Q & A on Constitutional Law of Canada & Australia

While specific past examination papers from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University on the constitutional laws of Canada and Australia are not readily accessible online, I can provide a selection of important questions along with concise answers to aid your study.

1. Comparative Constitutional Frameworks:

Question: What are the primary differences between the constitutional structures of Canada and Australia?

Answer: Canada operates under a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy, where the Constitution Act of 1867 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) are pivotal. Australia also functions as a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system, guided by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900. A key difference is that Canada's Charter provides explicit protection of individual rights, whereas Australia lacks a comprehensive bill of rights, relying instead on legislative and common law protections.

2. Federalism:

Question: How is the division of powers between federal and regional governments structured in Canada and Australia?

Answer: In Canada, the Constitution Act of 1867 delineates powers between the federal government and provinces, with sections 91 and 92 specifying federal and provincial jurisdictions, respectively. In Australia, sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution enumerate federal powers, while residual powers remain with the states. Both countries have experienced judicial interpretations that have shifted the balance of these powers over time.

3. Judicial Review:

Question: Compare the role of the judiciary in constitutional interpretation in Canada and Australia.

Answer: Both Canada and Australia empower their highest courts—the Supreme Court of Canada and the High Court of Australia, respectively—to interpret the constitutionality of laws. In Canada, the judiciary actively enforces the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often engaging in rights-based judicial review. In contrast, Australia's High Court focuses more on federalism disputes and the separation of powers, given the absence of a comprehensive bill of rights.

4. Rights Protection:

Question: How do Canada and Australia differ in their approaches to protecting individual rights?

Answer: Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides a robust framework for individual rights protection, allowing courts to invalidate legislation that infringes upon these rights. Australia does not have a similar charter; instead, it relies on specific statutes and common law principles to protect rights. This leads to a more limited scope of judicial review concerning individual rights in Australia.

5. Indigenous Rights:

Question: How are Indigenous rights recognized constitutionally in Canada and Australia?

Answer: In Canada, Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, providing a constitutional basis for Indigenous rights. In Australia, there is no equivalent constitutional recognition, and Indigenous rights are primarily addressed through legislation and common law, such as the Native Title Act 1993 following the Mabo decision.

6. Constitutional Amendments:

Question: Outline the procedures for amending the constitutions in Canada and Australia.

Answer: Canada's Constitution can be amended through several procedures, the most significant being the "7/50" rule, requiring the approval of the federal parliament and two-thirds of the provinces representing at least 50% of the population. Australia's Constitution mandates that amendments pass both houses of federal parliament and be approved by a majority of voters nationwide, as well as a majority in a majority of states (at least four out of six), through a referendum.

For a more comprehensive understanding, you might find the following lecture useful: