The British and Indian approaches to parliamentary sovereignty reflect their distinct constitutional frameworks and historical contexts.

British Approach:

Absolute Sovereignty: In the UK, Parliament holds supreme legal authority. It can create or repeal any law, and no court can overrule its legislation. This concept is rooted in the unwritten constitution and the historical evolution of parliamentary power.
No Judicial Review: British courts cannot question the validity of parliamentary statutes, reflecting the principle that Parliament cannot be bound by its predecessors or successors.
Indian Approach:

Constitutional Sovereignty: India’s sovereignty lies with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. The Parliament’s power is extensive but not absolute; it operates within the limits set by the Constitution.
Judicial Review: The Indian judiciary has the power to review and invalidate parliamentary laws that contravene the Constitution. This ensures checks and balances and protects fundamental rights.
Federal Structure: India’s federal system divides powers between the central and state governments, further limiting parliamentary sovereignty compared to the unitary system in the UK.

Contrasts:
Limitations: While the UK Parliament is unrestricted, Indian Parliament is constrained by the Constitution.
Judicial Role: UK lacks judicial review over parliamentary laws, unlike India, where the judiciary can annul unconstitutional legislation.
In summary, the British approach centers on absolute parliamentary authority, whereas the Indian approach emphasizes constitutional supremacy and judicial checks on parliamentary power.