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 violent revolution, total collapse of government, or foreign invasion—that forced the country to rewrite its fundamental laws from scratch. Instead, the UK system is uncodified, meaning its rules are written down across hundreds of different documents, traditions, and laws rather than a single book.

Most countries create written constitutions after a major turning point, like the American Revolution (1776), the French Revolution, or independence movements. Britain's gradual political evolution—including the Glorious Revolution of 1688—managed to shift power to Parliament over time without destroying the continuity of the state. (Cromwell’s short-lived Instrument of Government in the 17th century was a brief exception).

The core legal doctrine in Britain is that Parliament is supreme. Parliament cannot be bound by past parliaments, nor can it bind future ones. A single, entrenched, supreme written constitution would conflict with this idea, because it would place constitutional rules above ordinary laws passed by elected politicians. In other words, unlike in India and the US where the Constitution is the founthead of various Parliamentary and State legislative laws, in Britain the extant Parliament is supreme and ought not be bound by a rigid constitution cast in a straightjacket. Because there is no single master document, the rules can adapt quickly to changing times. Parliament can alter any part of the constitution just by passing a regular new law. But then the British constitution is actually written down except that not in one place are compendious document but strewn across multiple sources like the Magna Carta (1215), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Human Rights Act, 1998. Common law or Judge-made rules and legal precedents in addition to unwritten political customs and habits (such as the Prime Minister and cabinet being accountable to Parliament) also exert influence on the extant Parliament.

Intuitively strong and fiercely independent parties like the Republicans in the US and the BJP in India would left to themselves prefer an unwritten constitution as a written Constitution drafted and adopted a century ago may not be in tune with the current realities. It is true that the Indian Constitution can be amended, indeed it has been amended 106 times since it was adopted in 1950 but every constitution amendment bill has to undergo a rigorous process that requires the special majority in Parliament---• A majority of more than 50% of the total membership of each House, and a majority of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House---plus the formal ratification (approval) by the legislatures of at least half of the state legislatures by a simple majority before the bill is presented for presidential assent whenever interstate relations are impacted by it.

The BJP government in 2019 had to go through the rigor of the Constitution amendment to stop giving a special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir under article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Had India followed the British model of unwritten constitution, article 370 like dispensation would have been done away with long ago. Going a step further, government of the day irrespective of the party affiliation would be much less circumscribed by the fetters imposed by the Keshavanand Bharti judgement of the Supreme Court of 1973 aka the basic structure doctrine. Be that as it may.

The Indian Constituent assembly must be hailed for breaking away from the British model of unwritten constitution after having adopted its Parliamentary democracy model. India did not follow the British model of an unwritten (uncodified) constitution because the country required a written, single-document supreme law to manage its massive social diversity, establish a federal structure, and legally protect fundamental rights. India is a large, multi-lingual, multi-religious, and culturally diverse nation. A written constitution explicitly laid down rules, rights, and responsibilities so that every group felt secure and represented. An unwritten constitution (like Britain’s) relies on centuries of organic traditions, common law, and unwritten conventions whereas India was a newly independent republic that could not depend on unspoken historical customs to run a modern democracy. Britain is largely a unitary state with parliamentary sovereignty, where Parliament can change anything by a simple majority. India adopted a federal system with a division of powers between the Union and the States, requiring a codified document to clearly define what each tier of government could and could not do. In other words what works in a unitary structure cannot simply work in a federal structure India and the US have set store by.

Historically, Indian leaders and freedom fighters (who had demanded a Bill of Rights since the 1890s) wanted explicit, justiciable Fundamental Rights written into Part III of the Constitution to protect citizens from state overreach. Not for them the tenuous security as in Britain of rights being largely protected by tradition and ordinary law rather than a supreme entrenched text. Most importantly, in the UK, Parliament is supreme and courts cannot strike down primary legislation. India chose constitutional supremacy backed by judicial review (influenced by the US model), meaning laws passed by the legislature must strictly comply with the written Constitution as interpreted by the Constitutional courts namely high courts and the Apex Court. In hindsight it is just as well that India consciously broke away from the British model of an unwritten Constitution. The BJP which loves not adhering to the status quo significantly has never rooted for an unwritten constitution.

S Murlidharan is a freelance columnist and writes on economics, business, legal and taxation issues.

Published on: Friday, October 30, 2026, 10:46 PM IST