NLNET Law 058
UGC NET LAW · CODE 058 · UNIT 10

UGC NET Law Unit 10: Comparative Public Law Notes, MCQs

Unit 10 of UGC NET Law (code 058) compares how India, the United Kingdom, the United States, France and a few other systems organise power. The questions ask which country has which feature, who propounded a concept and which case set a rule. These notes follow the syllabus order, add a comparison table and give sample questions you can try straight away.

  • Federalism
  • Separation of powers
  • Judicial review
  • Ombudsman
  • Right to information
  • 10 syllabus topics
  • 150+ free MCQs
  • No sign-up
  • Updated 11 October 2026

NET Law 058 is an independent study aid, not affiliated with UGC or NTA. Always check the official UGC NET syllabus and the current bare Acts.

What Unit 10 covers

Comparative public law is a table-building unit, so organising facts by country makes revision quick. The official syllabus lists 10 topics for this unit. Each is explained below with the points examiners most often use.

1Comparative law: relevance, methodology, problems and concerns

  • Uses: law reform, understanding foreign law, judicial interpretation and harmonisation. Comparative law can be macro (legal systems and families) or micro (specific institutions or rules).
  • Functional method (Zweigert and Kotz): compare how different systems solve the same social problem. Other approaches include structural, historical and contextual (cultural) methods.
  • Legal families: common law, civil law, and mixed or religious systems. Legal transplants (Alan Watson) describe borrowing of rules across systems.
  • Problems: language and translation, differences in context, selective or biased comparison and the risk of false equivalence.

2Forms of government: presidential and parliamentary; unitary and federal

  • Parliamentary (UK, India): the executive comes from the legislature and is collectively responsible to it. Presidential (USA): the President is elected separately, holds fixed term and is not responsible to Congress. France under the 1958 Constitution is semi-presidential.
  • Unitary government keeps sovereignty at the centre (UK, with devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). Federal government divides power between two levels under a written constitution (USA, Canada, India).
  • Features of federalism: written and supreme constitution, division of powers, an independent judiciary to resolve disputes and usually a rigid amendment procedure.
  • Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK (Dicey) contrasts with constitutional supremacy in the USA and India.

3Models of federalism: USA, Canada and India

  • USA: dual federalism under the 1787 Constitution; residuary powers rest with the States (Tenth Amendment). McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld implied powers of Congress.
  • Canada: Constitution Act, 1867 lists federal powers in section 91 and provincial powers in section 92. Residuary power lies with the federal Parliament (peace, order and good government), so the federation is centralised.
  • India: three lists in the Seventh Schedule, residuary power with Parliament (Article 248), Parliament's power to reorganise States (Article 3) and emergency provisions. It is often called quasi-federal, with a strong unitary bias.
  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) held that federalism is a part of the basic structure.

4Rule of law: formal and substantive versions

  • Dicey's three meanings: supremacy of regular law over arbitrary power, equality before the law, and the Constitution as a result of ordinary law and judicial decisions.
  • Formal (thin) versions look at how law is made and applied: generality, clarity, prospectivity and equal application (Raz, Fuller, Hayek). Substantive (thick) versions add content such as protection of rights and justice (Dworkin, Tom Bingham).
  • In India, rule of law is part of the basic structure. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) demands that procedure be fair, just and reasonable.
  • ADM Jabalpur (1976) is the cautionary example of rule of law failing during an Emergency and was later disapproved in Puttaswamy (2017).

5Separation of powers: India, UK, USA and France

  • Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws (1748) is the classic source. The USA follows a strict separation with checks and balances, and separation of personnel.
  • UK: a partial separation. The Cabinet sits in Parliament, and the Constitutional Reform Act, 2005 separated the judiciary further and created the UK Supreme Court, which began work in 2009.
  • France: the Fifth Republic (1958) allocates the domain of statute (Article 34) and leaves the rest to regulation (Article 37). Administrative courts, headed by the Conseil d'État, handle disputes with the administration.
  • India: no rigid separation but functional distinctions (Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1955). The Court has held that separation of powers is part of the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973; Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975).

6Judicial independence, activism and accountability: India, UK and USA

  • India: security of tenure and removal only by impeachment procedure (Articles 124 and 217); appointment through the collegium as shaped by the Three Judges Cases; the NJAC was struck down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015).
  • UK: Act of Settlement 1701 secured tenure. The Constitutional Reform Act, 2005 reformed the Lord Chancellor's role, set up the Judicial Appointments Commission and created the Supreme Court.
  • USA: federal judges are nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behaviour and their salaries cannot be reduced (Article III).
  • Judicial activism is a proactive judicial role in rights and policy. In India it grew through PIL and relaxed standing, pioneered by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. Accountability concerns include transparency in appointments and the risk of overreach.

7Systems of constitutional review: India, USA, Switzerland and France

  • USA: decentralised judicial review by all courts, established by Marbury v. Madison (1803). India: review under Articles 13, 32 and 226, extended to constitutional amendments through the basic structure doctrine.
  • Switzerland: the Federal Supreme Court can review cantonal laws but not federal statutes (Article 190 of the Constitution). Direct democracy through referendum and initiative is central.
  • France: the Conseil constitutionnel conducts mainly a priori (before promulgation) abstract review under Article 61. The 2008 reform introduced a posteriori review by the question prioritaire de constitutionnalité (Article 61-1), in use since 2010.
  • The Conseil's decision of 16 July 1971 on freedom of association gave constitutional value to the Preamble and rights texts it refers to.

