Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to parliamen... | UPSC Mains Model Answer

Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to parliamentary sovereignty.

Based on 31 evaluated answers to this question on CollectorBabu: here is what aspirants most often missed, the mistakes that cost marks, and a model answer.

What most aspirants missed

Dicey's definition of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty as the anchor for the British side, with the theorist named
Judicial review contrast: UK courts cannot strike down statutes, while Indian courts can under Article 13 and Articles 32 and 226
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and the basic structure doctrine as the core Indian limit on Article 368 amendment power
Brexit and Miller (2017) as the practical example of British sovereignty, and EU membership's earlier constraint through Factortame (1990)
Federalism under the Seventh Schedule as a limit on the Indian Parliament, absent in the unitary British system
Parliamentary privilege contrast: Articles 105 and 194 subject to other constitutional provisions, against largely unchecked British privilege

Common mistakes

Stating that the British Parliament has absolute power without noting EU law, treaty obligations, and the Parliament Acts as qualifications
Describing the British system with factual errors, such as claiming no confidence motions or no ministerial responsibility, or denying MPs' speech immunity
Giving a comparison without a clear definition of parliamentary sovereignty in the introduction
Listing features of the two systems without linking them to the question of who holds the final law-making power
Using vague phrases like 'so many differences' instead of precise contrasts with named articles and cases
Ending with a summary that does not assess which system gives more or less effective limits on Parliament

What the better answers did

Opening with Dicey's definition and a one-line statement of the core difference between an unwritten and a written constitution
Naming specific provisions and cases: Article 13, Article 368, Kesavananda Bharati, Factortame, Miller
Organising the answer around contrasts in source, judicial review, amendment and federalism, with a short similarities section
Concluding with an overall assessment of how the limits differ in form and enforcement, including the Brexit implications

Introduction

Open by defining parliamentary sovereignty in one line with Dicey, then state that the core difference is an unwritten flexible constitution in Britain versus a written constitution with judicially enforced limits in India.

Conclusion

Close by judging that Britain's sovereignty is flexible and convention-bound while India's is constitutionally limited, and point out what Brexit shows about the British model.

Model answer

Parliamentary sovereignty means that the legislature is the supreme law-making authority. A.V. Dicey, in The Law of the Constitution (1885), defined it as Parliament's right to make or unmake any law, with no other body entitled to override it. Britain and India both run Westminster-style parliaments, but the source and limits of their power differ sharply.

Similarities

Both follow responsible government: the executive is drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a government can fall on a confidence motion.
Both have bicameral legislatures and the Speaker-led control over internal proceedings.
Both accept parliamentary supremacy in law-making within their constitutional space; ordinary statutes are not struck down merely on policy grounds.

Contrasts

Source of power: Britain has an unwritten constitution built from statutes, conventions and common law, so sovereignty evolved historically from the Glorious Revolution (1688) and the Bill of Rights 1689. India's Constitution (1950) is written, and Parliament's power is derived from it.
Judicial review: No British court can strike down an Act of Parliament. Indian courts can, under Article 13 (laws violating Fundamental Rights are void) and Articles 32 and 226.
Amendment: Britain alters constitutional arrangements by ordinary majority. India uses Article 368, which prescribes special majorities and, for some provisions, ratification by half the states. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) limits this power through the basic structure doctrine.
Limits from outside: Factortame (1990) showed that under the European Communities Act 1972, courts could disapply a later Act, a limit Parliament had accepted. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 curb only the House of Lords.
Federalism: India's division of powers under the Seventh Schedule restricts Parliament, whereas Britain's unitary system, with devolution by statute, does not.

Brexit and present position

Miller (2017) held that Parliament must authorise triggering Article 50, and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 restored legal control over EU law. This shows British sovereignty reasserting itself, but only through statute and political convention. India's position rests on judicially enforceable constitutional limits.

Britain's sovereignty is flexible and historically evolved, bounded mainly by treaty obligations and convention. India's is constitutionally defined, with courts and the basic structure as guardians. The difference lies in the source and form of limits rather than in whether limits exist.

Write this answer and get it evaluated

Handwritten answers, expert-reviewed, back in under 24 hours. Start UPSC Mains answer evaluation with the ₹49 Trial.

Evaluate my answer