Q. We adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model?

1. As regards legislation, the British Parliament is supreme or sovereign but in India, the power of the parliament to legislate is limited.
2. In India, matters related to the constitutionality of the Amendment of an Act of the Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2

Notes:

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change.
Indian Parliament is not a sovereign body like the British Parliament. The Indian Parliament may, in exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down for the purpose.
- However, the Parliament cannot amend those provisions which form the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. This was ruled by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
In India, matters related to the constitutionality of an amendment of an act of the Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court.
- A Constitution Bench is a bench of the Supreme Court having five or more judges on it. These benches are not a routine phenomenon. A vast majority of cases before the Supreme Court are heard and decided by a bench of two judges (called a Division Bench), and sometimes of three.
- Constitution Benches are set up when the case involves a substantial question of law pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution (Article 145(3) of the Constitution, which mandates that such matters be heard by a bench of not less than five judges).
- Presently, Constitution Benches are set up on an ad hoc basis as and when the need arises. The idea behind a Constitution Bench is clear: it is constituted in rare cases to decide important questions of fact or legal and/or constitutional interpretation.

Aspect	British Approach	Indian Approach
Constitutional Framework	The UK possesses an uncodified or unwritten constitution. It is shaped by various sources, such as conventions, statutes, historical documents, and judicial precedents. For instance, the Magna Carta of 1215 laid foundational principles still relevant today.	India, in contrast, boasts a written constitution embodied in a comprehensive single document. Articles like Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression) explicitly define fundamental rights and principles.
Amendment Process	In the UK, its constitution enjoys flexibility, permitting amendments through a simple majority in Parliament. Notably, there is no clear distinction between ordinary and constitutional laws.	India’s constitutional framework leans towards rigidity, necessitating special majority support in Parliament (Article 368). It also has feature of flexibility( Simple Majority)
Separation of Powers	The UK does not adhere to a formal separation of powers doctrine; Parliament maintains supremacy.	In India, a well-defined separation of powers prevails within the constitution. Articles like Article 50 (Separation of the judiciary from the executive) establish the separation, while Article 13 empowers the judiciary to review laws that violate fundamental rights.
Federal vs. Unitary State	The UK functions as a unitary state, with sovereignty centralized at Westminster. Devolved governments exist in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, deriving powers from Parliament.	India operates as a federal state, where authority is distributed between the central government and state governments, as expressly outlined in Articles like Article 245 (Distribution of legislative powers) and Article 246 (Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and Legislatures of States).
Judicial Review	Traditionally, British courts have wielded limited authority in reviewing and invalidating legislation on constitutional grounds due to parliamentary supremacy.	India’s judiciary holds the power of judicial review, permitting the examination and, when necessary, the annulment of laws enacted by Parliament or state legislatures in cases of constitutional violations. This principle was firmly established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and is enshrined in Article 13 (Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights).
Basic Structure Doctrine	The UK lacks an equivalent concept to the Basic Structure Doctrine. Consequently, there is no legal doctrine empowering courts to scrutinize and annul constitutional amendments.	In contrast, India has embraced the Basic Structure Doctrine, empowering its judiciary to assess and strike down constitutional amendments that compromise the fundamental structure or essence of the Constitution.