Dalvoy Logo
Dalvoy
UPSC MainsGeneral Studies Paper IConstitutionPractice question

Parliamentary Sovereignty vs Constitutional Supremacy

Compare the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK with constitutional supremacy in India.

Compare~250 words2 min readmedium
Attempt it first, timed · optional

Write the answer on paper, as in the exam. Start the timer, keep to the word target.

00:00/ 11 min · 250 words

Done writing? Photograph the sheet and see how it scores against this model answer, with feedback on what to fix.

Upload your answer sheet

How to approach

Introduce both concepts briefly by noting how the Indian constitutional scheme blends British parliamentary democracy with American judicial supremacy. Systematically compare the UK's Parliamentary Sovereignty with India's Constitutional Supremacy across theoretical bases, legislative limitations, and judicial review powers. Conclude with how both systems uphold democracy through distinct institutional checks.

Model answer

338 words

Introduction

The constitutional framework in India synthesizes British Parliamentary Sovereignty and American Judicial Supremacy, establishing Constitutional Supremacy, whereas the United Kingdom operates primarily under the doctrine of absolute Parliamentary Sovereignty. While the UK Parliament is supreme within its unwritten constitutional tradition, in India, every organ of state functions strictly within the contours defined by a written Constitution.

Comparative Framework

  • Theoretical Basis: In the UK, the system is governed by A.V. Dicey’s doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, wherein Parliament possesses the authority to make or unmake any law, cannot legally bind its successor parliaments, and no domestic court can overturn primary legislation. In contrast, India is founded on Constitutional Supremacy, where the written Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, and all state organs—including the Union Parliament—derive their authority from and remain subordinated to it.
  • Amendment and Legislative Limits: The UK Constitution is unwritten and remarkably flexible, with no legal distinction between ordinary legislation and constitutional amendments. In India, constitutional amendments are governed by Article 368 with varying degrees of rigidity and flexibility. Crucially, parliamentary amendatory power is substantively circumscribed by the judicially enforced Basic Structure Doctrine enunciated in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
  • Judicial Review and Judicial Independence: UK courts cannot invalidate primary parliamentary statutes; judicial independence is safeguarded through mechanisms like the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Conversely, the Indian judiciary possesses robust powers of judicial review under Articles 13, 32, 136, 226, 245, and 246, empowering the Supreme Court and High Courts to strike down any central or state legislation that contravenes constitutional limits.
  • Federal Distribution of Powers: The UK historically functions as a unitary state with devolved legislatures whose powers remain subordinate to Westminster. India features a federal division of legislative powers under the Seventh Schedule, precluding Parliament from encroaching upon the State List except under specific constitutional conditions.

Conclusion

India checks potential legislative majoritarianism through a supreme written federal charter and judicial review, whereas the UK relies primarily on parliamentary self-restraint, democratic conventions, and electoral accountability to prevent abuse of power.

Key facts to remember

definition
Parliamentary Sovereignty

A principle of the UK constitution formulated by A.V. Dicey asserting that Parliament holds absolute legislative authority, can enact or repeal any law, and cannot be overridden by any court.

definition
Constitutional Supremacy

A system of government where the written constitution is the supreme law of the land, binding all state branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—to its provisions and limitations.

case study
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The Supreme Court of India ruled that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or damage its basic structure, formally entrenching constitutional supremacy over parliamentary supremacy.

scheme
Constitutional Reform Act 2005

A UK statute that created the UK Supreme Court, removed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, and established an independent Judicial Appointments Commission to insulate judicial appointments from political control.

Frequently asked questions

Can Indian courts strike down a Constitutional Amendment passed by Parliament?

Yes. Under the Basic Structure Doctrine established in 1973, the Indian Supreme Court can invalidate any constitutional amendment passed under Article 368 if it violates the core or essential features of the Constitution.

← All questions on this topic (39)