Why Britain Opted For An Unwritten Constitution And India Did Not
Every thinking and politically aware person would wonder how Britain manages with an unwritten constitution when India and the USA with their written ones are often having heated debates over the true import of the key and contentious provisions of the Constitution. Britain does not have a single written or codified constitution because it has never experienced a "momentous development"—such as a…
The unwritten constitution of Britain stands in stark contrast to India's written one, leading to differing approaches to governance and constitutional interpretation. While Britain's constitution is not codified, but rather spread across various documents, traditions, and laws, India's constitution is a single, comprehensive document.
Britain's unwritten constitution stems from its gradual political evolution, with power shifting to Parliament over time without a radical upheaval. This contrasts with India, which required a written constitution to manage its vast social diversity and ensure representation for all groups.
Britain's supreme parliament, bound by no written constitution, can amend any part of the constitution through ordinary legislation. This flexibility, however, comes with the absence of judicial review, meaning courts cannot strike down laws that violate the constitution. In contrast, India's written constitution embeds fundamental rights and provides judicial review, ensuring that laws align with the constitution's interpretation by high courts and the Supreme Court.
This system allows India to better accommodate its unique cultural and political landscape, where a written constitution is seen as essential for protecting citizens and maintaining a functional federal structure.
Written by urgent.news from Free Press Journal's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
