Revision summary
Dicey’s British doctrine makes Parliament legally unlimited and bars courts from voiding an Act. India’s Parliament is created by the Constitution and bound by Articles 13 and 245. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) placed basic structure beyond Article 368. Westminster political forms are shared; legal sovereignty is not. Indian parliamentary sovereignty is therefore limited, unlike the classical British model.
Model answer
Introduction
- A.V. Dicey treated the United Kingdom Parliament as legally unlimited: it could make or unmake any law, and no court could void an Act. India copied parliamentary government but not that unlimited sovereignty, because a written Constitution, fundamental rights, and judicial review sit above ordinary statutes.
Body
The British approach
- Dicey’s Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the supreme legal authority, that it can legislate on any subject, and that no Parliament can bind its successor.
- There is no single coded Constitution with a higher-law status in the Diceyan model; courts interpret statutes, they do not strike them down as unconstitutional.
- Political checks exist: elections, convention, the House of Lords’ delaying power after the Parliament Acts, and now the Human Rights Act, 1998, which allows a declaration of incompatibility without voiding the statute.
- Even after Jackson v. Attorney General and debate on common-law constitutionalism, the orthodox teaching remains that a clear Act of Parliament is law.
The Indian approach
- Article 245 allows Parliament and State legislatures to make laws, but only subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
- Articles 13, 32, 136, 141, 142 and 226 create judicial review; an ordinary Act that violates Part III is void.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that the amending power under Article 368 cannot destroy the basic structure, so even a constitutional amendment is not sovereign in Dicey’s sense.
- Later cases — Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, Minerva Mills, I.R. Coelho, and the NJAC case — applied that limit to election disputes, rights, judicial review, and appointments.
- India therefore has parliamentary government (collective responsibility, money bills, no-confidence) without parliamentary legal omnipotence.
Comparison and contrast
- Both systems centre debate, budget, and the executive in an elected lower House; that is the shared Westminster political form.
- Britain locates legal sovereignty in Parliament; India locates it in the Constitution, of which Parliament is a creature.
- Britain has no basic-structure doctrine; India uses it to police Article 368.
- Emergency and the 42nd Amendment showed how far an Indian Parliament can try to go; Minerva Mills showed the Court pulling that power back.
- The contrast is therefore not about the existence of Parliament, but about whether Parliament or the Constitution has the last legal word.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD B[Dicey UK Parliament] --> U[No court strikes an Act] I[Indian Parliament] --> C[Constitution higher law] C --> K[Kesavananda basic structure] K --> J[Judicial review of statute and amendment]
Conclusion
Britain, in Dicey’s teaching, gives Parliament the last legal word. India gives that word to the Constitution, as read by the Court in Kesavananda Bharati, so Indian parliamentary sovereignty is political and procedural, not absolute.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Explain the structure of the Parliamentary Committee system. How far have the financial committees helped in the institutionalization of Indian Parliament?
Next question on this syllabus topic (2023 · Q16). View answer →
-
Is the Indian Parliament sovereign in political life?
It is the central law-making and confidence body of the Union. It is not legally sovereign over the Constitution.
-
Can the British Supreme Court strike down an Act as India does?
Not on the Indian model of unconstitutionality. It interprets and may declare incompatibility; it does not void the Act.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Indian Constitution has conferred the amending power on the ordinary legislative institutions with a few procedural hurdles. In view of this statement, examine the procedural and substantive limitations on the amending power of the Parliament to change the Constitution. -
2024 · Q3 · GS II · 10 marks
"The growth of cabinet system has practkally resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy." Elucidate. -
2023 · Q16 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the structure of the Parliamentary Committee system. How far have the financial committees helped in the institutionalization of Indian Parliament? -
2022 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising out of the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What are the grounds on which the election of any returned candidate may be declared void? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision ? Refer to the case laws. -
2021 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India? -
2021 · Q15 · GS II · 15 marks
Do Department -related Parliamentary Standing Committees keep the administration on its toes and inspire reverence for parliamentary control? Evaluate the working of such committees with suitable examples. -
2020 · Q5 · GS II · 10 marks
"Once a speaker, Always a speaker'! Do you think the practice should be adopted to impart objectivity to the office of the Speaker of Lok Sabha? What could be its implications for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India. -
2019 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
"Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is a limited power and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power." In the light of this statement explain whether Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution can destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution by expanding its amending power?(15).
More from this topic
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 15 marks
Indian Constitution has conferred the amending power on the ordinary legislative institutions with a few procedural hurdles. In view of this statement, examine the procedural and substantive limitations on the amending power of the Parliament to change the Constitution.
Parliament and State Legislatures
Article 368 uses Parliament’s Houses, not a standing constituent assembly, with special majority and no joint sitting. Federal provisions need ratification by at least half the States. Ordinary Acts cannot amend the Constitution. Kesavananda, Minerva Mills, Indira Gandhi and I.R. Coelho set substantive basic-structure limits, including judicial review and rights-DPSPs balance. NJAC 2015 shows the doctrine applying to institutional design, not only to rights texts.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
"The growth of cabinet system has practkally resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy." Elucidate.
Parliament and State Legislatures
Articles 74–75 keep the Cabinet responsible to the Lok Sabha; that is the legal core of parliamentary government. Whips and the Tenth Schedule, ordinances and money-bill classification have moved real initiation to the Cabinet. This is practical marginalisation of the floor, not a legal repeal of Parliament. PAC, standing committees, Rajya Sabha and the floor test still bite. Keisham Meghachandra pressed Speakers to decide disqualification on a clock. A narrower anti-defection law would restore some of the supremacy the quote says is lost. The examiner’s misspelling does not change the demand: show practice squeezing text, not text dying.
Q16 · UPSC Mains 2023 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the structure of the Parliamentary Committee system. How far have the financial committees helped in the institutionalization of Indian Parliament?
Parliament and State Legislatures
Parliamentary committees are standing, financial, administrative and ad hoc. DRSCs since 1993 examine grants, bills and ministry policy with both Houses. PAC, Estimates Committee and COPU are the three financial committees. PAC works on CAG reports and is conventionally chaired by the Opposition. They institutionalise continuous financial scrutiny, not a veto on Supply. Weak follow-up of recommendations is the main limit on that institutionalisation.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.