Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty.
Approach · directive: “compare and contrast”
What it asks · Compare the two models: Parliament's unlimited legislative power in Britain versus a Parliament bound by a written Constitution in India, noting the points of similarity.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Compare: what the British and Indian Parliaments share (Westminster form and practice)
- Contrast: Britain's legally unlimited Parliament versus India's Parliament bound by a written Constitution, judicial review and the basic structure
Open with · Both follow the Westminster parliamentary form, but Britain's Parliament is sovereign, while India's Constitution is supreme and Parliament acts within its limits.
Cover
- Britain, source of authority: Parliament is legally supreme; no court can strike down an Act, and no Parliament can bind its successors.
- India, source of authority: the Constitution is supreme, and Parliament and State legislatures derive their powers from it.
- Limits in India: fundamental rights, federal division of powers, and judicial review; a law contrary to the Constitution can be struck down.
- Amending power: in India Parliament's amending power (Article 368) is limited by the basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973); in Britain ordinary legislation can change constitutional rules.
- Nature of constitutions: Britain's is largely unwritten and flexible, India's is written and partly rigid, with amendments needing special majorities and, for federal matters, State ratification.
- Convergence: the Human Rights Act, 1998 lets British courts issue only declarations of incompatibility; devolution and constitutional conventions also qualify sovereignty, while India's Parliament remains supreme within its field.
Close with · Britain's Parliament is sovereign by tradition; India's is sovereign only under the Constitution, and that difference is the core of the comparison.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2023, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 226 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
Parliamentary sovereignty means the legislature's word is the final law. India borrowed Britain's parliamentary form but put Parliament under a written Constitution, so the two differ on who is supreme.
Common ground
- Both have an executive drawn from and answerable to the lower House, a head of State acting on ministerial advice, and control over their own procedure and the purse.
Points of contrast
- Source of power: Britain's Parliament can make or unmake any law; India's Parliament derives its powers from a supreme Constitution.
- Judicial review: British courts cannot annul an Act; Indian courts void laws breaching fundamental rights (Article 13) or the federal division.
- Amendment: Britain alters constitutional rules by ordinary legislation; India needs special majorities and, for federal provisions, ratification by half the States (Article 368), and cannot damage the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
- Scope: Britain is unitary, so Parliament legislates on everything; India's Parliament is confined to the Union and Concurrent Lists.
- Continuity: no British Parliament can bind its successor; in India constitutional limits bind every Parliament.
Convergence
- The Human Rights Act, 1998 lets British courts declare an Act incompatible with rights, though not annul it; devolution also qualifies sovereignty in practice. India's Parliament, in turn, remains supreme within its field.
Britain's Parliament is sovereign; India's is supreme only under the Constitution, making the Indian model constitutional supremacy in a parliamentary form.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.