Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Parliamentary sovereignty, at its core, signifies the supreme legal authority of the legislature. In its purest form, as historically understood in the UK, it means Parliament can make or unmake any law, and no body, including the courts, can question its validity. However, the Indian adaptation of parliamentary sovereignty, inherited from the British, has been significantly modified by the Constitution’s emphasis on fundamental rights, judicial review, and a federal structure. This has resulted in a nuanced system where Parliament’s power, while substantial, is not absolute. This answer will compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to this fundamental principle of governance.
British Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Classical Model
The British Parliament’s sovereignty stems from centuries of constitutional evolution, culminating in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, which curtailed the power of the House of Lords. Key characteristics include:
- Unconstrained Law-Making Power: Parliament can legislate on any subject matter, without substantive limitations.
- No Entrenched Laws: No law is immune from repeal or amendment by a subsequent Parliament.
- Judicial Non-Interference: Courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament as unconstitutional. They interpret legislation but cannot invalidate it.
- Constitutional Conventions: While not legally enforceable, conventions play a significant role in regulating parliamentary behaviour.
However, even in the UK, membership in the European Union (until Brexit in 2020) imposed some limitations on parliamentary sovereignty, as EU law took precedence in certain areas. Post-Brexit, the principle has been reaffirmed, but the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland introduces a degree of shared sovereignty.
Indian Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Constitutional Variant
India adopted parliamentary sovereignty as a foundational principle, but it operates within the framework of a written Constitution. This has led to significant modifications:
- Constitutional Supremacy: The Indian Constitution is supreme, and all laws must conform to its provisions (Article 13).
- Judicial Review: The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to review laws passed by Parliament and State Legislatures and declare them unconstitutional if they violate fundamental rights or exceed constitutional limits (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973).
- Fundamental Rights: Part III of the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, which act as limitations on legislative power.
- Federal Structure: The division of powers between the Union and States (Seventh Schedule) limits the legislative competence of Parliament.
While Parliament can amend the Constitution (Article 368), certain basic features of the Constitution, as identified by the Supreme Court, cannot be altered. This doctrine of basic structure further restricts parliamentary sovereignty.
Comparative Analysis
| Feature | British Parliamentary Sovereignty | Indian Parliamentary Sovereignty |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Basis | Unwritten Constitution, evolved through statutes and conventions | Written Constitution, supreme law of the land |
| Judicial Review | Limited; courts interpret but cannot invalidate Acts of Parliament | Extensive; courts can strike down laws as unconstitutional |
| Limitations on Power | Historically few, recently impacted by EU membership and devolution | Fundamental Rights, Basic Structure Doctrine, Federal Structure |
| Amendment Process | Simple legislative process | Special majority in Parliament and ratification by State Legislatures (for certain provisions) |
| Nature of Sovereignty | Absolute and unlimited (historically) | Limited and constitutional |
The Indian system, therefore, represents a ‘controlled’ or ‘limited’ parliamentary sovereignty, unlike the ‘uncontrolled’ sovereignty traditionally associated with the British model. The Indian Parliament is undoubtedly powerful, but its power is subject to constitutional constraints and judicial oversight.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while India inherited the concept of parliamentary sovereignty from Britain, it has adapted it to suit its constitutional framework. The British model, historically characterized by its absolute nature, has undergone changes with devolution and Brexit. The Indian system, however, is fundamentally different, operating within a constitutional structure that prioritizes fundamental rights, judicial review, and a federal division of powers. This results in a more balanced and restrained form of parliamentary sovereignty, ensuring that legislative power is exercised within constitutional limits.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.