Dalvoy Logo
Dalvoy
UPSC MainsGeneral Studies Paper IIIndian PolityPractice question

Comparison of Indian and British Parliamentary Systems

India has adopted the parliamentary system of governance, but the feature of the constitution makes it different from that of Britain. Explain.

Explain~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 by acknowledging India's adoption of the Westminster parliamentary model under Articles 74 and 75 to ensure executive accountability. In the body, systematically contrast key constitutional features of the Indian and British systems, focusing on the nature of the state, supremacy, ministerial qualifications, and executive responsibility. Conclude by highlighting India's synthesis of parliamentary government with constitutional supremacy.

Model answer

302 words

Introduction

India adopted the Westminster parliamentary model under Articles 74 and 75 primarily to ensure executive accountability and maintain institutional continuity. However, the framers deliberately modified this framework to align with India's diverse, federal, and republican constitutional ethos.

Key Differences Between the Indian and British Systems

  • Republic vs. Constitutional Monarchy: India is a democratic republic featuring an indirectly elected President as the formal Head of State under Article 52. In contrast, Britain operates as a constitutional monarchy with a hereditary King or Queen as the Head of State.
  • Constitutional Supremacy vs. Parliamentary Sovereignty: The British Parliament possesses unfettered legislative sovereignty, meaning no court can declare its laws unconstitutional. In India, the Constitution is supreme; legislative authority is constrained by judicial review (Articles 13 and 32) and the Basic Structure Doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which protects fundamental values from being abrogated.
  • Selection and Criteria for Ministers: In Britain, the Prime Minister is conventionally drawn only from the Lower House (House of Commons), and ministers must be sitting Members of Parliament. In India, the Prime Minister and ministers can belong to either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha, and under Article 75(5), a non-member can hold ministerial office for up to six months before securing a legislative seat.
  • Legal Responsibility and Shadow Cabinet: British ministers bear legal responsibility through the mandatory countersigning of royal acts, and the parliamentary opposition maintains a formal 'Shadow Cabinet' to monitor ministries and provide an alternative administration. India does not have an institutionalized shadow cabinet, and under Article 74(2), the advice tendered by ministers to the President cannot be enquired into by any court, precluding individual legal liability.

Conclusion

While India adopted the foundational parliamentary architecture from Britain, it distinctively synthesized it with constitutional supremacy and an independent judiciary, thereby safeguarding democratic rights against majoritarian tyranny.

Key facts to remember

definition
Parliamentary Sovereignty

The principle of the UK constitution that makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the state, with the power to create or end any law without judicial invalidation.

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

The landmark Supreme Court ruling that established the Basic Structure Doctrine, restricting Parliament's constituent power to ensure the core values of the Indian Constitution cannot be altered.

scheme
Article 75(5), Constitution of India

Allows an individual who is not a member of either House of Parliament to be appointed as a minister, provided they secure election or nomination to either House within a period of six consecutive months.

Frequently asked questions

Why does India have constitutional supremacy while Britain has parliamentary sovereignty?

India operates under a written, codified Constitution with federal divisions of power and judicial review to prevent absolute legislative dominance. Britain lacks a single codified constitutional text, allowing Parliament to pass or repeal any statute by simple majority without judicial strikes.

← All questions on this topic (197)