Q. Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty.

Model Answer: 

Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle in the constitutional law of many parliamentary democracies, including the United Kingdom and India. It refers to the supreme legislative authority of the parliament, which cannot be overridden or bound by any other institution, including the judiciary or the executive. However, the approach to parliamentary sovereignty in the UK and India is distinct due to the different political, legal, and historical contexts of these two countries.

British Approach to Parliamentary Sovereignty

1. Absolute Sovereignty: The British Parliament is considered absolutely sovereign. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK means that Parliament can make or change laws, and no person or body has the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.

2. Unwritten Constitution: The UK has an unwritten or uncodified constitution, which means that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is not explicitly codified in a single document. It is based on historical documents, statutes, legal conventions, and judicial decisions.

3. No Judicial Review: The British judiciary does not have the power to review the constitutionality of legislation passed by Parliament. This is a direct result of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

4. No Limitations: In theory, there are no substantive limitations on the types of laws that the UK Parliament can pass. This means that Parliament could change the constitution or alter an individual’s rights without any legal restrictions.

Indian Approach to Parliamentary Sovereignty

1. Limited Sovereignty: In India, the Parliament’s sovereignty is not absolute but limited by the Constitution. The Indian Parliament cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution.

2. Written Constitution: India has a written or codified constitution, which explicitly outlines the powers and limits of the Parliament. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is limited by the constitutional provisions.

3. Judicial Review: The Indian judiciary has the power to review the constitutionality of legislation passed by Parliament. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of India can declare it null and void.

4. Fundamental Rights: The Indian Parliament cannot pass laws that infringe upon the fundamental rights of the citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution. This is a significant limitation on the sovereignty of the Parliament.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the British approach to parliamentary sovereignty is based on the absolute power of Parliament, with no legal restrictions on the types of laws it can pass. This is due to the country’s unwritten constitution and the absence of judicial review. In contrast, the Indian approach to parliamentary sovereignty is limited by the Constitution, which outlines the powers and limitations of Parliament, provides for judicial review, and protects the fundamental rights of citizens. Thus, while both countries uphold the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, their approaches are shaped by their unique constitutional settings and legal traditions.