The Indian parliamentary system is different from the British parliamentary system in that India has

1. Essence of the Parliamentary System (basic)

The Parliamentary system, often referred to as the Westminster Model, is fundamentally defined by the organic relationship between the executive (those who implement laws) and the legislature (those who make laws). Unlike the Presidential system, which is built on a strict "separation of powers," the Parliamentary system thrives on cooperation and coordination between these two branches Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.29. In this setup, the executive is not a separate entity; rather, the ministers are members of the legislature, ensuring that the two organs work in tandem.

A crucial hallmark of this system is Collective Responsibility. This means the Council of Ministers is collectively answerable to the Parliament (specifically the Lok Sabha in India) for all their actions. If the legislature loses confidence in the government, the cabinet must resign. This ensures a "Responsible Government," where the executive remains in power only as long as it enjoys the support of the majority party or coalition Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Parliamentary System, p.135.

In the Indian context, the Constitution establishes this system at both the Central and State levels. It features a dual executive: a nominal head (the President) who holds a ceremonial position, and a real head (the Prime Minister) who wields actual political authority Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Central Council of Ministers, p.213. This structure was chosen by our founding fathers to avoid the potential for conflict between the executive and legislature, favoring a system that is more accountable to the people's representatives.

Feature	Parliamentary System	Presidential System
Core Principle	Cooperation & Coordination	Separation of Powers
Executive Responsibility	Responsible to the Legislature	Not responsible to the Legislature
Executive Type	Dual (Nominal & Real)	Single

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.29; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Parliamentary System, p.135; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Central Council of Ministers, p.213

2. Key Features of the Indian Model (basic)

Welcome to our second step! To truly master the Indian Parliamentary Model, we must understand that while we borrowed the "Westminster" framework from Britain, we didn't just copy-paste it. We adapted it to fit India's unique needs as a diverse, sovereign republic. The foundation of our system rests on the fusion of powers between the executive and the legislature, rather than their strict separation.

One of the most striking features of our model is the Dual Executive. In India, the President serves as the nominal executive (de jure), representing the dignity of the state, while the Prime Minister serves as the real executive (de facto), wielding actual political power Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Parliamentary System, p.131. This same pattern is mirrored at the state level between the Governor and the Chief Minister Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chief Minister, p.325. Furthermore, our system is built on Collective Responsibility. As per Article 75, the Council of Ministers must act as a single unit; they "swim or sink together" and are answerable specifically to the Lok Sabha (the lower house) Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Central Council of Ministers, p.215.

However, the defining distinction between the Indian and British models lies in the concept of supremacy. In Britain, they follow the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty—meaning their Parliament can make or unmake any law, and courts generally cannot strike down primary legislation. In contrast, India has a written Constitution and the power of Judicial Review. This means that our Parliament is not "absolute." If a law violates the Constitution or fundamental rights, our Judiciary has the authority to declare it null and void. This creates a beautiful balance between parliamentary democracy and constitutional supremacy.

Feature	British Model	Indian Model
Head of State	Hereditary (Monarchy)	Elected (Republic)
Supremacy	Parliamentary Sovereignty	Constitutional Supremacy
Judicial Review	Limited/Restricted	Strong/Independent Power

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Parliamentary System, p.131; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chief Minister, p.325; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Central Council of Ministers, p.215; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The Union Executive, p.227

3. The Concept of Constitutionalism (intermediate)

Hello! Today we are diving into a concept that is the very soul of modern democracies: Constitutionalism. While many people use the terms 'Constitution' and 'Constitutionalism' interchangeably, they represent two very different things. Think of the Constitution as the manual or the rulebook of a country, while Constitutionalism is the spirit or philosophy that ensures those rules actually limit the power of those in charge.

At its core, Constitutionalism is the doctrine of Limited Government. It is built on the premise that 'power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Therefore, for a government to be considered 'civilized,' its authority must be derived from and limited by a body of fundamental law. As noted in Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Concept of the Constitution, p.25, a country might have a Constitution (like a dictatorship where the leader's word is codified) but completely lack Constitutionalism because there are no checks on the leader's whims. Constitutionalism insists that the government must conform to rules that protect the freedom of the people.

Feature	Constitution	Constitutionalism
Nature	The legal document or set of rules (the 'Skeleton').	The political philosophy of limited power (the 'Soul').
Existence	Can exist in authoritarian regimes.	Only exists where power is legally restricted.
Goal	To organize the state and its organs.	To prevent the government from becoming oppressive.

