensus has softened in actual practice the
rigidity of the formal process of amendment of the Constitution.
The most salient feature that makes the amendment process very distinctive
the fact is that no amendment, total or partial, can be made in the
constitution without the approval of the majority of the people as well as of
the Cantons. A Canton is deemed to have approved the amendment if the
majority of the people of that Canton approves the amendment.
In other words, popular sovereignty is really in operation in the sphere of
the amendment- making process of the Swiss Constitution.

Ans 5: Facts: Greenland has gained independence from Denmark. It’s in the
process of drafting and adopting a new Constitution.
Issue: What kind of Constitutional system would be the best suited for it –
Federal or Unitary, Parliamentary or Presidential?
Analysis: Introduction: In a direct democracy, political power is placed in
the hands of all individuals in the state who come together to make a
decision. In a representative democracy, on the other hand, individuals that
are elected through an electoral process act as intermediaries between the
people of the state and the policy decisions. Basically, a person elected by
the people takes decisions on their behalf.
Now a representative democracy can be divided into Parliamentary and
Presidential democracy. In this article, we will discuss the features,
advantages and disadvantages of both of these types of representative
governments, and the difference between them.
Presidential form of government: A Presidential system is also called a
congressional system. It refers to a system of governance in which the
President is the Chief Executive and is elected directly by the people. The
head of the government thus exists separately from the legislature. It is a
form of government where the three branches (legislature, executive and
judiciary) exist separately and cannot dismiss or dissolve the other branch.
While the legislature makes the laws, the President enforces them and it is
the courts that are responsible for exercising judicial duties.
The origin of the Presidential form of government can be traced back to
medieval England, France and Scotland, where the executive authority lay
with the Monarch or Crown (King/Queen) and not the estates of the realm
(Parliament). This influenced the constitutional makers of the United States
of America, who created the office of President, for which direct elections
were to be held. Let’s have a look at the countries where the Presidential
system is followed today.
Features
The Presidential system of democratic governance has the following
features: 
 President does not have nominal powers. He is both the head of the
executive and the head of the state. As the head of the executive, he
has a ceremonial position. As the head of the government, he acts as
the chief real executive. Thus, the Presidential system is characterised
by a single executive concept.
 President is directly elected by the people or the electoral college.
 The President cannot be removed, except through an impeachment
procedure for a grave unconstitutional act.
 The President governs with the help of a small body of people. This is
his cabinet. The cabinet is only an advisory body which consists of
non-elected departmental secretaries, who are selected by the
president. It is responsible to the President, and the departmental
secretaries can be removed by him.
 The President and his cabinet are not answerable to the legislature,
nor are they members of the legislature.
 The concept of Separation of powers is clearly visible in the
Presidential system. The three branches are completely separated and
members of one branch cannot be the members of the other branch. 
 The President can veto the acts of the legislature. He/She can also
grant pardon.
Advantages
Now let’s look at the advantages of having a Presidential system:
 In most Presidential systems, the President is elected directly by the
people. This creates more legitimacy than that of a leader who has
been appointed indirectly.
 Since in a Presidential system the branches of the government work
separately, it becomes easier to maintain the system checks and
balances.
 The President, under this system, is usually less constrained and can
take decisions more independently. Thus, this system allows for quick
decision making. This becomes very beneficial at the time of crisis.
 A Presidential government is more stable. This is because the term of
the President is fixed and is not subject to majority support in the
legislative. Hence, he/she does not need to worry about losing the
government. 
 Since it is the President who chooses his cabinet and the executive
need not be legislators, the President is able to choose experts in
various fields to head relevant departments in his government. This
ensures that only the people who are capable and knowledgeable form
part of the government.
 Once the election is complete and the President gains power, the
whole nation accepts him/her. Political rivalries are forgotten and
people look at problems from a national view, rather than a party
view.
Disadvantages
There are certain disadvantages which come with the Presidential
System. Let’s understand what these are:
 The Presidential form of governance is autocratic as it places a lot of
power in the hands of one person, i.e., the President. Also, the
President is out of the control of the legislature.
 The complete separation between the legislature and executive may
lead to conflicts and a deadlock between the executive and the
legislature. The legislature may refuse to accept the policies of the
executive; while the executive may not agree to the Acts passed by
the legislature, and the President may even veto them.
 This system gives the President the power to choose the people of his
choice for his cabinet to form the government. The President may
misuse this power and choose his relatives, business partners etc,
which might affect the political working of the state.
 It leads to less accountability in the government and may also result in
the legislature and the executive playing the blame game in time of
crisis.
Parliamentary form of government
A Parliamentary form of democracy is also known as the Cabinet form of
government or the ‘Responsible Government’. It refers to a system of
governance in which the citizens elect representatives to the legislative
Parliament. This Parliament is responsible to make the decisions and laws
for the state. It is also directly answerable to the people. 
As a result of the elections, the party with the greatest representation
forms the government. Its leader becomes the Prime Minister and
performs various executive functions along with the members of
Parliament appointed by the Prime Minister to the cabinet. 
The parties who lose the elections form the minority and serve as
opposition in the Parliament. These parties challenge the decisions of the
party in power. The Prime Minister may be removed from power in case
the members of Parliament lose confidence in him.
Attempts to create a system of Parliamentary democracy were seen in the
European Revolution of 1848 but these did not lead to any consolidated
system. Parliamentary democracy came to be in 1918 and developed
throughout the twentieth century.
Features
 The head of state and the head of government are different under the
Parliamentary form of government. The head of the state is usually the
President or monarch. He/she has only ceremonial powers. The head
of the government is generally the Prime Minister and he/she is vested
with real power.
 It can be either bicameral (with two houses) or unicameral (with one
house). A bicameral system usually consists of a directly elected lower
house, which in turn elects the upper house.
 The powers of government are not completely separated. The lines
between the legislature and the executive are blurred as executive
forms part of the legislature.
 This system is also characterised with the majority party rule. But no
government can be a hundred percent majority, and the Parliament
also consists of the opposition.
 The council of ministers, in this system, are collectively responsible to
the Parliament. The lower house of Parliament can even dismiss the
ruling government by passing a no confidence motion in the house.  
 Most of the time, in this form of government the cabinet proceedings
are kept secret and are not meant to be divulged to the public.
Advantages
Adopting a Parliamentary system of governance has certain advantages.
Let’s look at these in detail:
 There is better coordination between the legislature and the executive.
This is because executive is part of the legislature and most members
of the lower house support the government . Thus, in Parliamentary
