Q. Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty. (150 words, 10 marks)
Why the Question?
UPSC PYQ – CSE Mains – 2023
Keywords of the Question
- British and Indian approaches
- Parliamentary sovereignty
Directive Word
- Compare – Identify the similarities and differences between two or more phenomena. Say if any of the shared similarities or differences are more important than others.
- Contrast – Similar to compare but concentrate on the dissimilarities between two or more phenomena, or what sets them apart. Point out any differences which are particularly significant.
How to approach this Question?
Introduction
- Briefly define Parliamentary sovereignty.
- Mention the significance of Parliamentary sovereignty in both the British and Indian contexts.
Body
- British Approach:
- Explain the concept of absolute Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK.
- Highlight key features such as the lack of a written constitution and the supremacy of Parliament over other branches of government.
- Indian Approach:
- Describe the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty within the framework of the Indian Constitution.
- Emphasize the role of the Constitution as the supreme law and the checks and balances provided by the judiciary.
- Comparison (in table form):
- Create a table to compare key aspects such as the definition, constitution, judicial review, checks and balances, and amendment process between the British and Indian approaches.
Conclusion
- Summarize the key differences and similarities.
- Reflect on the implications of these approaches for democratic governance in both countries.
Note: Please note that the following ‘answers’ are not ‘model answers’ nor are they synopses in the strictest sense. Instead, they are content designed to meet the demands of the question while providing comprehensive coverage of the topic.
Answer Key
Introduction
Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the ultimate legal authority of Parliament to enact or repeal any law. This principle is central to the British political system, while in India, it operates within the constraints of a written constitution.
Body
| Aspect | British Approach | Indian Approach |
| Definition | Absolute sovereignty of Parliament. | Sovereignty within the limits of the Constitution. |
| Constitution | No written constitution; Parliament is supreme. | Written constitution; Constitution is supreme. |
| Judicial Review | Limited judicial review; courts cannot overrule Parliament. | Extensive judicial review; courts can strike down unconstitutional laws. |
| Checks and Balances | Minimal checks; Parliament has ultimate authority. | Significant checks; judiciary and executive provide balance. |
| Amendment Process | Flexible; Parliament can amend laws easily. | Rigid; amendments require special procedures and majorities. |
| Constitutional Framework | Uncodified constitution shaped by conventions, statutes, and precedents. | Comprehensive written constitution with explicit fundamental rights and principles. |
| Separation of Powers | No formal separation; Parliament maintains supremacy. | Defined separation of powers; judiciary reviews laws violating fundamental rights. |
| Federal vs. Unitary State | Unitary state with centralized sovereignty; devolved governments derive power from Parliament. | Federal state with distributed authority between central and state governments. |
| Basic Structure Doctrine | No equivalent concept; courts cannot annul constitutional amendments. | Basic Structure Doctrine allows judiciary to strike down amendments compromising the Constitution. |
Conclusion
The UK emphasizes absolute Parliamentary sovereignty, whereas India’s approach balances Parliamentary power with constitutional supremacy and judicial review. This ensures a more structured and balanced governance system, reflecting the differing historical and political contexts of the two nations.