Que. Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty.
संसदीय संप्रभुता के प्रति ब्रिटिश एवं भारतीय दृष्टिकोणों की तुलना कीजिए और अंतर बताइए।
Structure of the Answer
(i) Introduction: Briefly define “Parliamentary sovereignty,” emphasizing Britain’s “absolute authority” and India’s system where “constitutional limits” and “judicial review” apply.
(ii) Main Body: Compare both systems by discussing the “historical context,” “legal structures,” “judicial roles,” and “limitations” on parliamentary authority.
(iii) Conclusion: Summarize the difference: Britain’s “unrestricted sovereignty” versus India’s “constitutional supremacy” and the constraints of the “basic structure doctrine.”
Introduction
“Parliamentary sovereignty” in Britain means “absolute legislative authority,” while in India, it is subject to the “Constitution.” India’s Parliament is checked by “judicial review” and the “basic structure doctrine,” ensuring “constitutional supremacy” over legislative actions.
British Approach to Parliamentary Sovereignty
(i) Absolute Power of Legislation: The British Parliament is legally “sovereign” and can pass, amend, or repeal any law. Its authority is unlimited by external legal restraints, reflecting the idea of “Parliamentary supremacy.”
(ii) Absence of a Written Constitution: Britain lacks a “written constitution,” which allows Parliament to operate without being bound by any higher law. Its laws can be changed flexibly, as needed.
(iii) No Judicial Review: The British judiciary cannot invalidate any law passed by Parliament. The courts interpret laws but cannot question the legitimacy of Parliamentary acts.
(iv) Parliament as Sovereign Authority: In the British system, Parliament is the supreme decision-making body. There are no legal limits to what Parliament can legislate, making it the ultimate authority in all legal matters.
(v) Role of Conventions: Though legally unrestricted, British Parliament adheres to “constitutional conventions” like protecting individual rights. These are norms, not laws, and Parliament can choose to deviate from them.
Indian Approach to Parliamentary Sovereignty
(i) Constitutional Supremacy: India’s Parliament operates under the authority of the “Constitution.” Unlike Britain, it cannot pass any law that contravenes the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
(ii) Judicial Review and Basic Structure Doctrine: India’s “Supreme Court” has the power of “judicial review,” allowing it to strike down any law that violates the Constitution. This ensures a balance of power.
(iii) Fundamental Rights and Checks on Parliament: Indian Parliament is bound by the “Fundamental Rights” enshrined in the Constitution. Any law infringing upon these rights can be declared unconstitutional by the judiciary.
(iv) Limited Power of Amendment: While Indian Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the “basic structure,” a principle established by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
(v) Federalism and Division of Power: India’s “federal system” divides power between the Centre and States. This limits Parliament’s scope to legislate in areas that fall under state jurisdiction, as outlined in the Constitution.
Comparison Between British and Indian Approaches
(i) Absolute vs. Conditional Sovereignty: British Parliament has “absolute sovereignty,” while India’s Parliament is bound by “constitutional limitations.” This ensures that Indian legislative powers are checked by the Constitution and judiciary.
(ii) Judicial Review: In Britain, courts cannot question the legality of Parliamentary laws, while in India, “judicial review” is a powerful mechanism to uphold constitutional principles and invalidate unconstitutional laws.
(iii) Role of Fundamental Rights: In India, laws passed by Parliament must respect “Fundamental Rights,” which is not a requirement in Britain, where Parliament can legislate on any subject without restrictions.
(iv) Amendment Powers: British Parliament can amend or repeal any law, while Indian Parliament’s amendment powers are restricted by the “basic structure doctrine,” ensuring certain principles cannot be altered.
(v) Unitary vs. Federal Structure: Britain operates a “unitary system,” centralizing power in Parliament. In contrast, India’s “federal system” divides legislative authority between the central and state governments, limiting Parliament’s reach.
Practical Implications of Sovereignty in Both Systems
(i) Flexibility vs. Stability: The British model allows flexibility in lawmaking due to the lack of a “written constitution,” while the Indian system ensures stability by adhering to a “written Constitution” that governs legislative actions.
(ii) Parliamentary Democracy vs. Constitutional Democracy: The British system emphasizes “parliamentary democracy,” where Parliament is the ultimate authority, while India operates a “constitutional democracy,” where legislative powers are restrained by the Constitution.
(iii) Executive Control: In both systems, the executive is accountable to Parliament. However, in India, the Constitution limits the executive’s power, unlike Britain, where the executive operates with greater flexibility.
(iv) Human Rights and Liberties: While Britain relies on conventions for protecting individual rights, India provides “constitutionally guaranteed Fundamental Rights” that Parliament cannot infringe upon, safeguarding individual freedoms.
(v) International Influence: British sovereignty has historically influenced the constitutional models of many countries. India, though influenced by Britain, has crafted a distinct system that prioritizes “constitutional checks and balances.”
Conclusion
The British model grants “absolute sovereignty” to Parliament, with no legal constraints, while India ensures a balance of power through “constitutional supremacy” and “judicial review.” The Indian approach aligns more with a “constitutional democracy,” safeguarding fundamental principles.
