Answer.
APPROACH AND STRUCTURE
THE INTRODUCTION: Write that Governments have been generally categorised into Parliamentary and presidential system based on the nature of relationship between legislature and executive.
THE BODY
-
- Then write basics about parliamentary form of government.
- Then, write about the similarities and differences of parliamentary sovereignty in the British and Indian systems.
THE CONCLUSION: While there is parliamentary sovereignty in Britain, India has a via media between judicial supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty.
THE INTRODUCTION:
Governments have been generally categorised into Parliamentary and presidential system based on the nature of relationship between legislature and executive.
THE BODY:
In a parliamentary system, the concept of responsibility of the executive to the legislature is practiced. And the executive is collectively responsible to the legislature, which can remove the former based on no-confidence. In such a system, there is cooperation between the executive and legislature instead of strict separation of power. Both India and Britain are parliamentary democracies. Depending on the nature of the Constitution, the sovereign authority of the parliament varies.
Parliamentary sovereignty, also known as parliamentary supremacy, is the principle that the Parliament is the supreme legal authority. This means that Parliament has the power to make and unmake any law, and its laws are supreme and cannot be overruled by any other legal body, including the courts. This principle is based on the idea that the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament, should be the ultimate source of authority in the country.
British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty
Differences
-
- In Britain, the Parliament enjoys absolute sovereignty, while in India, it is limited by the Constitution.
- The British Constitution is uncodified, unlike the Indian Constitution and hence the judicial review act as a check on parliament in India.
- There is no limit on the legislative powers of the British Parliament, and even the Monarch virtually has no veto power, unlike the Indian President, whose power is more compared to the British Monarch.
- The British system is unitary, and hence its sovereignty is indivisible, while the Indian parliament shares it with states as per the schemes of the Constitution.
- The FRs of the individuals act as a check on the Indian Parliament crystallised through the Basic Structure Doctrine . But the British Parliament has no such fetters.
Similarities in Approaches:
-
- Both institutions hold the executive accountable through motions, resolutions
- Both institutions are the products of representative
- Indian Parliament is also shaped as per the West Minster
- Many conventions and practices of the British parliament have been adopted by Indian
- Even when there is basic structure, schedule 7 etc, Indian parliament has more or less plenary
- A new trend of Prime Ministerialisation, has made both the parliaments losing powers over the executive in both the countries in recent times.
THE CONCLUSION:
The British Parliament and the Indian parliament are products of different circumstances and events in history. The British Parliament developed its sovereignty through constant struggle with the monarchy while the Indian system tried to develop democratic institutions by engaging in struggle with the colonial government. The historical,political and constitutional factors of Britain and India are comparatively different. Hence, the nature of political and parliamentary sovereignty also have differences. While there is parliamentary supremacy in Britain, India has a via media between judicial supremacy and parliamentary supremacy.
Spread the Word