In the context of the Indian Parliamentary system, Constitutionalism is upheld through several pillars: Fundamental Rights which the state cannot violate, an Independent Judiciary with the power of Judicial Review, and the Rule of Law. While the British system relies heavily on conventions and Parliamentary Sovereignty, the Indian model uses a written document to place hard limits on what Parliament can do Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Concept of the Constitution, p.24. This ensures that even the majority in Parliament cannot override the basic rights of a citizen or the essential structure of our democracy.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Concept of the Constitution, p.25; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Concept of the Constitution, p.24

4. Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence (intermediate)

In any democratic system, the Separation of Powers is the structural design that prevents the concentration of authority in a single set of hands. While the Parliamentary system (which we've been exploring) features a "fusion" of the Executive and Legislature, the Judiciary is intentionally kept distinct and independent. This independence ensures that the rule of law prevails over the whims of the ruling majority. According to the Indian Constitution at Work, Judiciary, p.125, independence means that the other branches must not restrain the judiciary's functioning or interfere with its decisions, allowing judges to perform their duties "without fear or favor."

A unique feature of the Indian system is how it balances Parliamentary Sovereignty with Judicial Supremacy. In the British model, Parliament is supreme; no court can declare its laws unconstitutional. However, India adopted the principle of Judicial Review. This gives the Supreme Court and High Courts the power to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. If a law violates the Fundamental Rights or the provisions of the Constitution, the Judiciary can strike it down Indian Polity, Basic Structure of the Constitution, p.128. This makes the Constitution—not the Parliament—the ultimate authority in India.

Furthermore, India maintains an Integrated Judiciary. Unlike the United States, where there are separate sets of courts for federal and state laws, the Indian hierarchy functions as a single unit. The Supreme Court sits at the apex, followed by High Courts and Subordinate Courts Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30. This structure ensures that a single system of courts enforces both Central and State laws, maintaining legal uniformity across the nation.

Feature	Indian Parliamentary System	British Parliamentary System
Authority of Courts	Judiciary can invalidate parliamentary laws (Judicial Review).	Courts cannot generally strike down primary legislation (Parliamentary Sovereignty).
Supreme Authority	The Constitution is Supreme.	The Parliament is Sovereign.

Sources: Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Judiciary, p.125, 141; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Basic Structure of the Constitution, p.128; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30

5. Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Constitutional Supremacy (exam-level)

To understand the heart of the Indian political system, we must ask: Who holds the ultimate authority? In the United Kingdom, that authority rests with the legislature—a concept known as Parliamentary Sovereignty. As the jurist A.V. Dicey famously noted, the British Parliament has the power to make or unmake any law, and no court can overrule its primary legislation Indian Polity, Parliament, p.263. There is no legal distinction between the Parliament's power to pass a simple tax law and its power to change the fundamental structure of the state. In contrast, India operates under Constitutional Supremacy. Our Parliament is a "creature" of the Constitution; it derives its power, jurisdiction, and very existence from that document. Therefore, unlike the British model, the Indian Parliament's authority is defined, limited, and restrained Indian Polity, Parliament, p.264. This means that if Parliament passes a law that violates the Fundamental Rights or goes beyond its constitutional mandate, the independent Judiciary can step in and declare that law unconstitutional. India's system is effectively a synthesis of the British principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the American principle of judicial supremacy Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.29. We have a Parliament that is the primary law-making body, but its hands are tied by the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution, which it cannot destroy even through amendments Indian Polity, Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.626.

Feature	British Parliamentary Sovereignty	Indian Constitutional Supremacy
Legal Status	Parliament is the supreme legal authority.	The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Judicial Review	Courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament.	Courts can invalidate laws that violate the Constitution.
Nature of Power	Unlimited and legally unrestricted.	Restricted by Fundamental Rights and Federalism.
Amendment	Constitutional laws are changed like ordinary laws.	Constitutional amendments require a special procedure (Art. 368).

Sources: Indian Polity, Parliament, p.263; Indian Polity, Parliament, p.264; Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.29; Indian Polity, Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.626

6. The Mechanism of Judicial Review (exam-level)

In a parliamentary democracy, a critical question arises: Who ensures the Parliament doesn't overstep its boundaries? This is where the Mechanism of Judicial Review comes into play. It is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and state governments. If a law is found to be in violation of the Constitution (ultra-vires), the courts can declare it illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid (null and void), meaning the government can no longer enforce it Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), High Court, p.360.

While the specific phrase "Judicial Review" is nowhere mentioned in the text of the Constitution, the power is explicitly woven into several provisions. Most notably, Article 13 acts as a gatekeeper, declaring that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights shall be void Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Judicial Review, p.297. This power is exercised by the Supreme Court through Article 32 (where the SC is the defender and guarantor of rights) and by the High Courts through Articles 226 and 227 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Basic Structure of the Constitution, p.128.

