Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty. (150 words) (UPSC GS 2 2023/10 marks)
While Britain upholds the absolute supremacy of Parliament within an unwritten constitution, India places the Constitution above Parliament, with clear limitations and judicial review powers. These distinctions reflect the unique historical and constitutional contexts of each country and have significant implications for the exercise of governmental power and protection of individual rights.
Introduction
British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty exhibit notable differences rooted in their respective constitutional frameworks and historical contexts. While both systems acknowledge the supremacy of their legislatures, the way this principle is exercised and constrained varies significantly.
Comparison between the British and Indian Approaches to Parliamentary Sovereignty:
| Aspect | British Approach | Indian Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Historical Development | Evolved over centuries, with Magna Carta (1215) and Bill of Rights (1689) as key milestones. | Established through the Constitution of India in 1950, influenced by British constitutional principles. |
| Sovereign Body | Westminster Parliament is the supreme legislative body. | Indian Parliament, consisting of the President and two houses, is sovereign. |
| Judicial Review | Limited judicial review; courts can question the legality but not the validity of parliamentary laws. | Extensive judicial review; courts can strike down laws inconsistent with the Constitution. |
| Fundamental Rights | Limited protection of fundamental rights; can be overridden by Parliament. | Fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution are not subject to parliamentary override. |
| Amendment Process | Flexible; laws can be amended or repealed by a simple majority. | Rigid; amending the Constitution requires a special majority in Parliament and ratification by the majority of state legislatures. |
| Federalism | Unitary system with devolved powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. | Federal system with a division of powers between the central and state governments. |
| Cultural and Religious Diversity | No explicit constitutional recognition of cultural and religious diversity. | Constitution recognizes cultural and religious diversity and provides for special safeguards. |
| Role of President | Ceremonial head of state with limited powers; assents to bills but does not have discretion. | Constitutional head of state with certain discretionary powers; can withhold assent in specific circumstances. |
Constitutional Backing:
British: The British approach to parliamentary sovereignty is not codified in specific constitutional articles. It is based on historical documents like the Magna Carta and conventions like the Bill of Rights 1689.
Indian: The Indian approach to parliamentary sovereignty is outlined in several constitutional articles, including:
- Article 79: Composition of Parliament.
- Article 245: Extent of legislative powers of Parliament and state legislatures.
- Article 246: Subject matter of laws made by Parliament and state legislatures.
- Article 368: Procedure for amending the Constitution.
Evaluation and Conclusion
While Britain upholds the absolute supremacy of Parliament within an unwritten constitution, India places the Constitution above Parliament, with clear limitations and judicial review powers. These distinctions reflect the unique historical and constitutional contexts of each country and have significant implications for the exercise of governmental power and protection of individual rights.