2023
0
Answer:
| Approach:
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
|
Introduction
Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the supreme legal authority vested in the parliament, empowering it to enact, amend, and repeal laws, superseding any other government institution. While derived from the British colonial legacy, the Indian and British approaches to parliamentary sovereignty have evolved distinctly due to the diverse constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations.
Body
Differences between the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty
| Aspect | British Approach | Indian Approach |
| Constitutional Foundation | The UK has an uncodified constitution, which implies that parliamentary sovereignty is more flexible and is based on conventions and judicial precedents. | India has a codified constitution that clearly delineates the powers of parliament, thereby providing a structured approach to parliamentary sovereignty. |
| Judicial Review | The UK parliament is sovereign, and theoretically, its decisions cannot be overridden or reviewed by the judiciary. | In India, Constitution supremacy is preferred over parliamentary sovereignty. The Indian judiciary has the power to review parliamentary decisions and even strike down laws passed by the parliament if found unconstitutional, marking a limit on parliamentary sovereignty. |
| Federal Structure | The UK has a unitary system where the sovereignty of parliament is indivisible and centralized. | India has a federal structure with a division of powers between the central and state legislations, with a bicameral parliament, which implies a shared sovereignty that is more complex and nuanced. |
| Amendment of Constitution | The UK parliament can alter any law, including constitutional principles without any special procedure, as it does not have a written constitution | In India, amendment to the constitution involves a more rigid process, requiring a special majority and, in some cases, ratification by a majority of the state legislatures, indicating a restriction on the sovereignty of the parliament to amend the constitution at will.
Also, Basic structure of constitution cannot be amended as per Keshavananda Bharati Case. |
| Individual Rights | The UK has not adopted a formalized system of protecting individual rights through a constitutional document. It relies heavily on common law and statutes passed by parliament. | India has a comprehensive list of fundamental rights embedded in its constitution, which cannot be overridden by parliamentary laws. The judiciary here has a robust role in protecting these rights, sometimes even against parliamentary enactments |
| Emergency Powers | The UK parliament possesses wide-ranging powers to enact laws during emergencies without much constitutional restriction, attributing to its uncodified constitution. | In India, although the parliament has expansive powers during emergencies, these are constitutionally regulated to protect federal structure and individual rights, with a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities, |
Similarities between the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty
Conclusion
Overall, while the British and Indian parliaments share a democratic foundation and function based on representing the will of the people with a structured legislative process, they differ fundamentally in their approach to parliamentary sovereignty, rooted in their constitutional setups.
.png)
Learn From India's Best Faculty
Learn From India's Best Faculty
<div class="new-fform">
</div>
Latest Comments