Spread the love

This article is written by Samridhi Gupta of 4th Semester of UPES, Dehradun, an intern under Legal Vidhiya


This section provides an overview of the historical evolution of the British constitution, placing it within the framework of the evolving European constitutional tradition. The goal is to interpret the British constitution as a unique form of European governance. Emphasizing its exceptional history and distinctive features, such as its lack of a written constitution and commitment to the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the narrative underscores the challenges faced by the British in contributing to the establishment of a shared legal framework for Europe through the ongoing project of European integration.


British, constitution, European, Parliamentary. Sovereignty, Integration


The British constitution exerted a considerable influence on colonial states, impacting their governance and legal systems. Despite lacking a single written document, the constitution’s key principles such as parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, and individual rights played a crucial role in shaping colonial institutions and legal frameworks. This influence occasionally resulted in tensions between colonial aspirations and British authority, ultimately fueling the push for independence.

The term “colonial prerequisite” refers to the essential conditions or factors that were deemed necessary for a country to establish and maintain colonies during the colonial era. These prerequisites typically included a combination of economic, political, and ideological motives that motivated colonial expansion. Some common colonial prerequisites include:

  1. Economic Motives: Many colonial powers sought colonies to secure access to valuable resources such as minerals, spices, or agricultural products. Colonies were often seen as sources of wealth and economic opportunities for the colonizing nation.
  2. Political Ambitions: Countries engaged in colonialism often had political ambitions for expansion and dominance. Colonies were viewed as a means to increase a nation’s geopolitical influence and global power.
  3. Cultural, Religious, or Ideological Beliefs: Colonizing nations often believed in the superiority of their own culture, religion, or ideology. This belief sometimes led to a mission to spread and impose these beliefs on the indigenous populations of the colonies.
  4. Strategic Military and Naval Interests: Some colonial powers established colonies for strategic military and naval reasons. Colonies could serve as bases for military operations, provide strategic locations for controlling trade routes, or enhance a nation’s naval capabilities.
  5. Desire for New Markets: Colonies were seen as potential markets for the products of the colonizing nation. Establishing colonies provided opportunities for trade and economic expansion.

These colonial prerequisites varied among different colonial powers and were influenced by the specific historical, economic, and geopolitical contexts of each nation. The pursuit of these prerequisites played a significant role in shaping the colonial policies and practices of European powers during the era of colonialism. The British constitution’s colonial prerequisites refer to the historical context of British colonialism, influencing the development of the constitution. The expansion of colonies necessitated administration and a legitimate framework in overseas territories, shaping the evolution of constitutional principles and practices in the UK. This encompassed concepts of representation, rights, and control applied both domestically and in the colonies.

History of the British Constitution

For a period spanning 150 years, the British exercised control over the Indian subcontinent, establishing their presence through the East India Company. The allure of India’s abundant resources and other advantages attracted British rulers, with the country serving as a crucial source for sustaining Britain’s Industrial Revolution through access to expansive markets.

[1]During their rule, the British implemented various legal amendments and enacted numerous acts, some of which have left a lasting impact on India and continue to be in use today. Despite this influence, many individuals remain uninformed about the historical background and features of the British Constitution. This article aims to delve into the history of the British Constitution and its significance in shaping the Indian Constitution. In contrast to other legal frameworks, the British Constitution doesn’t consist of a defined set of written rules and regulations, earning it the label of an uncodified constitution. Unlike some nations, there was no establishment of a constituent assembly in its formation. Instead, the British Constitution evolved organically, relying on conventions and longstanding principles. Notably, a significant document from 1215, the Magna Carta, holds importance as it laid the foundation for the British Constitution. Additionally, beyond shaping the British Constitution, the Magna Carta has influenced the foundations of many other nations’ legal frameworks.

Essential Features of the British Constitution


The British Parliament operates on a bicameral system, featuring two chambers—the House of Lords and the House of Commons—alongside the sovereign. Decision-making involves approval from one house to another, and the British Parliament holds supremacy in legislative affairs.


The British government adheres to a unitary form of federalism, where the British Parliament holds all governmental powers. Neither the courts nor cabinet ministers can challenge laws enacted by the British Parliament. Consequently, the parliament possesses the authority to modify the Constitution without external interference.

Rule of Law:

The Rule of Law serves the primary objective of fostering prosperity and emphasizes that everyone is subject to legal principles.


Grounded in the Common Law system, the British Constitution restricts the judiciary from annulling or opposing an act. The Parliamentary Board retains control over judge appointments and removals. Laws aim to ensure judicial independence, facilitating unbiased judgments without intimidation.

British Rule in India

In the 18th century, British and French enterprises sought to expand their trade in India, leading to the establishment of strategic points across the subcontinent. European powers, with the support of local business owners and troops, engaged in trade and other profitable activities. The pivotal moment came with the victory in the Battle of Plassey, enabling the East India Company to gain control over Bengal. This granted them the authority to collect taxes and assume administrative responsibilities. The conclusion of the Government of India Act in 1858 marked the end of company rule. Lord Canning assumed the role of Viceroy of India, the Board of Control was abolished, and the era of the British Raj commenced.

