Compare and contrast the British and Indian approaches to Parliamentary sovereignty.

Introduction

Both Parliaments descend from the Westminster model, yet they rest on opposite doctrines: legislative supremacy in Britain, constitutional supremacy in India.

The British approach

• Dicey's classic formulation: Parliament may make or unmake any law whatsoever, and no court may invalidate a statute.
• With no codified constitution, constituent and ordinary law-making powers are identical — a simple majority can alter the constitutional order.
• Courts may at most issue declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act, 1998; Parliament decides whether to respond.
• Devolution to Scotland and Wales is statutory and revocable, not a federal limitation.

The Indian approach

• Parliament is a creature of the Constitution, limited by Fundamental Rights (Article 13), the federal division of the Seventh Schedule, and judicial review under Articles 32 and 226.
• Constitutional change requires the special procedure of Article 368 — and even that power cannot destroy the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973; Minerva Mills, 1980).
• Courts routinely strike down unconstitutional statutes and amendments.

Similarities

• Both legislatures are supreme within their lawful sphere, sustain responsible government by controlling the executive, and enjoy privileges and autonomy over their own procedure.

Conclusion

India deliberately blended British parliamentary government with American judicial supremacy, producing sovereignty of the Constitution: Parliament remains supreme in politics, but not in law.