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.
Contents11
- A1 only
- B2 only
- CBoth 1 and 2
- DNeither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (C) Both 1 and 2
Statement 1 is correct:
In Britain, Parliament is sovereign — no written constitution limits its law-making power.
In India, Parliament's power is limited by the Constitution, and laws violating it can be struck down through judicial review.
Statement 2 is correct:
India has the Constitution Bench in the Supreme Court (Articles 143 and 145(3)) — at least 5 judges constituted by the CJI to decide substantial constitutional questions.
This has no British equivalent.
Both are correct.
Answer: (c).
Parliamentary sovereignty means the British Parliament can make or unmake any law without constitutional limits, while the Indian Parliament operates under constitutional constraints with judicial review.
India's Constitution Bench system allows the Supreme Court to refer substantial constitutional questions to a bench of at least 5 judges, a mechanism that does not exist in the British system.
The question tests understanding of how India modified the Westminster model by adding written constitutional supremacy and specialized constitutional adjudication.
Parliamentary Sovereignty: Britain vs India
Indian Polity British Parliament is supreme power of the Parliament to legislate is limited
Parliamentary Sovereignty: British Model vs Indian Adaptation
British Parliament is supreme — no written constitution limits its power
Indian Parliament is limited by the Constitution and judicial review
India adopted constitutional supremacy over parliamentary supremacy
Judicial review allows Indian courts to strike down unconstitutional laws
India adopted the Westminster parliamentary model but made one crucial change — constitutional supremacy replaced parliamentary sovereignty. This fundamental shift defines how laws are made and challenged in both systems.
Key Differences
Aspect | Britain | India |
|---|---|---|
Constitution | Unwritten, flexible | Written, rigid |
Parliament's Power | Supreme, unlimited | Limited by Constitution |
Judicial Review | No power to strike down laws | Can declare laws unconstitutional |
Constitutional Amendment | Simple majority | Special procedure (Article 368) |
Higher Law | Parliament's will | Constitution |
Question Anchoring
Statement 1 tests this core difference — British MPs can pass any law without constitutional limits, while Article 13 and judicial review constrain Indian Parliament's legislative power.
Trap: Assuming India copied Britain's model completely — we adopted structure but changed power distribution
Trap: Confusing parliamentary system (government formation) with parliamentary sovereignty (unlimited law-making power)
Remember: India has constitutional supremacy, Britain has parliamentary supremacy
Constitution Bench of Supreme Court
Indian Polity Constitution Bench Supreme Court
Constitution Bench: India's Unique Constitutional Court
Minimum 5 judges constitute a Constitution Bench
CJI decides composition and refers constitutional questions
No equivalent exists in British judicial system
Articles 143 & 145(3) provide the constitutional basis
The Constitution Bench is India's specialized mechanism for resolving major constitutional questions — a feature absent in Britain's legal system. Article 145(3) mandates at least 5 judges for substantial constitutional matters.
Key Features
Chief Justice constitutes the bench and decides which cases need constitutional interpretation
Handles constitutional amendments, fundamental rights disputes, and federal questions
Binding precedent — decisions apply to all lower courts across India
Can be constituted ad hoc or as a regular bench depending on case load
Article 143 allows President to seek advisory opinions from Constitution Bench
Question Anchoring
Statement 2 highlights this uniquely Indian institution — Britain's House of Lords (highest court) has no specialized constitutional bench structure like India's Article 145(3) system.
Trap: Minimum judge requirement — it's 5 judges minimum, not exactly 5
Trap: Assuming Britain has similar system — UK has no written constitution so no Constitution Bench needed
Remember: CJI decides composition, not automatic referral for all constitutional cases
Judicial Review in India
Indian Polity constitutionality Amendment Act of the Parliament
Judicial Review: India's Constitutional Safeguard
Article 13 empowers courts to strike down unconstitutional laws
Parliament and state laws both subject to judicial review
Basic Structure Doctrine limits even constitutional amendments
Supreme Court is final arbiter of constitutional interpretation
Judicial review allows Indian courts to examine whether laws violate the Constitution. Article 13 declares that any law inconsistent with Part III (Fundamental Rights) is void — a power that distinguishes India from Britain.
How Judicial Review Works
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`****Law Passed****
Parliament/State Legislature enacts law`"]
s2["`****Challenge Filed****
Citizens/entities approach courts claiming violation`"]
s3["`****Constitutional Test****
Court examines law against Constitution`"]
s4["`****Judgment****
Law upheld OR struck down as unconstitutional`"]
s5["`****Binding Effect****
Decision applies to all similar cases nationwide`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4
s4 --> s5Scope & Limitations
Constitutional amendments also subject to review under Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973)
Ordinary laws can be struck down if they violate any constitutional provision
State laws subject to review by High Courts and Supreme Court
Executive actions also reviewable if they exceed constitutional authority
Trap: Thinking judicial review only applies to ordinary laws — constitutional amendments also reviewable since 1973
Trap: Confusing with judicial activism — review is about constitutional compliance, not policy preferences
Remember: Article 13 specifically mentions Part III violations but courts review entire Constitution
Written vs Unwritten Constitution
Indian Polity British model
Written vs Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Difference
Britain has unwritten constitution based on conventions and precedents
India has written constitution — world's longest
Written constitutions provide legal certainty and judicial review
Unwritten systems offer flexibility but less legal protection
The written vs unwritten distinction determines how constitutional principles are established, interpreted, and changed. This choice shapes the entire legal and political system.
Constitutional Types
Feature | Written (India) | Unwritten (Britain) |
|---|---|---|
Document | Single comprehensive text | Multiple sources — laws, conventions, precedents |
Amendment | Special procedure (Article 368) | Simple legislation or convention change |
Judicial Role | Active — interpret and enforce | Limited — cannot override Parliament |
Certainty | High — clear legal text | Variable — depends on interpretation |
Flexibility | Moderate — formal amendment needed | High — conventions can evolve quickly |
Trap: Britain has some written laws but no single constitutional document
Trap: Unwritten ≠ unrecorded — Britain's constitutional principles are documented but scattered
Remember: New Zealand, Israel also have unwritten constitutions — not just Britain