Essential differences between the two systems:

There is a natural tendency to compare the Parliament of India with the British Parliament. But our Parliament and Parliamentary Institutions and procedures are not a copy of the Westminster system. There are fundamental differences between the two systems.

British Parliament has grown through some three hundred years of history. In Britain, the Parliament can said to be the only institution, which exercises sovereign powers and on which there are no limits because there is no written constitution.

India, on the other hand, has a written constitution. Powers and authorities of every organ of the Government and every functionary are only as defined and delimited by the constitutional document. The power of Parliament itself is also clearly defined and delimited by the Constitution. However, within its own sphere, the Parliament is supreme.

Also, Parliament is a representative institution of the people. But it is not sovereign in the sense in which the British Parliament is sovereign and can do or undo anything. The point is that in the sense of constitutional sovereignty, their powers are not limited by a constitutional document.

Moreover, our constitutional document provides for fundamental rights of the individual, which are justiciable in courts of law. And any law passed by the Parliament, which abridges any of the fundamental rights can be declared ultra vires by the courts.

The courts adjudicate the disputes and while doing so, they can interpret the constitution and the laws. Also, the Parliament has the constituent powers and within certain limitations it can suitably amend the constitution.

The British Parliament is bicameral, that is there are two houses or chambers- The House of Lords (strength not fixed) and The House of Commons (strength fixed at 650 members).