system, there is lesser tendency of disputes and conflicts, which
makes it comparatively easier to pass legislation and implement it.
 This type of government is more flexible as, if required, the Prime
Minister can be changed. For instance, in the UK  during the Second
World War, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was replaced by
Winston Churchill. 
 A Parliamentary democracy allows representation of diverse groups.
This system gives opportunities to various diverse ethical, racial,
linguistic and ideological groups to share their views and enable
making of better and suitable laws and policies.
 Since, the executive is responsible to the Parliament, it has the power
to keep a check upon the activities of the executive. Moreover, the
members of the Parliament can move resolutions, discuss matters and
ask questions of public interest to put pressure on the government.
This enables responsible governance. 
 Parliamentary system prevents autocracy. This is because the
executive is responsible to the legislature, and it is possible to vote out
the Prime Minister through a no confidence motion. Thus, power does
not get concentrated in the hands of only one person.
 In case, the no confidence motion is passed, the leader of the state
invites the opposition to form the government. Thereby, this system
provides an alternate government. 
Disadvantages
The Parliamentary system also has certain disadvantages. These are:
 Because of party fragmentation, the legislators cannot exercise their
free will and vote as per their own understanding and opinions. Rather,
they have to follow the party policy.
 The system might lead to legislators who intend to enter the executive
only. They are largely unqualified to legislate, which can hamper the
working of the government.
 Since the executive is formed of the members of the winning party, it
is not the experts who head the departments.
 Since, in the Parliamentary system, tenure of the council of ministers
is completely dependant upon their popularity, there is no fixed
tenure. Because of this they often hesitates to take bold and long-term
policy decisions.
 Such governments might prove to be unstable. This is because the
government exists only as long as they maintain majority support in
the house. Many a times, when coalition parties come into power, the
government is short lived and disputes arise. Because of this, the
executive puts all of its focus upon staying in power, rather than 
worrying about the welfare of people and state of affairs.
UNITARY OR FEDERAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT
On the basis of relationship between the centre and the units, the
governments may be classified as unitary and federal. In a unitary
government, all the powers of government are vested in the central
government whereas in a federal government, the powers of government
are divided between the centre and the units. Their distinctive feature
and comparative merits and demerits are given as follows.
UNITARY GOVERNMENT
Unitary government is a kind of government system in which a single
power, which is known as the central government, controls the whole
government. In fact, all powers and administrative divisions authorities
lies at the central place. Today most of the government systems in the
world are based on unitary system of government. It is slightly different
from federal model of government. In unitary government, central
government has the power to increase or curtail the power of subnational
units. It can create and abolished the same. Its distinctive feature is
given as follows;
1. Concentration of Powers: A unitary government is one in which all
the powers of administration are vested in a single centre. The centre is
omnipotent. A unitary state may be divided into small units for the sake
of administrative convenience but the units do not have any constitutional
status of their own. In other words, the constitution does not confer any
powers on the units. It is the central government which dele gates certain
powers to the units on its own accord. The units are, therefore,
subordinate agents of centre. The powers enjoyed by them are the gifts
of the centre and as such these can be taken back at any moment. The
units are thus not autonomous and independent in any way.
2. Single Government: In a unitary government, there is a single set of
governmental apparatus. There is a single supreme legislature, single
executive body and one supreme judiciary. England, for example, is a
unitary state. She has one parliament as her legislature, the King-in-
Council as the executive and the judicial committee of the House of Lords
as her supreme judiciary.
3. Written or unwritten Constitution: A unitary government may or
may not have a writ ten constitution. As for example, England and France
are unitary states. France has a written constitution but England has
none.
4. Rigid or Flexible Constitution: Unlike a federation, a unitary state
may or may not have a rigid constitution, e.g., the constitution of England
is flexible but that of France is slightly rigid.
5. No Special Judiciary: There is no need of having a special judiciary
with wide powers of judicial veto in a unitary government. Even the
highest court of U.K., for example, cannot sit in judgment over the law
passed by Parliament.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Federal government is a type of national government in which
government have powers to delegates the power to other elected
member of the states. There can be two level of federal government in a
country either it is performing through common institutions or through
powers as prescribed by a constitution of the state. It is totally opposite
to the unitary government. In federation or federal government,
provinces or territories enjoys some rights as are available to the
independent states. However international diplomacy, national security.
In the federal system, power is jointly shared between the state and
federal governments. In the federal government system, the powers
never rest with one national government. However, there can be certain
powers and authorities that remain totally with the federal government
like policies on defence, budget, international diplomacy, etc. The
hierarchy of power in federal government system starts from the federal
level and then flows to the state and then local level. Its distinctive
feature is given as follows;
1. Division of Powers: In a federal government the powers of
administration are divided between the centre and the units. The powers
may be distributed in two different ways. Either the constitution states
what powers the federal authority shall have, and leaves the remainder to
the federating units, or it states what powers the federating units shall
possess and leaves the remainder to the federal authority. The remainder
is generally known as residuary powers. The first method was employed
in America and the second in Canada. The federal government in U.S.A.,
for example, is weak in relation to the states whereas the federal
government in Canada is more powerful. In a federation both the federal
and state governments are independent and autonomous in the spheres
of their powers. 'One is not subordinate to the other. Both derive their
powers from the constitution which is the supreme law of the land. The
powers enjoyed by the units are, therefore, original and not delegated by
the centre.
2. Separate Government: In a federal form of government both the
centre and the units have their separate set of governmental apparatus.
America is a federation of states. States have therefore separate
legislatures and Separate executives.
3. Written Constitution: A federal government must have a written
constitution. As a federation is a political partnership of various states
and consequently there must be a written agreement in the form of a
written constitution.
4. Rigid Constitution: The constitution of a federation should be more
or less rigid. It is regarded as a sacred agreement, the spirit of which
should not be easily violated. A flexible constitution allows a scope to the
central government to curtail the autonomy of the federating states.
5. Special Judiciary: In a federation, there are possibilities of
constitutional disputes arising between the federal centre and the units or
between one unit and another. All these disputes are to be adjudicated in
the light of the constitution. For this purpose a special judiciary with wide
powers must be established. It should act as the custodian and guardian
 of the constitution. It should be vested with powers of declaring any law,
national or local, ultra vires if it is at variance with the articles of the
constitution. The constitution is thus the supreme law in a federation to
which both the centric and the state must adhere to.

