Introduction

The Indian Constitution is a fully written and detailed document. It came into force in 1950 and remains the longest written constitution in the world. It contains clear provisions, procedures, schedules and defined rights. Its written form makes the rules explicit and enforceable. The UK Constitution is not written in a single document. It depends on statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and long-established customs. Its flexible nature allows it to evolve with changing political and social needs. It has no single authoritative text, which makes it uncodified and open to interpretation.

India relies on a complete legal structure. The UK relies on long-standing practices and parliamentary traditions. Both systems function effectively but follow very different constitutional formats.

How Do India and the UK Differ in Terms of Sovereignty?

India places sovereignty in the Constitution and in the people. The Constitution is the supreme law. All state institutions act within its limits. No authority can override the Constitution. The UK follows the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has the final word on all laws. No court can strike down a law passed by Parliament. The Constitution does not limit parliamentary power. This gives the UK system maximum legal flexibility.

How Do Their Federal Structures Compare?

India follows a quasi-federal system. It divides powers between the Union and the States. The Centre holds strong powers in areas like defence, communication and currency. India has a single citizenship and an integrated judiciary. Residuary powers go to Parliament, which strengthens the Union. The UK follows a unitary form. Power is concentrated in the national Parliament. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have devolved legislatures, but Parliament retains ultimate authority. It can create, alter or abolish regional powers whenever it chooses.

India balances federal and unitary features. The UK keeps a primarily unitary character with devolved arrangements. These arrangements can change based on political decisions, not constitutional restrictions.

How Are the Executives Structured in India and the UK?

Both countries follow a parliamentary system. The Prime Minister leads the government. The Cabinet remains responsible to the lower house. The executive derives its authority from the legislature.

India has an elected President as the nominal head of state. The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister can come from either House of Parliament. The executive authority is exercised in the name of the President. The UK has a hereditary monarch as the ceremonial head of state. The monarch acts on ministerial advice. The Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons. Actual power lies with the Cabinet led by the Prime Minister.

How Do Their Legislatures Compare?

India has a bicameral Parliament with the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The Lok Sabha holds more power, especially in money matters. The Rajya Sabha represents the states but has limited authority compared to the lower house. Its members are elected indirectly by state legislatures. The UK also has a bicameral Parliament with the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Commons holds real power and controls finances. The House of Lords is largely appointed and plays a revising role. It can delay but not permanently block most bills.

Both legislatures follow parliamentary procedures and conventions. India gives limited power to its upper house. The UK uses its upper house mainly for scrutiny and expertise.

How Do the Judicial Systems in India and the UK Differ?

India has a single, integrated judiciary. The Supreme Court leads the system. It has strong powers of judicial review. It can strike down unconstitutional laws. It also protects fundamental rights. The basic structure doctrine limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The UK does not have a codified bill of rights. Parliamentary sovereignty prevents courts from overturning parliamentary laws. The Human Rights Act 1998 allows courts to interpret laws in line with human rights standards but not to invalidate them. The UK Supreme Court was created in 2009 but remains subordinate to Parliament.

India gives the judiciary strong review powers. The UK limits the judiciary to interpretation and application of Parliament’s laws.

How Does the Amendment Process Differ in the Two Systems?

India follows Article 368 for constitutional amendments. Some changes need a simple majority. Many require a special majority in Parliament. Amendments affecting federal provisions need approval from half of the state legislatures. This makes the Indian amendment process partly rigid and partly flexible. The UK amends its constitution through ordinary parliamentary laws. A simple parliamentary majority can change any constitutional rule. There is no distinction between ordinary laws and constitutional laws. This makes the UK Constitution extremely flexible.

How Do Fundamental Rights Differ in India and the UK?

India includes fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. These rights are enforceable in courts. Citizens can approach the Supreme Court and High Courts for protection under Articles 32 and 226. The judiciary actively safeguards these rights. The UK protects rights through statutes like the Human Rights Act and through common law. These rights are not part of a written constitution. Courts can declare a law incompatible with human rights but cannot strike it down. Parliament decides whether to change the law.

India ensures constitutional protection of rights. The UK ensures statutory and judicial protection within parliamentary limits.

What Similarities Exist Between the Two Constitutions?

Both systems follow a parliamentary model. Both emphasise cabinet responsibility and leadership by the Prime Minister. Both uphold the rule of law and independence of the judiciary. Both maintain bicameral legislatures with a more powerful lower house. India adopted many features from the UK, such as parliamentary procedure, rule of law and cabinet form of government, but adapted them to a federal and diverse society.

For any specific query call at ‪+91 – 8569843472‬

Conclusion

The Indian Constitution is written, detailed and partly rigid. It follows a quasi-federal structure with strong judicial review and entrenched rights. It places sovereignty in the Constitution and the people. It balances central power with state autonomy.

The UK Constitution is unwritten, flexible and unitary. It follows parliamentary sovereignty and allows quick changes through legislation. It has limited judicial review and protects rights mainly through statutes. It relies heavily on conventions and political traditions.

India’s Constitution blends global influences with federal needs and democratic values. The UK’s Constitution evolves through practice and parliamentary decisions. Both systems reflect their unique histories and political cultures.