Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to parliamentary sovereignty.
Introduction
Parliamentary sovereignty signifies the supreme authority of the legislature. While both Britain and India uphold democratic parliamentary systems, their approaches to this principle diverge significantly due to their constitutional frameworks.
British Approach: Absolute Sovereignty
- Unfettered legislative power; Parliament can make or unmake any law.
- No written constitution; no judicial review of primary legislation.
Indian Approach: Constitutional Supremacy
- Parliament's powers are derived from and limited by the written Constitution.
- Subject to judicial review (Articles 13, 32, 226); courts can strike down unconstitutional laws.
- Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati case) limits amending power.
- Federal structure (7th Schedule) restricts legislative domain.
Points of Comparison
- Both Parliaments are primary legislative bodies.
- Represent popular will and are central to their democracies.
Points of Contrast
- UK: Parliament is supreme; India: Constitution is supreme.
- UK: No judicial review of primary laws; India: Robust judicial review.
- UK: Unitary; India: Federal with divided powers.
Conclusion
These divergent approaches reflect their unique historical and constitutional evolutions, shaping the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary in each nation.
155 words · target ~150
The directive requires a discussion of both the similarities and differences between the British and Indian approaches to parliamentary sovereignty.
Suggested structure
Introduction: Defining Parliamentary Sovereignty & Core Distinction
British Model: Absolute Parliamentary Sovereignty
Indian Model: Constitutional Supremacy & Limited Parliament
Points of Comparison (Similarities)
Points of Contrast (Differences)
Conclusion: Implications of Divergent Approaches
Key points
British approach: Absolute parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament can make/unmake any law, no written constitution, no judicial review of primary legislation.
Indian approach: Constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy; Parliament's powers are derived from and limited by the Constitution.
Indian approach: Subject to judicial review (Articles 13, 32, 226) where courts can strike down laws violating the Constitution or Fundamental Rights.
Indian approach: Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati case) limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution's fundamental features.
Indian approach: Federal structure (7th Schedule) also restricts Parliament's legislative domain, unlike the unitary British system.
Similarities: Both Parliaments are the primary legislative bodies, represent the popular will, and are central to their respective democratic systems.
Common mistakes
Failing to address both 'compare' (similarities) and 'contrast' (differences) adequately.
Confusing constitutional supremacy with parliamentary supremacy in the Indian context.
Omitting the significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine in limiting Indian parliamentary power.
Lack of specific constitutional articles or case laws to substantiate points for the Indian system.
Difficulty: Medium — The question requires precise knowledge of both constitutional systems, including nuanced concepts like the Basic Structure Doctrine and the extent of judicial review. It demands analytical comparison rather than mere description, which can be challenging under time pressure.