Conclusion:
Federal government is better than unitary government because :
The power is not concentrated in only in the centre but it is distributed at the
state or lower levels as well. 
Federal government is The government is for entire country, which is
independent. Unitary government-the government in which power is kept
either in one government hand or given to state government but it is
subordinate to the the government, Which not independent.
Before 1993 in Belgium power was given to regional government but that
could be withdrawn at any time-unitary form of government.
After 1993 independent power was given to regional government-federal
government. Thus Belgium shifted from unitary to federal form of
government. But sri Lanka continues to be for all practice purposes, a
unitary system where the national government has all power.
We should adopt Presidential System of Government because We
should ensure a system of government whose leaders can focus on
governance rather than on staying in power. The present parliamentary
system has been tried and tested for nearly 70 years. It can be reformed
thoroughly to remove the challenges thrown up by it.
Further there is a need to reform the electoral processes to make
democracy more robust. The debate should be on various loopholes in
electoral processes i.e from limiting expenditure of political parties and
deciding the ceiling on the expenditure, to holding simultaneous elections,
declaring the results for a combination of booths instead of constituencies,
etc.

Answer 4 (1)
• Introduction:
It has been several times that this question has come before the Hon’ble
courts in India to decide a matter On ‘Constitutionalism’. It has been
observed by the Apex Court that there in no particular meaning that can be
given to this word but in an attempt to define constitutionalism the courts
have observed that The basic idea of constitutionalism is about placing
limitations on various organs of the State and those manning these organs
where no Administration can Act in a way which hampers the essence of
Constitution.
“Constitutionalism means limited government or limitation on government. It
is antithesis of arbitrary powers. Constitutionalism recognizes the need for
government with powers but at the same time insists that limitation be
placed on those powers”.
• Constitutionalism – Tool to minimize arbitrariness
A government which goes beyond its limits loses its authority and
legitimacy. Therefore, to preserve the basic freedoms of the individual, and
to maintain his dignity and personality, the Constitution should be
permeated with ‘Constitutionalism’ it should have some inbuilt restrictions on
the powers conferred by it on governmental organs.
To showcase these power in any book of rules, we must need a protector of
those rules, a stem of strength i.e. Judiciary. Judiciary, which arranges these
rules in order, must possess an indestructible strength and a strong judicial
supervision. But at the same time the power of judicial supervision must not
interfere with the other organs of the system.
• A strong judicial appointment system
It is important to sack upon the idea that Constitutionalism is an essence to
constitution as its bind the legal system of sovereign nations and also the
subjects it govern. Constitutionalism eventually permeates between the
rights of the citizens and power of the government.
There is no definite consensus to define the constitution and
constitutionalism but it preserve the strength of the nation. It revolves
around the society and goes through everything that runs the existence of
the nation. I would say “Constitutionalism is the building block of a nation’s
life.”
• Draft of Bhutan’s Constitution

1. Entrenchment:
One of the important features of constitutionalism is that the norms
imposing limits upon government power must be in some way be
entrenched, either by law or by way of constitutional convention.
Entrenchment not only facilitates a degree of stability over time, it is
arguably a requirement of the very possibility of constitutionally limited
government.
2. Collegium:
The Collegium system of appointment, which professed to keep the judiciary
absolutely independent from the executive suffered from several defects.
Collegium seems to be a very neutral term but on it’s first hand its arbitrary
and unconstitutional Like, India where we have this system. The Constitution
of Bhutan must be free of below inconformity. The drawbacks of the
Collegium system had been highlighted by eminent personalities,
commissions and committees their objections maybe summarized as follows:
1. The Appointment of Judges: Appointment of judges in a Collegium
system is completely opaque and there is no procedure for checking the
reasonableness of appointment.
2. Complete lack of accountability: lack of accountability on the part of
Judiciary. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, under the
Chairmanship of Mr. Verappa Moily, had also noted that, "Perhaps in no
other country in the world does the judiciary have a final say in its own
appointments. In India, neither the executive nor the legislature has much
say in who is appointed to the Supreme Court or the High Courts”
3. There was a lack of implementation: There was a lack of
implementation which is attributed as the major reason for the vacancy in
the courts and in turn pendency of cases.
4. The executive is thought to perform the function of knowing and
informing about the antecedents of the candidates, which the Judiciary was
thought incapable of doing as even the senior most judges constituting the
collegium would be from outside the state9.
5. Collegium system was widely considered to be unconstitutional as the
Constitution provided for the appointment by the President in consultation
with the judiciary and not vice versa.
Comparison with other system of the world
France: A constitutional body makes recommendations to the President on
the basis of which the appointments are made. However the body consists of
