DR. B.R.

AMBEDKAR NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

TOPIC:

A COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

WITH THE UK CONSTITUION WITH RESPECT TO
PARLIAMENTARY SOVERIGNITY

SEMESTER VI
SECTION B
B.A.LL. B (HONS.)
SUBMITTED TO: MR. NAVNEET KRISHNA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW

SUBMITTED BY: SHUBHANKAR PALIWAL

2001104

SHILPI ARYA

2001098
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our profound gratitude towards many individuals as without their
kind support it would not be possible for us to complete this research project. We feel highly
elated to work on the project titled, ‘A COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION WITH THE UK CONSTITUION WITH RESPECT TO
PARLIAMENTARY SOVERIGNITY’.

Firstly, we would like to extend our sincere thanks to Mr. Navneet Krishna, Assistant Professor
of Law, who gave us the golden opportunity to enhance our hidden opportunities through this
project. We would also like to extend our gratitude towards our respected parents for their kind
co-operation and encouragement as they helped us a lot in completion of this project.

At last, we end up thanking all who helped in finalizing the project within the limited time
frame.
 INTRODUCTION

This article explores the fundamental similarities between the constitutions of the United
Kingdom and India, which serve as the foundational legal frameworks for their respective
nations. Despite their distinct historical and cultural backgrounds, these constitutional
documents share significant resemblances in terms of their structure, principles, and
commitment to democratic governance. The focus of this article is to highlight the key
commonalities between the UK and Indian constitutions, including areas such as parliamentary
democracy, the rule of law, protection of fundamental rights, the division of powers among
different branches of government, and the procedures for making constitutional amendments.

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY: A COMMON FOUNDATION

One of the fundamental similarities between the UK and Indian constitutions lies in their
adoption of a parliamentary democratic system. Both nations have embraced the concept of
parliamentary sovereignty, wherein the elected representatives hold supreme legislative
authority. The UK Parliament consists of two houses—the elected House of Commons and the
appointed House of Lords—while India has its Lok Sabha (House of the People) and Rajya
Sabha (Council of States). In both countries, the executive branch, led by the Prime Minister,
is accountable to the legislature foundational legal frameworks for their respective nations.
Despite their diverse historical and cultural backgrounds, these two constitutional documents
share significant similarities in terms of structure, principles, and democratic governance. This
article aims to delve into the key similarities between the UK and Indian constitutions,
highlighting their common features in areas such as parliamentary democracy, the rule of law,
fundamental rights, separation of powers, and constitutional amendments.

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY: A COMMON FOUNDATION

One of the fundamental similarities between the UK and Indian constitutions lies in their
adoption of a parliamentary democratic system. Both nations have embraced the concept of
parliamentary sovereignty, wherein the elected representatives hold supreme legislative
authority. The UK Parliament consists of two houses—the elected House of Commons and the
appointed House of Lords—while India has its Lok Sabha (House of the People) and Rajya
Sabha (Council of States). In both countries, the executive branch, led by the Prime Minister,
is accountable to the legislature1.

THE RULE OF LAW: UPHOLDING JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

The concept of the rule of law is fundamental in both the UK and Indian legal systems, serving
as a crucial element of their respective constitutions. It guarantees equal application of the law
to every individual, including the government, thereby safeguarding individual rights and
freedoms. In the UK, the rule of law has developed through common law and legal customs,

1
https://www.cram.com/document/FC4DEBZTU CRAM ESSAYS
whereas in India, it is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Both nations possess autonomous
judiciaries responsible for upholding the rule of law and safeguarding citizens' rights through
just and unbiased legal proceedings.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES

The UK and Indian constitutions share a notable resemblance in their acknowledgment and
preservation of fundamental rights. In the UK, these rights have traditionally been safeguarded
through a blend of common law and statutory measures, which protect individual liberties like
freedom of speech, association, and religion. Similarly, the Indian Constitution encompasses a
comprehensive set of rights that guarantee fundamental freedoms, including equal treatment
under the law, freedom of expression, and protection against discrimination. These rights act
as crucial safeguards against potential misuse of governmental authority, ensuring the dignity
and welfare of citizens.

