Case Study: Amending Procedure Under The UK Constitution
(ii) Amending Procedure under UK Constitution
United Kingdom is not having a codified constitution, although many of the resources of the constitution are written and documented. It also does not have the federal structure like the US have. The UK Parliament has the power to change the Constitution by the ordinary process of Legislation. Under the UK Constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to over ride or set aside the legislation of Parliament (Dicey 1915, 37-38) The another point of difference between US, India and UK is that US and India have the elected head of the State the President, whereas in UK monarch is the royal head of …show more content…
Similarly, they never wanted to have an arrangement like the British set-up where the Parliament is supreme and can do everything that is humanly possible. Adopting the combination of the ‗theory of fundamental law‘, which underlies the written Constitution of the United States with the theory of parliamentary sovereignty‘ as existing in the United Kingdom, the Constitution of India vests constituent power upon the Parliament subject to the special procedure laid down therein. The Constitution of India provides for a distinctive amending process as compared to the leading Constitutions of the world. It may be described as partly flexible and partly …show more content…
In India, the amendment passed by the Parliament with due procedure as provided under Article 368 can become part of Constitution only after the assent of the President, whereas in UK its monarch whose assent is required to complete the procedure of amending the constitution. But in US, the President does not have such status and no provision of President‘s assent is mentioned in US Constitution. If we compare all the three constitutions, we will find that it is very difficult to amend the US Constitution as very easy to amend the UK constitution and India lies some wherein between the US and UK, that is to say not so easy to amend and not so difficult to amend. Article 368 gives Indian Parliament supremacy in some matters to amend the constitution but then in some matters it requires ratification by not less than one-half of the states. The notable point is that both in Indian Constitution and US Constitution no time limit has been forratification has been prescribed. In last I would to conclude that the Indian Constitution is more flexible than rigid. It is only few of amendments of the constitution that requires ratification by state legislatures and even then legislation by one half states would suffice. The rest of the Constitution could be amended by a special majority by Indian Parliament. Whereas, the US has a rigid constitution and it can be amended by the US Congress by means
United Kingdom is not having a codified constitution, although many of the resources of the constitution are written and documented. It also does not have the federal structure like the US have. The UK Parliament has the power to change the Constitution by the ordinary process of Legislation. Under the UK Constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to over ride or set aside the legislation of Parliament (Dicey 1915, 37-38) The another point of difference between US, India and UK is that US and India have the elected head of the State the President, whereas in UK monarch is the royal head of …show more content…
Similarly, they never wanted to have an arrangement like the British set-up where the Parliament is supreme and can do everything that is humanly possible. Adopting the combination of the ‗theory of fundamental law‘, which underlies the written Constitution of the United States with the theory of parliamentary sovereignty‘ as existing in the United Kingdom, the Constitution of India vests constituent power upon the Parliament subject to the special procedure laid down therein. The Constitution of India provides for a distinctive amending process as compared to the leading Constitutions of the world. It may be described as partly flexible and partly …show more content…
In India, the amendment passed by the Parliament with due procedure as provided under Article 368 can become part of Constitution only after the assent of the President, whereas in UK its monarch whose assent is required to complete the procedure of amending the constitution. But in US, the President does not have such status and no provision of President‘s assent is mentioned in US Constitution. If we compare all the three constitutions, we will find that it is very difficult to amend the US Constitution as very easy to amend the UK constitution and India lies some wherein between the US and UK, that is to say not so easy to amend and not so difficult to amend. Article 368 gives Indian Parliament supremacy in some matters to amend the constitution but then in some matters it requires ratification by not less than one-half of the states. The notable point is that both in Indian Constitution and US Constitution no time limit has been forratification has been prescribed. In last I would to conclude that the Indian Constitution is more flexible than rigid. It is only few of amendments of the constitution that requires ratification by state legislatures and even then legislation by one half states would suffice. The rest of the Constitution could be amended by a special majority by Indian Parliament. Whereas, the US has a rigid constitution and it can be amended by the US Congress by means