Comparison of India-UK Constitution

Lengthiest written constitution: 

• Constitution that is included in a single document and has been meticulously and methodically written down.

Unwritten constitution:

• It is not codified in a single document and is instead based on established customs, political practices, and traditions.

• The Constitution of India does not allow holding Indian citizenship and citizenship of a foreign country simultaneously.

• Dual citizenship (also known as dual nationality) is allowed in the UK.
• One can be a British citizen and also a citizen of other countries.

Federal character:

• India has a federal system of government with a bias towards a unitary system.

Unitary character:

• The British Parliament holds all governing powers and is the supreme authority.

• The President is the head of the state.
• The President is indirectly elected by a special electoral college.
• The President has the power to appoint the Council of Ministers and other key government officials, as well as to veto or send back legislation for reconsideration.

• The British Monarch is the head of state of the UK and Commonwealth.
• It is decided based on descent, religion, and primogeniture.
• The Monarch does not have the power to appoint or dismiss government officials, and does not have the power to veto or send back the legislation.

• PM can be a member of either house of Parliament.

• By convention, the PM will always be a member of the lower house.

• Indian cabinet system is based on the UK political system without a shadow cabinet.

• UK has a shadow cabinet system composed of major opposition.
• The purpose is to examine the policies and actions of the government and present alternative policies.

• The Constitution is supreme in the case of India.
• In India, the Constitution clearly defines and limits the power of Parliament, but within its scope, it holds supreme authority.

• Parliamentary sovereignty is the principle of the UK constitution. It makes the Parliament, the supreme legal authority in the UK.
• In Britain, the Parliament is the only institution that holds sovereign power and is not limited by any written constitution, as there is no such document in place.

• The House of the People and Council of States are the lower and upper houses, respectively.

• The House of Commons and The House of Lords are the lower and the upper house, respectively.

• Office of the speaker is similar to the British model. However, some conventions that apply in the UK do not exist in India.
• Specifically, the Speaker in India is not required to resign from their political party.

• In the UK, there is a convention where once a speaker, always a speaker, once a person is appointed as a speaker, he gives formal resignation from his political party.
• The purpose is to maintain the political neutrality of the office.

• Under the Indian constitution, there is no mention of the legal responsibility of the minister.

• In the UK, every order of the king for any public act is countersigned by a minister.
• For every act of the British government performed in the name of the king, it is the minister who is responsible to Parliament.

• In India, the Constitution guarantees a wide range of fundamental rights to citizens, including right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, right to life and personal liberty, right to education, and right to property.
• Additionally, the Indian Constitution also includes Directive Principles of State Policy, which are intended to guide government policy and ensure the welfare of the people.

• The UK does not have a single document that lays out fundamental rights in the same way.
• However, the UK has a Human Rights Act of 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law.
• This guarantees citizens certain rights, such as the right to life, freedom from torture, the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly.

• Directive principles of state policies and Fundamental duties are mentioned under part IV and IV-A of the constitution respectively.

• Absent in the constitution of UK.

• The Rule of law is based on Britain's rule of law with one difference.
• In Indian system, the constitution is the source of the individual rights.

• The constitution is the result of the rights of the individual.

• Neither flexible nor rigid but a synthesis of both.
• Article 368: The Constitution can only be amended by introducing a bill for the purpose in the Parliament and not in the state legislatures.
• Each House must pass the bill separately. To amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, a bill must be approved by a simple majority in the legislature of at least half of the states as well.

• The British constitution is a very flexible constitution. It can be amended, partially or wholly, by an ordinary law passed by the British Parliament.
• In the UK, the Constitution is not a single document but a collection of laws, conventions, and practices.
• As a result, there is no formal process for amending the Constitution.
• Most of the constitutional changes in UK can be made by ordinary Parliamentary legislation.

• The fundamental framework of the Indian constitution is reliant on judicial review.
• In India, judicial laws are codified in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
• India has a single integrated judicial system.
• Supreme Court can strike down the legislation.
• The Indian judicial system posses basic structure doctrine.
• The judges are appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.

• Due to the sovereignty of Parliament, the judiciary does not possess the inherent authority to invalidate an act of Parliament.
• The United Kingdom does not have a single unified legal system.
• Instead, there is one system for England and Wales, another for Scotland, and a third for Northern Ireland.
• Its highest court, unlike the supreme court of India, cannot strike down legislation, but it can review the lawfulness of actions of great public and constitutional importance converging elements to ensure natural justice.
• The British judicial system does not have basic structure doctrine.
• The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 has prescribed a judicial appointment commission.