Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty. (150 words)
Introduction: Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the supreme authority of a legislative body to make, amend, and repeal laws without interference. The British and Indian approaches differ due to their unique constitutional frameworks.
British approach to Parliamentary sovereignty:
- Unwritten constitution: The UK’s unwritten constitution allows for flexibility in the British Parliament’s functioning.
- Unitary system: The UK’s unitary system centralizes power, supporting parliamentary sovereignty.
- Absolute sovereignty: The British Parliament has absolute sovereignty without legal constraints.
Indian approach to Parliamentary sovereignty:
- Written constitution: India’s written constitution limits Parliament’s sovereignty.
- Federal system: India’s federal system requires power-sharing between the central government and states.
- Constitutional supremacy: In India, the Constitution is supreme. Parliament is subject to judicial review.
Comparison of British and Indian approaches:
- Flexibility: The UK’s unwritten constitution offers flexibility, while India’s written constitution sets limitations.
- Nature of polity: The UK’s unitary system supports sovereignty. India’s federal system requires power-sharing.
- Judicial review: Indian Parliament undergoes judicial review, whereas the British Parliament does not.
Conclusion: The British and Indian approaches to parliamentary sovereignty differ based on their political systems and constitutions. The British Parliament has absolute sovereignty, while the Indian Parliament faces limitations and review. Understanding these differences provides insight into both countries’ political systems.
