Points to Remember:
- Parliamentary Sovereignty: The supreme authority of the legislature (Parliament) to make and unmake laws.
- British Model: Unwritten constitution, absolute parliamentary supremacy, limitations through conventions and judicial review (limited).
- Indian Model: Written constitution, parliamentary supremacy with limitations, judicial review plays a significant role.
- Key Differences: Nature of the constitution, role of the judiciary, limitations on legislative power.
Introduction:
Parliamentary sovereignty is a cornerstone of many democratic systems. It signifies the supreme authority of the legislature to make, amend, and repeal laws without any external check. However, the manifestation of this principle varies across different countries. This essay compares and contrasts the British and Indian approaches to parliamentary sovereignty, highlighting their similarities and differences. While both nations embrace the concept, the extent and nature of this sovereignty differ significantly due to their distinct constitutional frameworks and historical contexts.
Body:
1. Nature of the Constitution:
- Britain: Britain operates under an unwritten constitution, a collection of statutes, conventions, judicial precedents, and other sources. This lack of a codified document allows for greater flexibility but also leads to ambiguity and potential for abuse. Parliament’s sovereignty is largely based on convention and historical precedent.
- India: India possesses a written constitution, a comprehensive document outlining the structure of the government, the fundamental rights of citizens, and the limits on governmental power. This written nature provides clarity and stability but can be less adaptable to changing circumstances. Parliamentary sovereignty in India is explicitly defined and constrained by the constitution itself.
2. Role of the Judiciary:
- Britain: The British judiciary’s role in limiting parliamentary sovereignty is limited. While judicial review exists, it primarily focuses on the interpretation of statutes, not on the validity of the legislation itself. Parliament’s power to legislate is generally considered absolute. However, judicial pronouncements on the meaning of statutes can indirectly influence legislative action.
- India: The Indian judiciary plays a much more active role in checking parliamentary sovereignty. The Supreme Court of India has the power of judicial review, enabling it to strike down laws that violate the constitution. This power acts as a significant constraint on the legislature, ensuring that laws conform to the fundamental rights and principles enshrined in the constitution. Landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the concept of “basic structure” doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend fundamental aspects of the constitution.
3. Limitations on Legislative Power:
- Britain: While Parliament’s power is theoretically unlimited, practical limitations exist. These include political constraints (public opinion, media scrutiny), international law (treaties and conventions), and conventions of the constitution (e.g., respecting the independence of the judiciary). However, these are not legally binding checks.
- India: The Indian Constitution explicitly limits Parliament’s power. Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, act as a significant check on legislative action. Parliament cannot enact laws that violate these fundamental rights. Furthermore, the federal structure of the Indian government distributes legislative powers between the Union and State legislatures, further limiting the scope of Parliament’s authority.
4. Mechanisms for Amendment:
- Britain: Parliament can amend or repeal any law with a simple majority. There are no special procedures for amending fundamental aspects of the constitution, as there is no codified document to define such aspects.
- India: The Indian Constitution outlines a specific procedure for amendments, requiring different majorities and sometimes even ratification by state legislatures. This makes the amendment process more complex and deliberate, providing an additional layer of protection against hasty or ill-considered changes.
Conclusion:
Both Britain and India embrace parliamentary sovereignty, but their approaches differ significantly. The British model, based on an unwritten constitution, grants Parliament near-absolute power, constrained primarily by convention and political realities. The Indian model, rooted in a written constitution and robust judicial review, places significant limitations on Parliament’s power, ensuring that legislation conforms to constitutional principles and fundamental rights. While the British system prioritizes legislative flexibility, the Indian system prioritizes constitutional stability and protection of fundamental rights. A balanced approach, incorporating both flexibility and constitutional safeguards, is crucial for a healthy democracy. India’s system, with its emphasis on judicial review and a written constitution, offers a more robust framework for protecting fundamental rights and preventing legislative overreach, while acknowledging the need for legislative responsiveness. This approach, emphasizing both parliamentary supremacy and constitutional limitations, provides a more holistic and sustainable model for democratic governance.