UPSC MAINS 2023(GENERAL STUDIES II)Q4:Compare and Contrast the British and Indian Approaches to Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Q4:Compare and Contrast the British and Indian Approaches to Parliamentary Sovereignty.(Answer in 150 words)10 Marks

Introduction

Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the British and Indian constitutional systems. While both countries share a common heritage due to their historical connection, their approaches to parliamentary sovereignty reflect their distinct constitutional frameworks. This comparison highlights the similarities and differences between the British and Indian approaches to this principle.

British Approach to Parliamentary Sovereignty

1. Definition and ScopeIn the United Kingdom, parliamentary sovereignty refers to the principle that Parliament is the supreme legal authority, and no other body or institution can challenge or overturn its legislation. This means that Parliament has the power to make or repeal any law, and its decisions cannot be invalidated by any other authority.
2. Legal FrameworkThe British Constitution is uncodified, meaning that it is not contained in a single written document. Instead, it is based on statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, and historical documents. Parliamentary sovereignty is a key component of this flexible and evolving constitutional framework.
3. Judicial ReviewIn the UK, courts do not have the power to strike down or review legislation enacted by Parliament. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty ensures that laws passed by Parliament are supreme and cannot be challenged by the judiciary. This reflects the notion that elected representatives are the ultimate source of legal authority.
4. Limits and ExceptionsWhile parliamentary sovereignty is a core principle, there are practical limits to its exercise. For instance, the UK’s membership in international organizations and adherence to international treaties can influence domestic legislation. Additionally, the Human Rights Act 1998 has introduced some constraints on parliamentary sovereignty by requiring that legislation be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Indian Approach to Parliamentary Sovereignty

1. Definition and ScopeIn India, parliamentary sovereignty is also a fundamental principle, but it is tempered by the supremacy of the Constitution. While Parliament has the authority to make laws, its powers are subject to the constraints imposed by the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
2. Legal FrameworkThe Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, is a written and codified document that serves as the supreme law. Parliamentary sovereignty in India is exercised within the framework of constitutional limits, ensuring that laws made by Parliament must conform to constitutional principles and provisions.
3. Judicial ReviewUnlike the UK, India has a system of judicial review, where the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to review and invalidate legislation that violates constitutional provisions. This ensures that parliamentary laws are consistent with the Constitution and protects fundamental rights and freedoms.
4. Federal StructureIndia has a federal structure of governance, which introduces additional dimensions to parliamentary sovereignty. The Constitution divides powers between the Union and State legislatures, and Parliament’s sovereignty is limited to matters enumerated in the Union List. State legislatures have legislative powers over matters in the State List and the Concurrent List, creating a complex system of shared and exclusive powers.

Comparison

1. Source of SovereigntyIn both the UK and India, parliamentary sovereignty is derived from the respective constitutional frameworks. However, in the UK, parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of an uncodified constitution, while in India, it operates within the constraints of a written and codified Constitution.
2. Judicial ReviewThe UK follows a principle of parliamentary supremacy, where courts cannot invalidate parliamentary legislation. In contrast, India has established a system of judicial review, allowing the judiciary to scrutinize and invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution.
3. Constitutional ConstraintsThe UK’s approach allows Parliament to make or repeal laws without constitutional constraints, though practical limits exist due to international obligations. In India, parliamentary legislation must adhere to constitutional provisions, and any law that contravenes the Constitution can be struck down by the judiciary.
4. Federal vs. Unitary StructureThe UK operates under a unitary system with a central Parliament having supreme authority, while India’s federal structure divides powers between the central and state governments. This federal division adds complexity to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty in India, with Parliament’s powers being limited to specific areas.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both the British and Indian approaches to parliamentary sovereignty reflect the principle of legislative supremacy, they are shaped by their distinct constitutional contexts. The UK’s principle of parliamentary sovereignty is based on an uncodified constitution with no judicial review of parliamentary laws, whereas India’s approach is constrained by a written Constitution and a system of judicial review. These differences highlight the adaptability of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty to different constitutional frameworks and governance structures.