Distinction Between Indian And British Models
The parliamentary system of government in India is largely based on the British parliamentary system. However, it never became a replica of the British system and differs in the following respects:
- India has a republican system in place of the British monarchical system. In other words, the Head of the State in India (that is, the President) is elected, while the Head of the State in Britain (that is, the King or Queen) enjoys a hereditary position.
- The British system is based on the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, while the Parliament is not supreme in India and enjoys limited and restricted powers due to a written Constitution, federal system, judicial review and fundamental rights.
Indian Parliament is not sovereign in the sense that the British Parliament is sovereign and can enact any law it pleases. The point is that in the sense of constitutional sovereignty, their powers are not limited by a constitutional document.
Our constitutional document provides for fundamental rights of the individual, and they are enforceable in courts of law. Any law passed by Parliament that infringes on any of the fundamental rights may be declared unconstitutional by the courts. - In Britain, the prime minister should be a member of the Lower House (House of Commons) of the Parliament. In India, the prime minister may be a member of any of the two Houses of Parliament.
- Usually, the members of Parliament alone are appointed as ministers in Britain. In India, a person who is not a Member of Parliament can also be appointed as minister, but for a maximum period of six months.
- Britain has a system of legal responsibility of the minister while India has no such system. Unlike in Britain, the ministers in India are not required to countersign the official acts of the Head of the State.
- ‘Shadow cabinet’ is a unique institution of the British cabinet system. It is formed by the opposition party to balance the ruling cabinet and to prepare its members for future ministerial office. There is no such institution in India.
Judicial Difference:
- India has a written constitution that serves as the supreme law of the land. On the other hand, the UK has an unwritten constitution based on statutes, common law, and conventions.
- In terms of judicial review, the scope is broader in India than in the UK. The Indian judiciary can review and strike down laws that violate the Constitution, while the UK judiciary can only review the compatibility of laws with the Human Rights Act. They can issue a declaration of incompatibility, but the final decision lies with Parliament.
- India has a unitary three-tier structure of the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at the top, High Courts in the middle, and subordinate courts at the base. The UK has a more complex structure, with different court systems for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
- The appointment process for judges in India is more opaque and involves a collegium system where senior judges play a significant role in selecting new judges. In the UK, the appointment process is more transparent, with the Judicial Appointments Commission responsible for selecting judges based on merit.
- To conclude, the Indian system has a written constitution, which defines and delimits the powers and authorities of every organ of Government and every functionary. The power of Parliament is also clearly defined and delimited by the Constitution.