Introduction
While the Indian Constitution drew extensively on the Westminster model, it made a fundamental departure from British Parliamentary Sovereignty by establishing Constitutional Supremacy. Rather than transcribing British parliamentary institutions verbatim, the Constituent Assembly adapted borrowed concepts to suit the demands of a diverse, federal, and democratic republic.
1. Separation of Powers
The doctrine of separation of powers was reshaped from the British convention of cabinet government to suit India's codified constitutional framework:
- British Fusion vs. Indian Checks and Balances: The United Kingdom operates on a 'fusion of powers' where the executive is drawn directly from and remains embedded within the legislature. India adopted a parliamentary executive with functional overlap, but reinforced it with rigorous judicial review and institutional checks.
- Constitutional Demarcation: Under Article 50 of the Directive Principles, the State is directed to separate the judiciary from the executive. In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955), the Supreme Court held that while the Indian Constitution does not recognise an absolute or rigid separation of powers as in the US, it maintains a functional separation to prevent arbitrary concentration of authority.
2. Bicameralism (Article 79)
India adopted a two-chamber parliament from the British model, but altered the nature and rationale of the upper house:
- Hereditary Chamber vs. Federal Council: The British House of Lords is an unelected, hereditary and appointed chamber serving primarily as a revising body with limited delaying powers. In contrast, the Rajya Sabha under Article 79 functions as a federal chamber directly representing the States and Union Territories.
- Substantive Powers: Unlike the House of Lords, the Rajya Sabha possesses distinctive constitutional prerogatives, such as authorising Parliament to legislate on items in the State List in the national interest (Article 249) and creating new All-India Services (Article 312).
3. Rule of Law
The British common law tradition served as the foundation for the rule of law in India, but was substantially broadened through constitutional entrenchment and judicial dynamism:
- Codification of Dicey's Principles: A.V. Dicey's classic formulation—absence of arbitrary power, equality before the law, and predominance of legal spirit—was formalised as a fundamental guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution.
- From Procedural Legality to Substantive Due Process: While the British framework anchors the rule of law in parliamentary statute, India transitioned from a strict 'procedure established by law' interpretation to substantive 'due process' in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), mandating that laws must be just, fair, and reasonable.
- Basic Structure Doctrine: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court elevated the Rule of Law to an inviolable component of the basic structure of the Constitution, placing it beyond even the amending power of Parliament.
Conclusion
India did not merely replicate British institutional mechanics; rather, it synthesised colonial constitutional traditions with republican values. By subordinating both legislature and executive to a written Constitution and empowering the judiciary as guardian of fundamental rights, India created an indigenous, transformative constitutional order.