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
-
Discuss the role of Presiding Officers of state legislatures in maintaining order and impartiality in conducting legislative work and in facilitating best democratic practices.
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q5). 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 paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2023 · GS II · 10 marks
"Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy". Comment.
Indian Constitution
Democracy needs courts that can enforce the Constitution against the elected majority. Articles 50, 121, 124, 211 and 217, charged salaries, and a hard removal process are the main guarantees. The 99th Amendment and the NJAC were struck down in 2015 as a threat to independence of appointments. Independence is a prerequisite; opacity of the collegium is a separate reform problem, not a reason to remove the guarantee.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2023 · GS II · 10 marks
Who are entitled to receive free legal aid? Assess the role of the National Legal Services Authority(NALSA) in rendering free legal aid in India.
Governance and Policy
Article 39A and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, create the right to free legal aid. Section 12 names SC/ST persons, women, children, persons in custody, workmen, persons with disability, disaster victims, and the income-poor. NALSA heads the statutory system of State authorities, court committees, clinics and Lok Adalats. The system is wide in design and still thin in quality of trial representation. Assessment therefore credits outreach and asks for better fees, first-hearing counsel, and published coverage data.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2023 · GS II · 10 marks
"The states in India seem reluctant to empower urban local bodies both functionally as well as financially." Comment.
Governance and Policy
The 74th Amendment and the Twelfth Schedule create municipalities but leave devolution to State law. Parastatals and State-appointed commissioners keep functions out of the elected council. Property tax is constrained; GST ended octroi and sent compensation to States, not cities. Late State Finance Commissions and approval for borrowing keep cities fiscally dependent. The statement is correct: functional and financial empowerment is still a State choice.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.