- Filter By :
- Polity & Governance
- International Relations
- Social Justice
-
Q. Compare and contrast the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy in the UK with the concept of Constitutional supremacy in India. (150 words)
25 Nov, 2025 GS Paper 2 Polity & GovernanceApproach :
- Provide a brief introduction to the British and Indian constitutional systems.
- Compare and contrast both systems across key dimensions.
- Conclude suitably
Introduction:
The British and Indian constitutional systems represent two contrasting approaches to democratic governance. While the UK embodies the classical Westminster doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, rooted in centuries of constitutional evolution, India follows Constitutional supremacy, wherein the written Constitution is the highest authority. These differences shape the distribution of power, the role of the judiciary, the protection of rights, and the nature of federalism in both countries.
Body:
Comparison across key dimensions :
Dimension Parliamentary Supremacy (UK) Constitutional Supremacy (India) 1. Core Philosophy Absolute Sovereignty: Parliament is the supreme legal authority. It can make or unmake any law whatsoever. No person or body is recognized by the law as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. Limited Government: The Constitution is the supreme lex loci (law of the land). All organs of the state (Legislature, Executive, Judiciary) derive their powers from it and must act within its limits. 2. Nature of the Constitution Unwritten / Flexible: Based on conventions, statutes (e.g., Bill of Rights 1689), and common law. There is no single "sacred" document. Written/Rigid: A codified document. It is the source of all authority. Amendments often require special majorities (Article 368), making it harder to change than ordinary law. 3. Judicial Review Weak / Procedural: Courts can interpret laws but cannot strike down an Act of Parliament as "unconstitutional." They can only issue a "Declaration of Incompatibility" (under Human Rights Act 1998), asking Parliament to reconsider. Strong / Substantive: The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare laws void (Article 13) if they violate the Constitution (especially Fundamental Rights). The Judiciary is the final interpreter. 4. Limitations on Amending Power None: Parliament can change the "constitution" (e.g., succession rules, House of Lords powers) through a simple majority, just like passing a traffic law. Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament has wide amending powers, but it cannot destroy the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution (e.g., Secularism, Federalism, Rule of Law etc.), as established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973). 5. Source of Rights Residual Rights: Traditionally, citizens had the freedom to do anything not prohibited by law. Now, rights are statutory (Human Rights Act). Parliament can theoretically repeal these rights. Fundamental Rights: Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution (Part III). They are justiciable and protected by the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226). 6. Federal vs. Unitary Unitary with Devolution: Power is centralized. The Scottish or Welsh Parliaments exist because the UK Parliament allowed them to exist. This power can technically be revoked. Federal Structure: The States are not delegates of the Centre. They derive their legislative and executive powers directly from the Constitution (Schedule 7), not from the Parliament. 7. Executive Accountability Fusion of Powers: The Executive sits inside the Legislature. The Prime Minister effectively controls the Parliament (if they have a majority), leading to what Lord Hailsham called an "Elective Dictatorship." Separation with Checks: While India also has a fusion of personnel (Ministers are MPs), the Constitution imposes specific checks. The President acts as a defense of the Constitution (Article 60) distinct from the PM. Conclusion:
- While the UK places absolute sovereignty in Parliament, reflecting centuries of constitutional evolution, India adopts a model where the Constitution is supreme, ensuring checks and balances, judicial review, and protection of fundamental rights. Both models embody democratic governance, but they differ fundamentally in where they locate ultimate authority—in Parliament in the UK, and in the Constitution (and thereby the people) in India.
To get PDF version, Please click on "Print PDF" button.
Print PDF