the President, Minister of Justice, and 16 members out of which only four are
prominent public figures. On the basis of the recommendation of the
commission, the Lord Chancellor notifies this selection to the Prime Minister.
Australia: judicial commissions invites the "expression of interest" from the
members of the Bar through public advertisements to enable the
appointment of judges in a transparent manner.
USA: In the United States as well, the President's nominees go through
confirmation hearings in the Senate and are subjected to public scrutiny in
relation to their professional lives and political views. These processes
encourage transparency in the procedure for appointment.
3. Commission:
Commission is an independent body set up by a government to conduct law
reform; that is, to consider the state of laws in a jurisdiction and make
recommendations or proposals for legal changes or restructuring. Collegium
should not exist rather Commission should
4. Judicial Review - Preamble a part of Bhutan’s Constitution:
Preamble explains the objectives of constitution in two ways, one about the
composition of bodies of governance and other about the objectives sought
to be achieved in independent Bhutan. Objectives explained in preamble as
follows:-
To constitute Bhutan into Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic
(words Socialist and Secular inserted by 42nd constitutional Amendment,
1976) other provisions of preamble that are;
Justice – Social, Economic, and Political Liberty – of thought, expression,
belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and opportunity;
Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of
the may be invoked to determine the ambit of Fundamental rights and
Directive principles of state policy.
5. Procedure established by law:
Due Process is a doctrine of USA, and its ambit is not defined
comprehensively, but its sphere is to be explained by judges as per the facts
and circumstances of the case. It represents judicial supremacy and also
there is a danger for judicial autocracy because the court if not self-
restrained may go beyond the limits set by the constitution.
6. Lack of Arbitrariness:
Arbitrariness occurs when the classification is made without any specific
reason, and the likes are not treated alike. If Article 14 makes classification
arbitrarily, then it amounts to be discriminatory in nature which proves to go
against the very nature of our constitution. This should not exist.
7. Separation of Power:
There should be a separation of power for judicial appointments. As
discussed above collegium and other systems which runs through the
administrative setups in countries such as India corrupts the system from
Inside. Like a recent surveys which was held in India regarding judicial
appoints in the Hon’ble Apex Court of India says that all the judges in the
Supreme Court are from only 24 families. This news apparently shocked
everyone and the reason is appointment on the basis of collegium.
It’s been a while that NDA led government presented a bill in the house of
parliament regarding judicial appointments. The new bill aims at maintaining
a separate judicial appointment system which will be common PAN India. It
obviously, is not applicable on appointments of Judges in Supreme Court but
it will bring young judges to Higher Judiciary and eventually this corrupt
practice might reduce if not fully shunned. Now it’s a matter of consideration
that the bill pending in the House but such system would eventually benefit
the nation and minimize the arbitrariness. Bhutan Constitution must possess
such farsighted legislation so that essence of Constitution in the appointment
system is not lost.
8. Protection of fundamental inherent rights:
The two critical elements of constitutionalism the separation of powers and
the concept of sovereignty have not been observed keenly in making of the
earlier temporary constitution. The doctrine of separation of powers, in its
simplest and probably extreme form, basically requires that the three
branches of government, namely the executive, legislative and judiciary,
should be kept separate from each other. Therefore the Judiciary is not to be
treated as another government department but as the third branch of the
government. Another challenge is the question of judicial authority. Judges
complain that the rule of law is yet to take hold in the country. This is
because there is no respect for law and for the judiciary. Judges have settled
many cases but the executive does not implement their judicial decisions.
The role of the judiciary is to administer justice, but once it has passed
judgment, it is up to the executive to implement and enforce. Sometimes,
judicial decisions are overturned without due process at all levels of
government. Thus, the country cannot have an effective judiciary when its
decisions are not binding on citizens and the government.
The executive possesses excessive powers and both the courts and the
legislature have not been able to bring pressure to bear sufficiently on the
executive. In fact, the very idea of limiting the powers of government, which
lies at the heart of constitutionalism, remains a distant dream in the country.
Legal constitutionalism interprets arbitrariness as interference with individual
rights. It introduces separation of power under judiciary protected
constitution to establish protection for the ruled. This includes Bill of Rights
i.e. a guaranteed set of fundamental rights. And mechanism for enforcement
of fundamental rights it is often seen as necessary to ensure the fairness of
the procedures
Political constitutionalism on the other hand it interpreted arbitrariness as
domination of the ruled by the rulers it is time to check it by establishing a
condition of political equality factorise by a balance of power between all the
relevant groups and parties within the polity. It ensures that no one can rule
without consulting the interests of the ruled.

