Q.Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty.

Body (80-90 words)

• Discuss the British model of absolute parliamentary sovereignty.
• Discuss the Indian model of limited parliamentary authority under constitutional supremacy.
• Highlight key differences.
• Conclusion (20 words): Summarize how the Indian system balances legislative power with constitutional safeguards.

---

Body

British Approach to Parliamentary Sovereignty

• Absolute Authority: The UK Parliament holds supreme legislative power. As noted by jurist A.V. Dicey, Parliament has the legal right to make or unmake any law, and no institution can overrule its decisions.
• Absence of a Written Constitution: Lacking a codified constitution, Parliament's enactments represent the highest legal authority. For example, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 legally curtailed the powers of the House of Lords.
• No Judicial Review: British courts do not possess the authority to declare an Act of Parliament unconstitutional. Even laws affecting fundamental rights remain legally unchallenged.
• Legislative Flexibility: Laws can be modified or repealed with ease, as demonstrated historically by the swift repeal of the Corn Laws in the 19th century.
• Parliament as the Constitution: In the UK, parliamentary decisions effectively shape the constitutional framework, as there is no higher legal document.
• Sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament: This principle reinforces that legislative power is absolute when exercised by the monarch and the two houses of Parliament.

Indian Approach to Parliamentary Sovereignty

• Constitutional Supremacy (Article 245): In India, the Constitution is the supreme law. Article 245 mandates that while Parliament can legislate for the country, it must operate strictly within the boundaries set by the Constitution.
• Judicial Review (Article 13): The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, can strike down laws that violate constitutional provisions. Article 13 declares any law contravening fundamental rights as null and void, a principle upheld in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case.
• Basic Structure Doctrine: Under Article 368, Parliament can amend the Constitution, but the judiciary has ruled that it cannot alter its "basic structure" (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975).
• Separation of Powers: The Constitution delineates clear boundaries between the legislature, executive, and judiciary (Articles 50 and 124), preventing parliamentary overreach.
• Federal Structure (Articles 245-255): Legislative power is divided between the Union and the States under the Seventh Schedule, restricting Parliament's authority over state subjects.
• Special Majorities: Certain constitutional amendments require special majorities and state ratification under Article 368, further limiting unilateral parliamentary action.

Key Differences

• Extent of Sovereignty: Absolute in the UK; limited and constitutionally bound in India.
• Judicial Role: UK courts cannot invalidate parliamentary acts, whereas Indian courts possess robust powers of judicial review.
• Constitutional Constraints: The UK has an unwritten, highly flexible constitution, while India has a rigid, written constitution.
• Amendment Powers: Unlimited in the UK; restricted by the "Basic Structure" doctrine in India.
• Checks and Balances: The UK relies on political checks (elections, public opinion), while India utilizes formal legal checks (judicial review, federal division of power).