SEPARATION OF POWERS: CHECKS AND BALANCES

Both the UK and Indian constitutions acknowledge the importance of the separation of powers
in order to prevent the consolidation of authority and ensure a system of checks and balances
within the government. Although the UK follows an unwritten constitution, the principle of
separating powers is firmly established within its constitutional framework. Conversely, the
Indian Constitution explicitly includes provisions for the separation of powers. In both
countries, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches function independently while
maintaining a system of interdependent checks and balances.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS: ENSURING FLEXIBILITY AND STABILITY

The process of amending the constitutions of the UK and India shares a key similarity in that
both require special majority approval. In the UK, constitutional amendments are enacted
through Acts of Parliament, typically with a simple majority in both houses. Similarly, the
Indian Constitution allows for amendments that necessitate a special majority in Parliament,
ensuring that substantial changes undergo thorough examination. This mechanism strikes a
harmonious balance between adaptability and stability, enabling the constitutions to adjust to
evolving circumstances while preserving the integrity of the constitutional framework.

PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND THE MONARCH OF UK

Although the Indian presidential system and the role of the UK monarchy may seem like
contrasting political structures, a closer look reveals intriguing similarities. This article intends
to delve into and emphasize the commonalities between the Indian presidential system and the
functions carried out by the UK monarchy, shedding light on the shared aspects of their
constitutional frameworks.2

2
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26826593 JSTOR
SYMBOLIC HEAD OF STATE
The Indian presidential system and the UK monarchy share a noteworthy similarity in their
symbolic roles as the head of state. In India, the President assumes this ceremonial position,
representing the unity and sovereignty of the nation. Similarly, the UK monarchy, represented
by the reigning monarch, serves as the symbolic embodiment of the country's history and
traditions. In both systems, the head of state performs significant ceremonial and
representational responsibilities, while the executive powers are primarily entrusted to other
branches of government.

NEUTRAL AND IMPARTIAL FIGURE

Another noteworthy similarity can be observed in the impartial and neutral nature of both the
Indian President and the UK monarchy. The Indian President, as the constitutional head, is
obligated to maintain a non-partisan stance, ensuring the seamless operation of the democratic
process. Similarly, the UK monarchy is expected to remain politically neutral and refrain from
interfering in the government's daily affairs. Both the President and the monarchy serve as
unifying figures, representing the interests of all citizens regardless of their political
affiliations.

CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
Both the Indian presidential system and the role of the UK monarchy serve crucial
constitutional purposes. In India, the President acts as a protector of the constitution, preserving
its integrity and upholding democratic ideals. The President possesses the authority to prevent
the enactment of unconstitutional laws. Similarly, the UK monarchy functions as a
constitutional safeguard through the royal assent, which serves as a check on the legislative
process. This power guarantees that laws align with constitutional principles and safeguards
against potential abuses of authority.3

UNIFYING FORCE AND NATIONAL IDENTITY

The Indian presidential system and the UK monarchy both have the responsibility of acting as
unifying forces and representing the national identity. In India, the President plays a vital role
in promoting national unity, fostering harmony among diverse communities, and upholding the
principles of the constitution. Similarly, the UK monarchy symbolizes the historical continuity
and national identity of the country. The reigning monarch serves as a figure of unity,
representing the shared heritage and values of the nation.

3
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2019/03/20/book-review-the-constitution-of-india-a-contextual-
analysis-by-arun-k-thiruvengadam/
DISSIMALIRITY IN BOTH THE CONSTITUTION
UNWRITTEN
The absence of a written, precise, and concise document known as the British constitution is a
fundamental aspect of its nature. Unlike a written constitution typically produced by a
constituent assembly, the British constitution is based on uncodified norms and political
traditions. In contrast, the Indian Constitution holds the distinction of being the longest written
constitution in the world.4

EVOLUTIONARY
The British constitution demonstrates an evolutionary growth process, having never been
formulated by a constituent assembly. Instead, it has continuously developed over a span of
more than a thousand years, shaped by wisdom and chance. In comparison, the Indian
Constitution shares both similarities and differences with the British Constitution. It differs
from the British Constitution by being a written constitution with clearly defined clauses.
However, like the British Constitution, it remains open to change and can evolve through
amendments to accommodate the needs and sensitivities of the current times.

