The British and Indian approaches to parliamentary sovereignty present distinct models shaped by their constitutional histories. While the British Parliament is sovereign without constitutional limitations, India follows a system of limited parliamentary sovereignty underpinned by judicial review and the Constitution as the supreme law.

Q4. Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to parliamentary sovereignty.

Model Answer:

Introduction

The concept of parliamentary sovereignty, while central to both the British and Indian political systems, manifests in significantly different forms.

Body

British Parliamentary Sovereignty

The British Parliament is often described as the 'supreme law-making body'. This sovereignty is not explicitly enshrined in any written document but is a product of historical evolution and judicial recognition.

‍

 A.V. Dicey, a prominent constitutional theorist, articulated three core elements of parliamentary sovereignty:

• Parliament can make or unmake any law. some text
  • The UK operates with an uncodified constitution, primarily based on customs, conventions, and statutes. This flexibility allows Parliament to adapt to changing circumstances without constitutional amendments. 
• Parliament cannot bind its successors.
• The Parliament is not bound by any higher legal authority. Courts cannot invalidate its laws, even if they are deemed unjust or unreasonable.

‍

British courts have consistently upheld this doctrine. In cases like Cheney v Conn (1980), the House of Lords reaffirmed parliamentary supremacy, emphasising that courts must apply enacted law without questioning its validity.

‍

Indian Parliamentary Sovereignty

• India has a written constitution that establishes a framework for governance. 

• While the Parliament is a powerful law-making body, its authority is circumscribed by the constitution.

• Constitutional Supremacy: The Indian Constitution is the supreme law, and all laws must conform to its provisions. 

• Article 13 empowers the judiciary to declare any law inconsistent with fundamental rights as void.

• Limited Amendment Power: While Parliament can amend the constitution, certain provisions require specific majorities or ratification by state legislatures. This reflects a balance between flexibility and rigidity.

• Moreover, India's federal structure and the inclusion of fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy further curtail Parliament's absolute power. 

‍

The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in upholding constitutional supremacy. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the doctrine of the 'basic structure' of the constitution, which cannot be altered by Parliament.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the British Parliament enjoys unparalleled legislative authority, the Indian Parliament operates within a framework that safeguards fundamental rights and the Constitution's core principles. The evolution of both systems continues to shape the dynamics of parliamentary sovereignty in these two democracies. 

‍

Instant Mains Evaluation with SuperKalam

✅ Now that you have gone through the model answer, try practicing and writing it in your own words and evaluate it instantly with SuperKalam here - Evaluate Mains Answer instantly

‍