Comment on imprint of the British Constitution on the Indian Constitution. (2023, 10 Marks)
A century of colonial rule and a political class trained in English law made the Westminster model the Constituent Assembly’s natural reference point. Yet Britain’s constitution is largely unwritten, so India had to write down what Britain leaves to convention. That act of transcription both kept the model and changed it.
The Westminster imprint
| British feature | Indian form |
|---|---|
| Parliamentary executive, collective responsibility | Council of Ministers under a Prime Minister, collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Article 75(3)) |
| Nominal head acting on advice | President bound by ministerial advice (Article 74, made explicit by the 42nd Amendment) |
| Bicameralism, Speaker, privileges | Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha; an impartial Speaker; privileges under Article 105 |
| Rule of law, prerogative writs | Equality before law (Article 14); writs under Articles 32 and 226 |
| Single citizenship, first-past-the-post, neutral civil service | Part II, territorial constituencies, Articles 311–312 |
B. R. Ambedkar defended the parliamentary choice in November 1948: the Assembly preferred more responsibility to more stability, because a ministry answers to the House every day, not only at elections. No-confidence motions, question hour and the Leader of the Opposition came across as convention, not text.
The departures
- Republic, not monarchy: the head of state is an elected President, not a hereditary Crown, so the likeness to Britain is of function, not of authority.
- Constitutional, not parliamentary, sovereignty: a written, supreme text with judicial review replaced A. V. Dicey’s parliamentary supremacy. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) subjected even amendments to a basic structure test.
- Federalism: the Rajya Sabha represents the states; it is neither hereditary nor a court of appeal like the old House of Lords.
- Codified rights: Part III replaced Britain’s residual common-law liberties with justiciable fundamental rights.
- Eclecticism: Directive Principles from Ireland and judicial review from the United States sit beside Westminster. K. Hanumanthaiya complained of the music of “an English band”, but the mixture is better read as cosmopolitan than derivative.
Where the transplant strains
Conventions do not always travel. The British Crown’s assent is a formality, whereas Governors’ delays over state Bills became a lawsuit. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025) set timelines and deemed assent. Then the five-judge opinion in In Re: Assent to Bills (November 2025) rejected both, leaving the matter largely to constitutional convention and good faith.
Conclusion
The imprint is deep in the executive and legislative machinery and absent from the foundations. India took Westminster’s method of government and refused its theory of sovereignty. The result is a parliamentary republic under a supreme, judicially guarded Constitution.