FLEXIBILITY
The British constitution serves as a prime example of a flexible constitution. Its distinguishing
characteristic lies in the absence of a distinction between constitutional legislation and ordinary
laws, allowing for its approval, modification, or repeal through a Simple Majority vote in
Parliament. This flexibility has enabled the British constitution to adapt and adjust to changing
circumstances effectively. In contrast, the Indian Constitution demonstrates a combination of
flexibility and rigidity. This aligns with the underlying principles of the Indian Constitution,
where certain aspects like Sovereignty, Secularism, and Republic are considered sacrosanct,
while other parts of the Constitution are open to amendment.

UNITARY VS. FEDERAL CHARACTERISTICS

The British constitution is characterized as unitary rather than federal. The ultimate authority
lies with the British Parliament, which is considered a sovereign entity with full control over
governance. The executive institutions of the state are subordinate to Parliament, possess
delegated powers, and are accountable to it. There exists a single legislative branch, and
administrative divisions like England, Scotland, and Wales are primarily administrative units
rather than politically autonomous entities. In contrast, the Indian Constitution is federal in
nature.

4
https://ilearncana.com/details/Comparison-of-Indian-Constitution-with-British-Constitution/2702
 Unitary Federal Confederation

Units come together and All powers lie with the Government comes from the
form a state centra power for provinces constitution

Centre delegates power to

the provincial government

Example: Indian real power Example: Britain opposite to Example: USA, Europe
with the units unitary.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT

Sovereignty refers to supreme power, and it is a fundamental aspect of the British Constitution,
which lacks a written constitution. The British Parliament holds the sovereignty, serving as the
sole legislative body with unrestricted legislative authority. It possesses the power to enact,
modify, or repeal any legislation.
While India also has legislation at the state level, the legislative power of the Indian Parliament
closely aligns with that of the British Parliament. In contrast, the British courts do not have the
authority to question the legality of laws passed by the Parliament. The British Parliament, like
any other legislature, has the ability to amend the constitution, making previously legal acts
illegal or legalizing formerly illegal actions. A significant difference exists in terms of the
Indian judiciary's ability to review the validity of enacted legislation. Moreover, the concept of
the 'Basic Structure' grants the Indian judiciary more authority to evaluate the legality of laws,
as the Supreme Court of India serves as the highest interpreter of the Indian Constitution.

ROLE OF CONVENTIONS
Conventions are principles or rules recognized as unwritten norms within a constitution. They
offer flexibility in governance without requiring formal amendments. Conventions are
prevalent in many constitutions worldwide and play a significant role in the British political
system, particularly due to the unwritten nature of the British Constitution. For instance,
although the Queen possesses the right to refuse assent to a law passed by the British
Parliament, it has become a constitutional norm for her to grant assent. It is important to note
that conventions are subordinate to written laws in terms of their legal status.

THE RULE OF LAW

The Rule of Law is another significant component of the British constitution. The core of Rule
of Law is constitutionalism or limited government. This checks the Executive's arbitrary
behaviour. According to Dicey, there are three principles of Rule of Law in the United
Kingdom:
1.Protection against arbitrary arrest and the ability to defend oneself.
2.Equality before the Law: Everyone is equal before the law, regardless of position or status.
Equality before the law differs from the notion of Administrative Law, which grants various
sorts of immunity to public officials. In the lack of a British constitution and fundamental
rights, the judiciary defends this legislation. As a result, this system is known as the Principle
of Common Laws (in the United States, it is known as the Principle of Natural Law; in India,
it is known as the Maneka Gandhi case).
3.The judiciary protects people's rights in the United Kingdom. The common laws are
recognised by the judiciary. Thus, even in the lack of a Bill of Rights or Fundamental Rights,
the British people have rights.
However, it has been demonstrated that the Rule of Law is not being practised in its true sense.
Several causes are given for this:
1.Development of Administrative Law
2.Delegated Legislation Expansion
3.Internal and External Emergencies
These changes have been termed as "New Despotism."

ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEMS:

However, our Parliament, parliamentary institutions, and procedures differ significantly from
the Westminster system. The British Parliament has evolved over three centuries and is the
supreme authority in the United Kingdom due to the absence of a written constitution. In
contrast, India has a written constitution that clearly defines and limits the powers and
authorities of each government department and functionary.
The Indian Constitution also sets explicit boundaries for the power of Parliament. While
Parliament holds a paramount position within its designated sphere, it is not sovereign in the
same sense as the British Parliament, which has the authority to enact or repeal any law without
constitutional constraints. Additionally, our constitution establishes fundamental individual
rights that are justiciable in courts of law. Any legislation passed by Parliament that restricts
these rights can be deemed unconstitutional by the courts. The courts have the jurisdiction to
resolve disputes and interpret both the constitution and legislation.
Moreover, Parliament possesses constituent powers and can modify the constitution within
specified limits. The British Parliament follows a bicameral system, consisting of two
chambers: the House of Lords, which has an indeterminate number of members, including
hereditary members, life peers, and Church/Religious Peers (Ecclesiastical Peers), and the
House of Commons, which consists of a fixed number of 650 members.

JUDICIARY
The judge lacks the inherent ability to overturn an Act of Parliament under the idea of
Parliamentary sovereignty. The subordination of common law to statute law, on the other hand,
does not imply the subordination of the judiciary to the executive. Certain powers are retained
by British courts:
1. The process of determining the precise interpretation of a legislation.
2. Reviewing the activities of ministers and other public authorities using the ultra vires
(beyond powers) theory.
3. Applying the principle of natural justice to ministers' and others' acts.

Because Parliament is sovereign, the government can utilise amendment legislation to override
judicial judgements. The power of judicial review gives the court a potentially important role
in the policymaking process. For numerous causes, there has been an increase in judicial
activism in recent decades:

1. -Judges have become increasingly inclined to scrutinise and overturn ministerial

decisions.
2. -The United Kingdom's participation in the European Union
3. -Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into national
legislation
4. -Powers are being devolved to elected assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern
Ireland.
5. -In 2009, a Supreme Court was established.

In the case of the British system, the lack of a concept of 'Basic Structure' makes Parliament's
modifying authority trump any court statement. In the instance of the Indian Judiciary system,
the idea of 'core Structure' has provided the Judiciary with a powerful instrument by which it
may torpedo any Executive or Legislative action that it believes to be against the core spirit of
the Constitution.
The British legal system is entirely based on the 'Common Law System'. The Common Law
System suggests that judges create law by their decisions, orders, or judgements (also known
as precedents). However, unlike the British system, which was founded fully on the Common
Law System, the Indian system integrates the Common Law System.

CONCLUSION:
India's parliamentary system draws inspiration from the British parliamentary system, but it is
not an exact replica. Several key differences exist between the two systems. Firstly, India
operates under a republican system, with an elected Head of State (the President), while Britain
has a hereditary monarchy with the King or Queen as the Head of State. In contrast to the
concept of Parliamentary sovereignty in Britain, the Indian Parliament's powers are limited and
restricted due to a written Constitution, a federal structure, judicial review, and the protection
of basic rights. The Indian Parliament does not possess the same level of sovereignty as its
British counterpart, which has the freedom to enact any laws it desires without constitutional
constraints. Instead, the powers of the Indian Parliament are governed by constitutional
provisions. The Indian Constitution also guarantees fundamental rights that can be enforced
through judicial proceedings. If any legislation approved by Parliament violates these rights, it
can be declared unlawful by the courts. The requirements for the position of Prime Minister
differ as well.
In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons,
whereas in India, the Prime Minister can be a member of either of the two Houses of
Parliament. The process of ministerial appointment also varies. In the UK, ministers are
typically appointed solely by members of Parliament, while in India, a non-Member of
Parliament can be appointed as a minister for a limited duration. The UK has a system of
ministerial legal accountability, which is absent in India. Additionally, ministers in India are
not required to countersign the formal acts of the Head of State, unlike their counterparts in the
UK. Moreover, the British cabinet system includes a unique feature called the "Shadow
cabinet," which is absent in India. The Shadow cabinet is formed by the opposition party to
provide a balance to the ruling government and train its members for future ministerial
positions. To summarize, India has a written constitution that explicitly outlines the powers and
functions of every government institution and official. The Constitution also sets clear limits
on the power of Parliament.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Avtar Singh, The Constitution of India (Central Law Publications, Prayagraj, 2019).
• https://www.civilsdaily.com/british-constitution-features-comparison-with-indian-
constitution/
• https://www.legacyias.com/comparison-of-indian-constitution-with-british-
constitution-for-upsc-exam/
• https://www.loc.gov/item/57026883/
• Introduction to the Constitution of India – Durga Das Basu
• https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/events/book-launch-united-kingdom-constitution-
introduction