British Constitution: Salient Features
British constitution features are unwritten, evolved, and flexible, resting on parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law, unlike India's judicial review.
At a glance
An unwritten, evolved constitutional system built on convention, statute, and judicial precedent rather than a single codified document.
Parliamentary sovereignty — the British Parliament can make, amend, or repeal any law by ordinary procedure, with no separate constituent authority.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — the Indian basic structure doctrine that marks a departure from British-style parliamentary sovereignty.
Britain's parliamentary model shaped India's Constitution, but India added judicial review and a blended rigid-flexible amendment process that Britain lacks.
Timeline
British constitution features define a constitutional system built not on a single codified document but on custom, convention, judicial precedent, and ordinary statute accumulated over centuries. Often called the "mother of Constitutions," the British constitutional order is the oldest in the world and the oldest continuously functioning democratic system, and it directly shaped the parliamentary form of government that India's own Constitution adopted.
Historical Evolution
The British constitutional system did not emerge from a single founding moment. England and Scotland were joined into the state of Great Britain in 1707, while the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland took its present form only in 1921. The principles and institutions of representative government — a legislature answerable to the people, a cabinet drawn from and responsible to Parliament — were first developed in Britain before spreading elsewhere. The result is a constitution that is a blend of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, reflecting the gradual accommodation of older institutions with newer democratic practice.
An Unwritten, Evolved Constitution
Constitutions are broadly classified as written (like the American Constitution) or unwritten (like the British Constitution). In Britain, most of the principles governing the distribution and exercise of governmental power are not set down in a single text; only a small portion of the constitutional order is covered by formal written documents. The British Constitution is therefore described as an evolved constitution rather than an enacted one — a product of history built up through gradual change, not a document drafted and adopted at one sitting. It has been called a child of chance as well as of wisdom, meaning it owes as much to historical accident as to deliberate design, and it is not a static arrangement frozen at any one point.
Parliamentary Sovereignty
The most distinctive feature of the British Constitution is the legal supremacy of Parliament. The British Parliament can make, amend, substitute, or repeal any law whatsoever; the jurist De Lolme summarised this by saying Parliament "can do everything except make a woman a man and a man a woman." Two consequences follow. First, Parliament can make constitutional laws through the very same procedure used for ordinary laws — there is no legal distinction in Britain between a constituent (constitution-making) authority and the ordinary law-making authority, unlike in systems with a separately entrenched amending process. Second, parliamentary laws cannot be struck down by courts as unconstitutional; Great Britain has no system of judicial review of legislation in the sense familiar from written constitutions.
Rule of Law
The doctrine of the rule of law is another foundational characteristic of the British constitutional system. It holds that law is supreme and that government must act according to law and within the limits fixed by law. A.V. Dicey, in The Law of the Constitution (1885), set out this doctrine's implications, the first of which is the absence of arbitrary power — government cannot act outside or above legally sanctioned limits.
A Flexible Constitution
Constitutions are also classified as rigid or flexible depending on how they can be amended. A rigid constitution, such as the American one, requires a special procedure for amendment. A flexible constitution — the British model — can be amended by the same simple procedure used to pass ordinary legislation. This flexibility is a direct consequence of parliamentary sovereignty: because Parliament's constitution-making and law-making powers are legally identical, no special constitutional-amendment machinery is needed.
How This Compares with India's Constitutional Design
| Feature | British Constitution | Indian Constitution |
|---|---|---|
| Form | Unwritten, evolved | Written, one of the lengthiest in the world |
| Amendment procedure | Flexible — same as ordinary law | Blend of rigid and flexible (Article 368) |
| Judicial review of legislation | Absent — Parliament is legally supreme | Present — courts can strike down laws and amendments |
| Constituent vs law-making authority | No legal distinction | Distinct special-majority process for many provisions |
India borrowed heavily from the British parliamentary model but deliberately departed from Britain on rigidity and judicial review, choosing constitutional supremacy over pure parliamentary sovereignty. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461), a 13-judge bench held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 cannot be used to alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution — essential features such as federalism, judicial review, and parliamentary government are unamendable even by a special majority. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down 42nd Amendment clauses that had tried to place amending power, judicial review, and the fundamental rights–Directive Principles balance beyond challenge, for destroying the basic structure. More recently, under Article 124, a five-judge bench declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission unconstitutional for violating judicial independence and separation of powers — again treated as a basic feature. None of this is conceivable in Britain, where Parliament's laws are immune from judicial invalidation precisely because there is no entrenched, judicially enforceable constitutional text standing above it.
UPSC Relevance
Prelims
- The British Constitution is unwritten/uncodified and evolved, unlike the American Constitution, which is written and rigid.
- Parliamentary sovereignty means the British Parliament can make or unmake any law; there is no judicial review of parliamentary legislation in the UK.
- A.V. Dicey's The Law of the Constitution (1885) is the classic exposition of the rule-of-law doctrine.
- Great Britain was formed by union in 1707; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland took shape in 1921.
Mains
- Compare parliamentary sovereignty in Britain with constitutional supremacy in India, using the basic structure doctrine as the point of departure.
- Discuss how India's Constitution blends features of rigid (American) and flexible (British) constitutions in its amendment process under Article 368.
- Evaluate why judicial review of constitutional amendments — absent in Britain — was considered essential to the Indian constitutional scheme (Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, the NJAC judgment).
FAQ
Is the British Constitution completely unwritten? No. Only a small portion of it is covered by written documents; most of its governing principles rest on convention, statute, and judicial precedent built up over time, which is why it is called an evolved rather than an enacted constitution.
What does parliamentary sovereignty mean in the British context? It means the British Parliament has unlimited legal power to make, amend, or repeal any law by ordinary procedure, and no court can declare a parliamentary law unconstitutional, since Britain has no separate, entrenched constitutional text above ordinary legislation.
Why is the British Constitution called flexible? Because it can be amended through the same simple procedure used for passing ordinary laws, without any special majority or separate amending process — unlike a rigid constitution such as the American one.
How does India's Constitution differ from Britain's on judicial review? India adopted constitutional supremacy: the Supreme Court can strike down laws and even constitutional amendments that violate the "basic structure," as held in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980). Britain has no equivalent judicial check on Parliament.
What is the significance of A.V. Dicey's rule-of-law doctrine? Dicey's rule of law, from The Law of the Constitution (1885), holds that law is supreme and government must act according to and within the limits of law, with the absence of arbitrary power as its first implication — a foundational principle of British constitutionalism.
Quick Revision
- British Constitution: unwritten, evolved, not enacted at a single moment.
- Great Britain formed 1707; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland formed 1921.
- Parliamentary sovereignty: Parliament can make or unmake any law; no judicial review of legislation.
- Flexible constitution: amended by ordinary legislative procedure, no special majority needed.
- Rule of law (Dicey, 1885): law is supreme; absence of arbitrary power is its first implication.
- India departs from Britain via Article 368's blended rigidity-flexibility and the basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati 1973; Minerva Mills 1980).
Sources
- Constitution of India — Ministry of Law and Justice, legislative.gov.in
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 — Supreme Court of India
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625 — Supreme Court of India
- Constituent Assembly Debates — official archive, constitutionofindia.net
Further Reference
For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:
- M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
- D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
- The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.
Constitutional provisions
India's constitutional amendment procedure — blends special-majority and simple-majority routes, unlike Britain's uniform ordinary-law procedure.
Governs Supreme Court judges' appointment; the NJAC was struck down for violating judicial independence, a basic feature with no equivalent check in Britain.