Ans 3 (b)
INTRODUCTION: To prevent abuses that threaten the entire civilization, to
create happiness for all people, and to prevent great unjustified suffering, all
fundamental rights are granted to all people in every civilized society.
CHAPTERS ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:

Equality Under Law

The Fourteenth Amendment (for the states) and the Fifth Amendment (for the
federal government) forbid unreasonable discrimination by the laws, that is
discrimination by criteria irrelevant to the law's application. To discriminate, that is
to punish, against people based on irrelevant criteria would deprive them of liberty
without "due process of law" since a proper process of law can be based only on
relevant criteria. Such discrimination occurred and still occurs because of the
prejudice of the lawmakers, greatly damaging the society. Generally, laws cannot
discriminate based on race, sex, age and other irrelevant criteria such as sexual
orientation, ethnic culture, and religion. To forbid certain actions (with several
exceptions) simply because of one's age would arbitrarily deprive some people of
their rights. Age by itself has no relevance since all people are fundamentally equal
and methods that are much more precise than age of differentiating people exist.
Laws can discriminate based on relevant criteria--that is ability, performance (both
actual and expected), and sometimes past activities. Past activities are only relevant
as determinants of rewards and punishments; in other cases, the people must be
differentiated but what they are now and not by what they have done in the past.
Voting Rights: A vital "protection under the laws" is the right to vote. All people are
fundamentally equal, and thus welfare of each person is of equal importance to the
society. Inequality is allowed as long as it increases total welfare of the society. Since
people tend to be selfish, the only practical way to make the government work for
such goals is to make the government democratic, that is ruled (usually indirectly) by
the people through voting. Each person must have a right to vote. This fundamental
right must be given equally to all people and the government must be controlled
(indirectly) through voting. Otherwise, the power would belong to an elite (those
who can vote) who can choose to use it for their benefit at others expense. It is
essential for the government to improve the country and to serve the people, and
thus it is essential not to give the government the power to ignore the people by
denying some people the right to vote. Freedom from arbitrary discrimination of
interests can only be meaningful if the government must consider one's interest, and
such a requirement can only be achieved through democracy.  For efficiency, many
powers of the government can be vested in the president; however, the
fundamental rights must be preserved and the president must be periodically
elected (directly or indirectly) by the people.