8Constitutional amendment: India, USA and South Africa

  • India: Article 368, with a special majority and ratification by half of the States for federal features. Limit: the basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973; Minerva Mills, 1980).
  • USA: Article V. Proposal by two-thirds of both Houses (or a convention called by two-thirds of the States) and ratification by three-fourths of the States.
  • South Africa: section 74 of the 1996 Constitution requires a special majority in the National Assembly with support of the provinces in the NCOP. The founding values need the highest threshold of 75 per cent of the Assembly.
  • Germany's eternity clause (Article 79(3) of the Basic Law) is a useful contrast, since it bars amendments touching human dignity, federal structure and basic principles.

9Ombudsman: Sweden, UK and India

  • Sweden created the institution in 1809 (Justitieombudsman) and it is the origin of the model. The ombudsman investigates complaints of maladministration against officials.
  • UK: the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967 created the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Complaints came through a Member of Parliament (the MP filter). Health Service and local government commissioners were added later.
  • India: the Administrative Reforms Commission (1966) recommended Lokpal and Lokayuktas. Maharashtra created the first Lokayukta in 1971. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 provides for the Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in the States.
  • The ombudsman generally recommends and reports. It does not replace courts, and its strength depends on independence and publicity.

10Open government and right to information: USA, UK and India

  • USA: the Freedom of Information Act, 1966 gives access to federal agency records, subject to listed exemptions. Related laws: Privacy Act 1974 and Government in the Sunshine Act 1976.
  • UK: the Freedom of Information Act, 2000, in full effect from 2005, with the Information Commissioner as regulator.
  • India: the Right to Information Act, 2005 creates a right to information from public authorities, with Information Commissions at the Centre and in the States. Section 8 lists exemptions. The Supreme Court had read the right into Article 19(1)(a) earlier (State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, 1975).
  • The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 amended section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which deals with personal information.

Quick reference tables

Systems of governance compared
FeatureUKUSAFranceIndia
Form of governmentParliamentaryPresidentialSemi-presidentialParliamentary
State structureUnitary (with devolution)FederalUnitaryFederal with unitary bias
ConstitutionUncodifiedCodified, 1787Codified, 1958Codified, 1950
Constitutional reviewParliamentary sovereignty; courts cannot strike down statutesJudicial review by all courts (Marbury, 1803)Conseil constitutionnel (a priori; QPC since 2010)Supreme Court and High Courts, with basic structure
Ombudsman or similarPCA, 1967Inspectors general (no national ombudsman)Défenseur des droitsLokpal and Lokayuktas, 2013
Access to information lawFOI Act, 2000FOIA, 1966Access to administrative documents law (1978)RTI Act, 2005

Landmark cases to revise

Marbury v. Madison1803

US Supreme Court asserted the power of judicial review over legislation.

McCulloch v. Maryland1819

Congress has implied powers, and States cannot tax a federal bank.

Brown v. Board of Education1954

Racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab1955

India does not follow a rigid separation of powers, but functions are broadly distinct.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala1973

Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure.

State of U.P. v. Raj Narain1975

The public has a right to know, derived from freedom of speech and expression.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1978

Procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India1994

Presidential proclamation under Article 356 is judicially reviewable, and federalism is part of the basic structure.

S v. Makwanyane1995

South African Constitutional Court held the death penalty unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India2015

The NJAC Act and the 99th Amendment were struck down, restoring the collegium.

Practise Comparative Public Law MCQs topic by topic

Beyond the six samples, all 190 questions for this unit are on their own pages, grouped by syllabus topic, with the answer key on the page.

See all 12 topic sets (190 MCQs) →

Try 6 sample questions

Tap “Show answer” after you have tried each one. These come from the 150+ MCQs in this unit.

1Judicial review in the USA began with:

  1. Brown v. Board
  2. Dred Scott
  3. McCulloch v. Maryland
  4. Marbury v. Madison
Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Marbury v. Madison

Decided in 1803.

Report this question

2UK's Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was created in:

  1. 1967
  2. 1809
  3. 2005
  4. 1950
Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. 1967

Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967.

Report this question

3Germany's 'eternity clause' is in:

  1. Article 79(3) Basic Law
  2. Article 1
  3. Article 93
  4. Article 20
Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Article 79(3) Basic Law

It bars amendments affecting basic principles.

Report this question

4Consider the statements: 1. Switzerland uses referendums and initiatives. 2. Swiss courts can strike down federal laws.

  1. Only statement 1 is correct
  2. Only statement 2 is correct
  3. Both statements are correct
  4. Neither statement is correct
Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Only statement 1 is correct

Federal Supreme Court cannot review federal statutes.

Report this question

5Match: A Presidential, B Parliamentary, C Semi-presidential with (1) UK (2) USA (3) France

  1. A-2, B-1, C-3
  2. A-3, B-1, C-2
  3. A-1, B-2, C-3
  4. A-2, B-3, C-1
Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. A-2, B-1, C-3

Forms of government.

Report this question

6Federalism was held part of India's basic structure in:

  1. Kihoto Hollohan
  2. Berubari
  3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
  4. Golaknath
Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

1994.

Report this question

Practise all 150+ Unit 10 MCQsTake a free mock test

How to study this unit

  • Make a country grid (UK, USA, France, India, Canada, Switzerland, South Africa, Germany) with one feature and one case in each cell. Unit 10 is mostly matching.
  • Learn the founders and firsts: Sweden 1809, PCA 1967, FOIA 1966, Marbury 1803, Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
  • Always compare on the same axes: form of government, federal or unitary, who reviews legislation, and how the constitution is amended.

Planning your time? See the UGC NET Law preparation plans for 6 months, 3 months, 1 month or 2 weeks, or check the cut-off trend to set a target score.

← Unit 9: IPR & IT Law

Last updated: . Notes are a revision aid and not legal advice. Spotted a mistake? Write to netlawverse@gmail.com.