Roadmap for Answer Writing
1. Introduction
- Definition of Parliamentary Sovereignty: Explain the concept and its significance in governance.
- Thesis Statement: State that while both British and Indian parliaments are sovereign, their approaches differ significantly due to their constitutional frameworks.
2. Differences between the British and Indian Approaches
A. Constitutional Foundation
- British Approach:
- Fact: The UK has an uncodified constitution, which relies on conventions and judicial precedents.
- Significance: This provides flexibility in parliamentary sovereignty.
- Indian Approach:
- Fact: India has a codified constitution that clearly outlines the powers of Parliament.
- Significance: This creates a structured and explicit framework for parliamentary sovereignty.
B. Judicial Review
- British Approach:
- Fact: UK parliamentary decisions are theoretically beyond judicial review.
- Significance: This reinforces the supremacy of Parliament.
- Indian Approach:
- Fact: The Indian judiciary can review and invalidate laws passed by Parliament if found unconstitutional.
- Significance: This emphasizes constitutional supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty.
C. Federal Structure
- British Approach:
- Fact: The UK operates under a unitary system where sovereignty is centralized.
- Significance: This results in indivisible parliamentary sovereignty.
- Indian Approach:
- Fact: India has a federal structure with a division of powers between central and state legislatures.
- Significance: This creates a more nuanced and shared sovereignty.
D. Amendment of Constitution
- British Approach:
- Fact: The UK Parliament can alter laws without special procedures due to its unwritten constitution.
- Significance: This allows for greater parliamentary flexibility.
- Indian Approach:
- Fact: Constitutional amendments in India require a special majority and sometimes state ratification.
- Significance: This restricts parliamentary power to amend the constitution.
E. Individual Rights
- British Approach:
- Fact: The UK does not have a formalized system for protecting individual rights, relying on common law.
- Significance: This places individual rights at risk of parliamentary override.
- Indian Approach:
- Fact: India has a comprehensive list of fundamental rights that cannot be overridden by parliamentary laws.
- Significance: This protects individual rights against government encroachment.
3. Similarities between the British and Indian Approaches
A. Supreme Legislative Body
- Fact: Both parliaments hold supreme authority in legislative matters, as seen in landmark legislations like the Brexit bill and the GST Bill.
B. Accountability of the Executive
- Fact: The executive in both nations is accountable to Parliament, demonstrated through mechanisms like Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK and question sessions in India.
C. Legislative Processes
- Fact: Both countries follow rigorous legislative processes, such as the extensive scrutiny of the Anti-defection Law in India and the Investigatory Powers Act in the UK.
D. Financial Control
- Fact: Both parliaments oversee national budgets; India’s Union Budget and the UK’s budget presentation reflect this control.
E. Committee System
- Fact: Committees in both countries, like the Public Accounts Committee, play crucial roles in reviewing government expenditures.
4. Conclusion
- Summarize Key Points: Recap the key differences and similarities in the approaches to parliamentary sovereignty.
- Final Thought: Emphasize how these differences are shaped by their constitutional setups, impacting the balance of power between parliament and judiciary in each country.
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
2. Judicial Review
3. Federal Structure
4. Amendment of Constitution
5. Individual Rights
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.
The concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British and Indian contexts exhibits both similarities and differences.
British Approach
In the UK, parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the supreme legal authority, capable of creating or ending any law. No other body, including the judiciary, can override or nullify parliamentary legislation. This principle is rooted in the unwritten constitution and reflects the supremacy of elected representatives.
Indian Approach
In contrast, India follows a written constitution that limits parliamentary sovereignty. While Parliament can legislate on various matters, its powers are subject to constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court of India can invalidate laws that violate fundamental rights or contravene the Constitution, demonstrating a system of checks and balances.
Comparison
Both systems value legislative authority; however, the UK’s approach is absolute, whereas India’s is conditional. Indian parliamentary sovereignty is thus exercised within a framework of constitutional supremacy, ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected against potential legislative overreach.