Freedom of Communication
Why Freedom of Communication is Fundamental: Free exchange of ideas is
essential for full development and change of the society. Moreover, while
information can profoundly help, it cannot hurt: actions, not information, cause
damage; the government should regulate actions, not speech. Depriving a person of
information distorts decision making and may prevent essential improvements. With
freedom of information, people decide how to use the information for their best
interests. Necessary changes that were apparently bad had frequently occurred in
history due to the information about possibility of change. The government cannot
be generally correct when it decides what information is needed for whom. It is
impossible to prove that a particular piece of information is not essential to the
society--all that can be proved is that the censors did not view the content as
beneficial for the censors. There is no due process of law to impose censorship since
any due process of law requires public examination of reasons for the censorship and
the reasons cannot be properly examined without making the document censored
publicly available so that allegations about the document's contents can be verified. 
(If the censorship applies only to a particular recipient, due process of law requires
examination of the reasons for censorship by the recipient, and thus receiving the
document to be censored.  The reasons may be fallacious and detection of the fallacy
may require special knowledge of the recipient.)  The censors (who may be selfish
and narrow minded) may be dishonest, as there is no way to verify their honesty
over the content censored; historically, dishonesty was widely used to deceive the
society into believing the need of censorship. Finally, free exchange of ideas is
essential for informed voting and thus essential for a democratic society.
Exchange of Information: Ideas can be presented as a sequence of zeros and ones
and thus are information. A zero or a one is an idea. A combination of ideas is an
idea. Since all information can be presented as a sequence of zeros and ones, all
information are ideas. Thus, free exchange of ideas means free exchange of
information. To outlaw a transfer, access, or storage of any sequence of zeros and
ones from any person to any person would thus violate freedom of communication.

National Security: National security can be protected through background checks

and nondisclosure contracts. Censorship does not prevent terrorism since terrorists do
not obey laws, and since complete censorship is impractical. Since information is not
a physical object, it does not exist in this world and thus cannot be banned the way
dangerous objects are banned. Censorship, however, is incompatible with democracy
and is thus unconstitutional even if censorship appears to be required for national
security. The benefits of censorship, no matter how great they may appear, can be
illusory.  The illusion can persist as the information about the harm of the censorship
is itself censored. The danger of censorship is far greater than the alleged (possibly
illusory) decrease of national security when some information is released. Freedom of
speech is a constraint on governmental power: If the government has the power to
censor, then the government is totalitarian since through abridgments of freedom of
speech the people would be convinced to follow the government even when the
government is wrong.

The following restrictions do not violate the freedom of communication since

they do not prevent exchange of ideas:
  Restrictions on the medium of communication because of problems with use of
the medium as opposed to the message. For example, in certain places, people
can be forced to speak quietly to prevent disruption. The restrictions cannot be
use to prevent exchange of ideas: They are used to ensure safety. The
government or private people may own some mediums of communication. The
government can regulate television broadcast because it owns the medium.
 People who make legal claims are responsible for the content. Some claims are
made implicitly. In most cases, by default, when a person says something, the
communication is claimed not to be deliberately false. Moreover, in many
cases, a suggestion when made by default includes an assertion that the
suggestion is safe and legal. To allow free exchange of ideas, people must be
allowed to use a disclaimer to remove the liability. Ordinary political claims
are not legal claims.
 Freedom of communication does not include the right of forcing people to view
communication. The government may, for example, require a warning before a
person is shown an obscene movie. To allow free exchange of ideas, people
must be allowed to show the information as long as the recipient is warned and
agrees to see the information.

Copyright Laws: The ability to own something means the ability to control. Since
people control through real actions, they control only real objects. Information is not a
real object. Thus, information cannot be owned: "control of information" means
partial control of the people who think the information. Thus, copyright laws existed
not to protect rights of "owners of information" but to increase revenues from
discovery of information. Copyright laws outlawed distribution of information/ideas
unless the original discoverer grants consent or special conditions are met. Note:
"Works of literature" are information since they can be represented as a sequence of
characters. Since copyright laws prevent free exchange of information, they are
unconstitutional and violate fundamental rights. (The government should compensate
discoverers of information directly instead of through copyright laws.)

Freedom of Thought: Freedom of communication is, of course, based on freedom of

thought. Freedom of thought must be granted unconditionally, because it is necessary
for human communication and because it is the universal ability to think that makes us
human. Freedom of communication includes freedom of religion, as religion is ideas
and information.

Nondisclosure Contracts: If a person made a nondisclosure contract, the person

cannot be prevented from disclosing information since the information is protected by
freedom of communication. However, in certain cases, the person can be penalized for
violating the contract--technically the penalty is not for the speech but for making the
contract.

Trademarks:  Enforcement of trademarks is constitutional only if it stops false or

misleading (implicit) claims, that is when the labeling causes confusion.

