Parliamentary Sovereignty is a principle that dictates that the legislative body (Parliament) has supreme legal authority within a state. This principle varies significantly between the British and Indian systems due to differences in historical development, constitutional frameworks, and political practices. Here’s a comparative analysis:

British Approach to Parliamentary Sovereignty

**1. Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty

• Ultimate Authority: In the British system, parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the supreme legal authority. It can create or end any law, and no other body, including the judiciary, can override or invalidate its legislation.

• Unwritten Constitution: The UK has an uncodified or unwritten constitution, meaning that parliamentary sovereignty is not explicitly detailed in a single document but is derived from statutes, conventions, and judicial precedents.

**2. Legislative Power

• Supreme Legislation: The British Parliament, consisting of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, has the power to make or repeal any law. This power extends to all matters, including constitutional changes.

• No Legal Limits: There are no legal limits on the powers of Parliament. It can legislate on any issue, and no other body has the authority to challenge or invalidate its laws.

**3. Judicial Review

• Limited Scope: In the UK, while the judiciary can review the legality of administrative actions and ensure they comply with the law, it cannot overturn primary legislation passed by Parliament. Judicial review is restricted to ensuring that the law is applied correctly, not to question the validity of the law itself.

**4. Historical Development

• Gradual Evolution: The principle of parliamentary sovereignty developed over centuries through historical events and legal evolution, including the Glorious Revolution and landmark cases such as Dr. Bonham's Case.

Indian Approach to Parliamentary Sovereignty

**1. Constitutional Framework

• Constitutional Supremacy: India operates under a written constitution that explicitly defines the powers of various branches of government. The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land, and parliamentary sovereignty is subject to constitutional constraints.

• Partly Sovereign: While Parliament is a powerful legislative body, its sovereignty is limited by the provisions of the Constitution. Laws passed by Parliament must conform to constitutional principles and can be challenged if they violate fundamental rights or constitutional mandates.

**2. Legislative Power

• Constitutional Constraints: Indian Parliament can legislate on any subject within its jurisdiction, but its power is bounded by the Constitution. For example, laws must adhere to fundamental rights, directive principles, and other constitutional provisions.

• Federal Structure: India has a federal structure, and Parliament's power is divided between the Union and State legislatures. The central government has authority over certain subjects, while states have power over others, as outlined in the Constitution.

**3. Judicial Review

• Extensive Review: The Indian judiciary has the power of judicial review, allowing it to examine the constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, it can be declared void by the Supreme Court.

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary plays a significant role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that laws do not infringe upon them. Landmark cases, such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), have reinforced the supremacy of the Constitution over parliamentary legislation.

**4. Historical Development

• Constitutional Adoption: India's approach to parliamentary sovereignty was shaped by the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, which codified the principles of governance and established a system of checks and balances.

Comparison and Contrast

**1. Sovereignty Scope

• Britain: Parliamentary sovereignty is absolute and unqualified, with no higher legal authority to limit or challenge parliamentary acts.
• India: Parliamentary sovereignty is qualified by constitutional supremacy, and laws passed by Parliament can be reviewed and invalidated if they conflict with constitutional provisions.

**2. Constitutional Influence

• Britain: Operates under an unwritten constitution where parliamentary sovereignty is a foundational principle, with limited judicial intervention.
• India: Operates under a written constitution that explicitly limits parliamentary power, with extensive judicial review ensuring conformity with constitutional principles.

**3. Judicial Review

• Britain: Judicial review does not extend to primary legislation passed by Parliament; it is limited to administrative actions.
• India: Judicial review is a key mechanism for enforcing constitutional limits on legislative power, with the Supreme Court having the authority to strike down unconstitutional laws.

**4. Historical Context

• Britain: The concept of parliamentary sovereignty evolved through historical events and judicial precedents over centuries.
• India: The concept was defined by the adoption of a written constitution that established a framework of constitutional supremacy and legislative authority.

Conclusion

The British approach to parliamentary sovereignty is characterized by its absolute nature and the lack of formal constitutional constraints, while the Indian approach is defined by constitutional supremacy and the active role of the judiciary in maintaining the constitutional order. These differences reflect the unique historical and legal contexts of each country, shaping their respective approaches to governance and legislative authority.

Comparing and Contrasting British and Indian Approaches to Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle in both the British and Indian legal systems. However, there are significant differences in their respective approaches to this principle.

