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.
It asks 2 things — 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, and how the two converge
Open with · The UK Parliament describes parliamentary sovereignty as making it the supreme legal authority, able to create or end any law; India borrowed the Westminster form but put Parliament under a written Constitution.
Cover
- Common ground: Westminster form, responsible executive, head of State on ministerial advice, control of procedure and purse (Article 122 shields Indian proceedings).
- Source of power: Britain's Parliament can create or end any law; India's legislates subject to the Constitution (Article 245).
- Judicial review: British courts cannot annul an Act; Indian courts void laws abridging fundamental rights (Article 13).
- Amendment: Article 368 special majorities and State ratification, limited by the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
- Scope and continuity: India's Parliament is confined to its Lists; no British Parliament binds its successor, while India's Constitution binds all.
- Convergence: devolution, the Human Rights Act 1998 and EU membership (1973–2020) limit British sovereignty in practice.
Close with · Fifty years after Kesavananda Bharati, India's model is constitutional supremacy in parliamentary form: a strong Parliament, never an unlimited one.
Add value (verified)
- UK Parliament: parliamentary sovereignty makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law; courts generally cannot overrule its legislation, and no Parliament can bind future Parliaments.Parliament's authority - UK Parliament ↗“Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change.”
- UK Parliament lists the laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty: devolution, the Human Rights Act 1998 and EU entry in 1973 (exit in 2020).Parliament's authority - UK Parliament ↗“The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru. The Human Rights Act 1998. The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973 - and subsequent exit in 2020.”
- Article 245(1): Parliament makes laws subject to the provisions of the Constitution.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department, Article 245 ↗“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India”
- Article 122(1): the validity of proceedings in Parliament cannot be questioned in court on the ground of irregularity of procedure.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department, Article 122 ↗“The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2023, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 222words · Minimalist IAS
The UK Parliament calls parliamentary sovereignty the principle that makes it the supreme legal authority, able to create or end any law. India borrowed this Westminster form but placed Parliament under a written Constitution.
Comparing: the common ground
- Westminster form: an executive answerable to the lower House; a head of State acting on ministerial advice.
- Internal autonomy: both Houses control procedure and purse; Indian courts cannot question parliamentary proceedings for procedural irregularity (Article 122).
Contrasting the two approaches
| Aspect | Britain | India |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme authority | Parliament | Written Constitution |
| Judicial review | Courts cannot annul an Act | Courts void unconstitutional laws |
| Amendment | Ordinary Act | Article 368, within basic structure |
- Source of power: India's Parliament legislates 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution' (Article 245).
- Judicial review: Indian courts void laws abridging fundamental rights (Article 13); British courts cannot.
- Amendment limits: special majorities, State ratification for federal provisions, and no damage to the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
- Federal limits: India's Parliament is confined to the Union and Concurrent Lists.
- Successors: no British Parliament binds its successor; India's Constitution binds every Parliament.
Converging in practice
- British limits: the UK Parliament cites devolution, the Human Rights Act 1998 and EU membership (1973–2020) as limits on sovereignty in practice.
Fifty years after Kesavananda Bharati, India's model is constitutional supremacy in parliamentary form: a strong Parliament, never an unlimited one.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