The existence of judicial review marks a major point of departure between the Indian and British systems. In the United Kingdom, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty prevails; there is no written constitution to limit the Parliament, and courts generally cannot strike down primary legislation. In India, however, we follow Constitutional Supremacy. The Parliament is powerful, but it is not absolute. Its authority is limited by the Constitution, and the judiciary acts as the ultimate arbiter to maintain this balance.

Feature	Indian System	British System
Ultimate Authority	Constitutional Supremacy	Parliamentary Sovereignty
Judicial Power	Courts can invalidate laws passed by Parliament.	Courts cannot strike down primary Acts of Parliament.
Source of Rights	Written Constitution (Fundamental Rights).	Common law and statutory grants.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Judicial Review, p.297; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.360; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Basic Structure of the Constitution, p.128

7. Specific Distinctions: India vs. UK Parliamentary Systems (exam-level)

While India adopted the Westminster model, it is not a carbon copy of the British system. The most fundamental divergence lies in the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty. In the United Kingdom, Parliament is supreme; it can make or unmake any law, and no court can strike down its primary legislation. Conversely, the Indian Parliament is not a sovereign body. Because India has a written Constitution and a federal structure, the powers of the Parliament are limited. Our judiciary exercises the power of Judicial Review, allowing the Supreme Court and High Courts to invalidate laws that contravene the Constitution or violate Fundamental Rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.29. Another stark distinction involves the Head of State. Britain is a Constitutional Monarchy where the head (the King or Queen) occupies a hereditary position. India, however, is a Republic. This means our Head of State, the President, is elected (indirectly) for a fixed term, and political sovereignty resides with the people rather than a monarch Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Preamble of the Constitution, p.45. Furthermore, in Britain, the Prime Minister must be a member of the lower house (House of Commons), whereas in India, the Prime Minister can be a member of either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. A more technical difference is the System of Legal Responsibility. In Britain, the legal maxim is 'The King can do no wrong,' meaning the monarch cannot be sued. Consequently, every official order of the monarch must be countersigned by a minister, who then becomes legally responsible for that act in a court of law. In India, our Constitution does not require ministers to countersign the public acts of the President, and we do not have a system of individual legal responsibility for ministers in the same way Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The Union Executive, p.228. Finally, the British system features a formal Shadow Cabinet formed by the opposition to monitor the government and prepare for a transition of power, a feature not officially institutionalized in India Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, World Constitutions, p.680.

Feature	British System	Indian System
Sovereignty	Parliamentary Sovereignty (Supreme)	Constitutional Supremacy (Limited)
Head of State	Hereditary (Monarchy)	Elected (Republic)
Legal Liability	Ministers must countersign acts	No legal requirement for countersigning
Shadow Cabinet	Exists as an official institution	No such formal institution

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.29; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Preamble of the Constitution, p.45; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Union Executive, p.228; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), World Constitutions, p.680

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the fundamental features of the Indian Constitution and the nuances of the Westminster model, this question tests your ability to distinguish between borrowed features and adapted innovations. While India adopted the parliamentary form of government from Britain, the core difference lies in the ultimate source of authority. In the British system, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty prevails, meaning no court can strike down an Act of Parliament. However, in India, we follow Constitutional Supremacy, where the system of judicial review acts as a check and balance, allowing the judiciary to invalidate laws that contravene the basic structure or fundamental rights. As noted in Indian Polity by M. Laxmikanth, this makes the Indian Parliament a non-sovereign body compared to its British counterpart.

To arrive at Option (D) as the correct answer, you must look for the element that is unique to India in this comparison. Think of it this way: if the British Parliament is "omnipotent," the Indian Parliament is "limited" by a written Constitution. The power of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments is the defining wedge between the two systems. In the UK, the judiciary historically could only interpret laws, not scrap them for being unconstitutional, whereas in India, the power of judicial review is an essential pillar that ensures the legislature does not overstep its bounds.

It is easy to fall into the trap of options (A), (B), and (C) because they are all shared characteristics of both systems. Both India and Britain have both a real and a nominal executive (President/PM vs. Monarch/PM), both strictly follow the system of collective responsibility of the council of ministers to the lower house, and both maintain a bicameral legislature (Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha vs. Commons/Lords). UPSC often uses these similarities to distract you; your task is to ignore the commonalities and pinpoint the divergence. Remember, while the form is British, the soul of Indian legal protection—judicial review—is closer to the American model, making it the distinguishing factor here.