Similarities:

• Ultimate legislative authority: Both systems hold that Parliament (in the UK) and the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha (in India) have the ultimate legislative authority. This means they can create, amend, and repeal any law, including those previously passed by themselves.
• No higher legal authority: Neither system recognizes any legal authority higher than the legislature. This implies that courts cannot strike down legislation based on its constitutionality, as the legislature is considered the supreme law-making body.
• Evolutionary nature: Both systems have witnessed an evolutionary approach to parliamentary sovereignty, with judicial pronouncements and political developments shaping its practical application.

Differences:

1. Constitutional Constraints:

• UK: The UK lacks a written constitution, making parliamentary sovereignty the cornerstone of its legal system. However, the principle is subject to implicit limitations, such as the principle of the rule of law and the recognition of EU law before Brexit.
• India: India has a written constitution, establishing a system of limited government and separation of powers. The Indian Parliament, while sovereign in its sphere, is constrained by the Constitution, including fundamental rights and judicial review. The courts can strike down laws that violate the Constitution.

2. Role of Judicial Review:

• UK: The UK courts do not have the power of judicial review in the same way as Indian courts. While they can review legislation for compatibility with European law (before Brexit), they cannot strike down laws based on their own interpretation of constitutional principles.
• India: The Indian Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and can strike down laws that violate the Constitution. This power significantly limits the scope of parliamentary sovereignty in India.

3. Role of Conventions:

• UK: The UK relies heavily on unwritten constitutional conventions that influence the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty. These conventions are not legally binding but carry significant political weight. Examples include the convention of ministerial responsibility.
• India: While India recognizes conventions, their role in shaping the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty is less pronounced than in the UK. The written constitution provides a more concrete framework for the exercise of legislative power.

4. Historical Development:

• UK: Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK has evolved organically over centuries, stemming from historical power struggles and gradual recognition of the legislature's supremacy.
• India: Parliamentary sovereignty in India is a product of a deliberate constitutional design after independence, reflecting the influence of the British system but also reflecting the desire for a more balanced system of government.

Conclusion:

While both systems espouse parliamentary sovereignty, their approaches differ significantly due to the presence or absence of a written constitution, the scope of judicial review, and the role of conventions. The British system places a greater emphasis on the absolute power of the legislature, while the Indian system acknowledges the supremacy of the Constitution and balances it with the power of judicial review. This nuanced understanding is crucial for appreciating the dynamics of legal and political systems in both countries.

The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle in both British and Indian constitutional systems, but there are significant differences in their approaches.

British Approach:

In the UK, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is rooted in the concept of the supremacy of Parliament. This means that Parliament has the ultimate authority to make, amend, or repeal any law, and its decisions are final and binding. The core features of the British approach are:

1. Unlimited power: Parliament has unlimited legislative power, meaning it can pass any law it deems fit, without any constitutional limitations.
2. No higher law: There is no higher law or constitution that can limit Parliament's authority.
3. No judicial review: The judiciary has limited powers of review, and Parliament's decisions are generally not subject to judicial scrutiny.

This approach is based on the concept of parliamentary supremacy, which dates back to the 17th-century English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It is enshrined in the British Constitution, which is unwritten and largely based on conventions, custom, and precedent.

Indian Approach:

In India, the concept of parliamentary sovereignty is subject to certain limitations and constitutional constraints. The core features of the Indian approach are:

1. Limited power: Parliament's legislative power is limited by the Constitution, which sets out the framework of the government and the rights of citizens.
2. Higher law: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Parliament's laws must conform to its provisions.
3. Judicial review: The judiciary has the power of judicial review, which enables it to strike down laws that violate the Constitution.

The Indian Constitution is a written document that sets out the powers and limitations of Parliament, the executive, and the judiciary. The Constitution also enshrines fundamental rights, which cannot be amended or repealed by Parliament without following a special procedure.

Comparison and Contrast:

Similarities:

• Both systems recognize the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and the supremacy of the elected representatives of the people.
• Both systems have mechanisms in place to ensure that Parliament's decisions are respected and implemented.

Differences:

• Degree of limitation: While the British Parliament has unlimited power, the Indian Parliament's power is limited by the Constitution.
• Role of judiciary: In the UK, the judiciary has limited powers of review, whereas in India, the judiciary has the power of judicial review and can strike down unconstitutional laws.
• Constitutional framework: The UK has an unwritten constitution based on conventions and precedents, whereas India has a written Constitution that sets out the framework of the government and the rights of citizens.

In conclusion, while both the British and Indian systems recognize the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, the Indian approach is characterized by a more nuanced and balanced system, with constitutional limitations and judicial review, whereas the British approach is based on an unwritten constitution and unlimited parliamentary power.