Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sover- eignty.

GS210 Marks2023Model answer

Introduction

The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty is central to the functioning of both the British and Indian political systems. While the British Parliament is often described as supreme and unconstrained, the Indian Parliament operates within the framework of a written Constitution that imposes significant limitations. This distinction reflects the differing historical, legal, and political contexts of the two nations.

Key Differences Between British and Indian Approaches to Parliamentary Sovereignty

Aspect	British Approach	Indian Approach
Nature of Constitution	Unwritten and flexible, allowing Parliament to amend or repeal any law.	Written and rigid, with the Constitution being the supreme law of the land.
Extent of Sovereignty	Absolute sovereignty; no authority can override Parliament.	Limited sovereignty; Parliament is subordinate to the Constitution.
Judicial Review	Courts cannot strike down laws passed by Parliament.	Judiciary has the power of judicial review to ensure laws comply with the Constitution.
Separation of Powers	No strict separation; Parliament is supreme over the executive and judiciary.	Clear separation of powers; Parliament, executive, and judiciary operate within defined limits.
Amendment of Constitution	No special procedure; Parliament can amend constitutional principles through ordinary legislation.	Special procedures under Article 368 for constitutional amendments.
Role of Fundamental Rights	No entrenched fundamental rights; Parliament can legislate freely.	Fundamental Rights are protected under Part III of the Constitution and cannot be abridged arbitrarily.
Federalism	Unitary system; Parliament can legislate for the entire UK.	Federal structure; Parliament’s powers are divided between Union and State legislatures under Seventh Schedule.

Key Similarities Between British and Indian Approaches

Legislative Supremacy in Respective Domains: Both Parliaments are supreme within their respective spheres of competence. In India, this is subject to constitutional limitations.
Representative Democracy: Both systems derive legitimacy from the principle of popular sovereignty, with elected representatives forming the legislature.
Parliamentary Privileges: Both Parliaments enjoy privileges such as freedom of speech within the House, though these are codified in India under Article 105.

Implications of the Differences

Checks and Balances: The Indian system ensures a balance of power through judicial review and constitutional supremacy, while the British system relies on the principle of parliamentary supremacy.
Flexibility vs. Rigidity: The British system allows for greater flexibility in governance, whereas the Indian system ensures stability and protection of fundamental rights through constitutional rigidity.

Conclusion

The British model of absolute parliamentary sovereignty reflects its historical evolution and reliance on conventions, while the Indian model of constitutional supremacy ensures a balance of power and protection of rights in a diverse, federal polity. Both systems, however, uphold the principle of democratic governance, albeit through distinct frameworks.

Word count 464Indicative model answer · for structured practice, not an official answer key.

Answer LengthModel answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam's prescribed limit.

Suggested PYQ