No Contact Orders: Orders may be used to limit the types of contact (especially for
annoying types of contact, such as phone calls) but a blanket no contact order violates
freedom of speech because there is no way of being certain beforehand that the
recipient of the speech would not want that speech (added Oct 24, 2016).

Messengers:  Since direct communication is severely limited, freedom of speech

includes the right to be a messenger.  If the messenger makes clear that he or she is
not responsible for the content of the message and delivers the message in an
unobtrusive way, then the messenger cannot be held liable for the message contents. 
An Internet Service Provider is a messenger.

Communication Equipment: Freedom of communication would be meaningless if

the equipment needed for communication is illegal. Thus, to a reasonable extent,
equipment that is used to store, read and record, write and output, transfer, and
manipulate information is protected under freedom of communication. While
physically dangerous communication equipment may be regulated, the basic right to
produce, sell, and use communication equipment for all content (including
objectionable and copyrighted one) is fundamental.

Rewards, Punishments, and Speech:  Selective funding of speech (or other

communications) does not violate freedom of speech (although it may violate other
rights).  However, recipients of government funding may not be punished by
withdrawal of funds for speech that is not funded, except in cases of nondisclosure
agreements.
Funding of Speech by private entities is protected to the extent necessary to make
speech but can be subjected to certain regulations.
(Added June 29, 2006) Government employees like all people enjoy freedom of
speech in their private capacity. However, the speech may be used as evidence that the
employee is unfit or dangerous, who may be fired based on unfitness but not based on
the speech itself.

Professional Advice: Being speech, it is protected by freedom of speech. However,

such advice is usually accompanied by implicit claims—a doctor usually implicitly
claims that he or she is competent to give the medical advice, and that the advice is in
patient's best interests—and violations of such claims may form a basis for legal
action.
Private and Anonymous Communication:  Private people often severely punish
people for their communications.    To be meaningful, freedom of communication
must provide meaningful protections against abridgments by private people. 
Accordingly, to allow communication without punishment, the general public is
granted the right to make anonymous and private communications.  Brokers of such
communications may not be forced to store records of the communications as such
records allow future abridgments.  Such records would give the government the power
to abridge freedom of speech, and impose unacceptable danger on fundamental
rights.  Forcible determination of identity by the government must include due process
of law, in particular the anonymous speaker must be allowed to challenge  (without
disclosing the identity) the government's decision.  The government may, however,
use a reasonable amount of "wiretapping" for criminal and other investigations. 
Furthermore, the right to private and anonymous communication may cease to
become fundamental if a radical change in human nature eliminates the dangers
described above.

Forcible Communication:  The right to share ideas requires the right to tell which
ideas one believes in.  Forcing a person to affirm an idea violates this and is thus (in
general) unconstitutional.

OTHER RIGHTS:

Double Jeopardy:  To prevent arbitrary punishments that are likely to occur if the
government tries (for a crime) a person many times, the government is limited in the
number of times it can charge a person with the same or similar crimes. 
Self-incrimination:  A person cannot be forced to 'incriminate' him/herself since if a
person is required to self-incriminate, the person is often effectively forced to lie (as
opposed to being 'silent') to avoid a (possibly severe) punishment for the crime the
person is tried. Such actions are cruel and arbitrary, and thus violate fundamental
rights. Self-incrimination also violates the right to privacy.  
Right To notice of laws:  A punishment for an act is arbitrary if the person punished
could not know about the laws on which the punishment is based before the
punishment and the act neither violates fundamental rights nor is plainly wrong and
harmful. Thus, the right to obtain an advisory opinion (from an appropriate authority)
on the meaning of a vague law and not to be punished for violating such a law when
the action is legal under the advisory opinion is, to a substantial extent, a fundamental
right. 
What is Punishment:  Any discrimination is a punishment since the person is
punished for having the property being discriminated on, except that discrimination by
private people (who have no special authority) that does not abridge fundamental
rights does not qualify as a punishment. Thus, remedies in civil cases, administrative
actions, and punishment of children by the parents are examples of punishments.
Right to Attorney:  Since criminal and some other cases are complex and may
involve severe punishments, the defendant in such cases has a fundamental right to a
competent attorney(s) even if the defendant cannot pay for the attorney. Without the
attorney, the court's decision is much more likely to be inaccurate and thus arbitrary: 
The defendant may be unable to properly examine the evidence and analyze the law,
causing the decisions to be based on the prosecution's often intentional
misinterpretations. This right extends to all cases involving imprisonment or
deportation (and some other cases as well) (sentence added Sep 28, 2015). In all
cases, one may use consensual assistance of counsel of one's choosing even if the
counsel is not licensed to practice law (sentence added Nov 4, 2016).

Discriminatory Law Enforcement:  Discriminatory law enforcement punishes the

criminals against whom enforcement was discriminatory, and the victims who were
denied protection due to lack of law enforcement.  Since such punishments are
arbitrary, fundamental rights include meaningful protections against discriminatory
law enforcement.

