Comparison of Constitutions

Model Answer

Introduction

Parliamentary sovereignty denotes the supreme authority of parliament to enact, amend, and repeal laws, overshadowing other governmental bodies. The British and Indian approaches to this concept, while rooted in the same colonial legacy, have diverged significantly due to their distinct constitutional frameworks and interpretations.

Differences between the British and Indian Approaches

1. Constitutional Foundation

• British Approach: The UK operates under an uncodified constitution, allowing for greater flexibility in parliamentary sovereignty based on conventions and judicial precedents.
• Indian Approach: India has a codified constitution that delineates parliamentary powers, offering a structured and explicit framework for sovereignty.

2. Judicial Review

• British Approach: UK parliamentary decisions are theoretically beyond judicial review, affirming the supremacy of Parliament.
• Indian Approach: In India, the judiciary can review and nullify laws passed by Parliament if deemed unconstitutional, emphasizing constitutional supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty.

3. Federal Structure

• British Approach: The UK has a unitary system where parliamentary sovereignty is centralized and indivisible.
• Indian Approach: India’s federal structure divides powers between central and state legislatures, creating a more complex sovereignty dynamic.

4. Amendment of Constitution

• British Approach: The UK Parliament can amend laws, including constitutional principles, without a special procedure due to its unwritten constitution.
• Indian Approach: In India, constitutional amendments require a special majority and, in some cases, ratification by state legislatures, limiting parliamentary sovereignty.

5. Individual Rights

• British Approach: The UK lacks a formal system for protecting individual rights, relying on common law and parliamentary statutes.
• Indian Approach: India has a comprehensive list of fundamental rights in its constitution, which cannot be overridden by parliamentary laws.

Similarities between the British and Indian Approaches

1. Supreme Legislative Body

Both parliaments are supreme in legislative matters, exemplified by landmark bills such as the UK’s Brexit bill and India’s GST Bill.

2. Accountability of the Executive

In both systems, the executive is accountable to Parliament, demonstrated through mechanisms like Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK and question sessions in India.

3. Legislative Processes

Both nations have rigorous law-making processes, with significant scrutiny and debate before enacting laws, such as India’s Anti-defection Law and the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act.

4. Financial Control

Both parliaments oversee national budgets and economic policies, with India’s Union Budget and the UK’s budget presented in their respective houses.

5. Committee System

Committees in both countries play a crucial role in analyzing government expenditures and ensuring accountability, such as the Public Accounts Committee.

Conclusion

In summary, while the British and Indian parliaments share foundational democratic principles and legislative processes, they diverge significantly in their approaches to parliamentary sovereignty. These differences stem from their respective constitutional frameworks, influencing the balance of power between parliament and the judiciary.