Rights of Immigrants: Since all fundamental rights are part of the United States
Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, they apply to all people (including
illegal immigrants) in the United States. (Since the Constitution is legally binding for
all people in the USA, it applies to all people in the USA.) The government, however,
reserves the right to set up immigration restrictions and order deportations. Arbitrary
immigration policy denies without due process of law the liberty of Americans to be
with immigrants and is thus unconstitutional (and violates fundamental rights).
Deportation is a punishment and requires appropriate (open) hearings and
opportunities for judicial review. 
Voting:  Immigrants can vote in the country in which they are citizens. The USA does
not control the immigrants as the immigrants belong to the home country (where they
should have a right to vote), so the immigrants (who are not USA citizens) do not
have a Constitutional right to vote in the USA. All people whose country is USA (i.e.
citizens) have a right to vote in the USA, however.

Citizenship and Deportation:  If the government has a broad right to deport its
citizens or to strip people of citizenship or not grant citizenship in the first place, the
government can ignore the people through these actions and violate fundamental
rights. Thus, a person cannot be stripped of citizenship without the person's informed
consent. A citizen can be deported only for a crime (the crime must be directly related
to the country to which the person is deported) and after a proper judicial proceeding
and then only to a country where the person will retain all fundamental rights. Grant
of citizenship must be almost automatic for people born/created in the country.
PROVISION OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO US CONSTITUTION

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated

Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate
regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the
Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an
individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual
right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from
prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders
prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other
hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue
that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's
right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights
theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do
not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal
legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without
implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307
U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that
Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce
under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the
shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second
Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court
revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff
in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a
statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in
the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition
of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed
that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to
possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The
majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may
possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for
any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar
weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not
implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States
Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill
from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court
continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision
in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the
constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by
almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the
framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment
applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not
have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the
fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice
Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his
concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify
incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less
stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower
courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of
scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second
Amendment. As a general note, when analyzing statutes and ordinances, courts use
three levels of  scrutiny, depending on the issue at hand:

1. strict scrutiny
2. intermediate scrutiny
3. rational basis 

Recent lower-court case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to uphold

 regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350

Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing
a handgun onto post office property);
 regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile,
convicted felon.  US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the
Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not
violate the Second Amendment);
  regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v
County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York
law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed
firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper
cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)
More recently, the Supreme Court reinforced its Heller ruling in its Caetano v.
Massachusetts (2016) decision. The Court found that the lower "Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court was wrong in the three reasons it offered for why the state
could ban personal possession or use of a “stun gun” without violating the Second
Amendment." The Supreme Court, however, remanded the case without further
instructions, so this per curiam ruling did not do much to further clarify the Supreme
Court's stance on the Second Amendment. 

BENEFIT OF PROVISION OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO US

CONSTITUTION

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it

protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that
can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard.
This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights
was adopted. This massive shift of power from the states to the federal
government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed
Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would
taken from the states their principal means of defense against federal
usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were
overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be
almost impossible to subdue through military force. Notwithstanding the
lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they technically ruled only that
government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their
homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful”
regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the
mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools
and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms,
bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically
possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Many issues remain
open, and the lower courts have disagreed with one another about some of
them, including important questions involving restrictions on carrying
weapons in public.

Therefore would like to have the provision of second amendment to the US

Constitution.

Ans 2
Fixed Term Parliament Act, 2011 (FTPA)
• After the 2010 elections in U.K., none of the major Political Party could attain majority
and it resulted in a hung parliament.
• The Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats had to form a Coalition
government.
• To form the Coalition government and to place in some stability in the government,
both the parties made an agreement to establish five-year fixed term Parliament.
• Hence, came the FTPA, 2011, through which a fixed-term Parliament offered the
Coalition Government a certain amount of stability as it created an expectation that
Parliament would run for a full term.
• Further, it also ensured that the Prime Minister could not dissolve the Parliament at
any given point of time for pure political gain.
Though, the Act yet left scope for early general elections if 2 conditions are fulfilled:
 At least two-thirds of all MPs vote for an early general election; or  
 After a vote of no confidence, the existing government or an alternative government
does not secure the confidence of the House of Commons within 14 days.
No Confidence Motion
• The FTPA puts in place a specific procedure for demonstrating no confidence motion.
• Following a motion of no confidence, a 14-day period begins.
• In this time, a new government may be appointed, or the existing government may
regain confidence.
• If neither happens, a general election will take place.

Conclusion
In the present situation, if some MPs want early general elections then 2/3rd of them will
have to vote for it in the Parliament and subsequently in 14 days again the same
government or the alternative government will have to loose the confidence of the
house, then only early general elections can take place with a similar statute in place
like that of the “UK’s Fixed Term Parliament Act, 2011”