Influence of colonies

The colonial history of the British Empire played a crucial role in shaping specific constitutional principles within Britain itself.[2] For instance, the notion of representative government was influenced by experiences of self-governance observed in certain colonial assemblies. The principle encapsulated in the phrase “no taxation without representation,” emphasizing that taxation should only occur with the consent of those being taxed, emerged from conflicts over taxation in the American colonies. Furthermore, the struggles for individual rights and freedoms in the colonies, along with conflicts over the distribution of power between colonial assemblies and the British Crown, contributed to the formulation of principles that later influenced the British constitutional framework. These experiences heightened awareness regarding the significance of checks and balances, the rule of law, and the safeguarding of individual rights, all of which became integral to the evolution of British constitutional thought. The British colonial experience exerted a substantial impact on the development of the country’s constitutional framework. Core concepts like parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of individual rights were often brought back from colonial territories and incorporated into the British system. This dynamic interaction led to the gradual transformation and evolution of the British constitution and its underlying principles.

Case Laws


Eddie Mabo and a group of fellow Torres Strait Islanders initiated a legal challenge against the State of Queensland, aiming to secure acknowledgment of their traditional land rights. The plaintiffs contended that they possessed the right to own, inhabit, utilize, and enjoy the land on Murray Island in the Torres Strait, currently under the ownership of the State of Queensland. The State of Queensland asserted that the land belonged to the Crown, dismissing any legal claim by the plaintiffs. The case was presented before the High Court of Australia, tasked with determining whether the common law in Australia acknowledged the existence of native title rights.


The High Court of Australia affirmed that the common law in Australia indeed recognized the existence of native title rights. The Court determined that native title rights constituted a form of property rights acknowledged under the common law in Australia. Additionally, the Court ruled that the Crown’s acquisition of land through colonization did not automatically extinguish the native title rights of Indigenous peoples who had previously occupied and utilized the land. The Court declared that the plaintiffs and other Indigenous peoples in Australia possessed a legal right to assert native title over their ancestral lands, and the government had a responsibility to acknowledge and safeguard these rights. The Mabo decision marked a significant milestone in Australia’s acknowledgment and protection of Indigenous peoples’ land rights, leaving a profound impact on both Australian law and society.

Additionally, the judicial interpretation of colonial laws involves the analysis and application of legal principles from the colonial era to contemporary contexts. This process often necessitates consideration of historical context, shifts in societal norms, and evolving legal standards to ensure equitable and just outcomes.



In 1890, Louisiana enacted a law mandating separate railway cars for African Americans and whites. Homer Plessy, a person of mixed race, challenged the law by refusing to use the designated “colored” car, leading to his arrest under the state statute. Plessy contended that the law violated his rights protected by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibited slavery and ensured equal protection under the law, respectively. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, requiring a determination of the constitutionality of the Louisiana law.


By a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Louisiana law and dismissed Plessy’s argument that it violated his constitutional rights. The Court reasoned that the separate railway cars provided “equal but separate” accommodations for African Americans and whites, maintaining that it did not breach the Constitution’s assurance of equal protection under the law. The Court famously asserted that as long as the segregated accommodations were of “equal” quality, the racial separation itself was not a constitutional violation. This decision established the legal principle of “separate but equal,” which endured for several decades and allowed for various forms of segregation and discrimination against African Americans. The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 eventually overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine, declaring racial segregation as unconstitutional.

The enduring impact of colonial antecedents on the contemporary British Constitution

The lasting impact of colonial antecedents on the modern British Constitution is a complex and multifaceted aspect of the country’s political and legal framework. The influence of colonial history is deeply embedded in the constitutional structure, shaping various elements and principles that define the governance of the United Kingdom. One notable aspect is the legal legacy left by the British Empire. Many legal traditions and principles that underpin the contemporary British legal system have roots in colonial practices. The development of common law, the foundation of the British legal system, was significantly influenced by the legal structures established in colonies during the imperial era. The fusion of local customs and colonial legal frameworks has contributed to the evolution of the legal landscape in the UK.

Furthermore, the constitutional framework itself reflects the historical relationships between the British Crown and its former colonies. Elements of constitutional monarchy, parliamentary sovereignty, and the rule of law have been shaped by the historical interactions between the colonizers and the colonized. The British Constitution, although unwritten and flexible, carries the imprints of historical experiences, including those from the colonial era. Additionally, the global reach of the British Empire has left a lasting impact on the British constitutional approach to international relations. The contemporary constitutional framework incorporates elements related to treaties, foreign affairs, and the exercise of executive powers that can be traced back to the colonial period when Britain engaged in extensive overseas territories and diplomatic relations.

In summary, the enduring impact of colonial antecedents on the contemporary British Constitution is evident in the legal, political, and historical dimensions of the constitutional framework. The legacy of the British Empire has left an indelible mark on the development of the constitutional principles and structures that govern the United Kingdom today.

Analyzing factors such as economic motivations, technological differences, cultural interactions, and power dynamics can help distinguish and draw parallels between the impacts of colonialism and other historical influences.

Colonialism was often driven by the economic exploitation of resources and labor, resulting in the subjugation of local populations. This economic incentive sets it apart from other historical influences that may have centered more on cultural interchange or religious impact.

Technological disparities during colonial periods frequently reinforced unequal power dynamics, as colonizers possessed advanced technology that they used to dominate colonized regions. This contrasts with other historical influences where technology might have been more equitably shared, fostering mutual development.

Cultural interactions during colonialism varied, sometimes leading to assimilation or conflicts. In comparison, other historical influences may have facilitated collaborative exchanges of ideas and beliefs without the same degree of imposition.

Power dynamics played a crucial role in both colonialism and other historical influences. The exercise of power by colonizers resulted in enduring consequences, while in other cases, power dynamics might have been more balanced, allowing for coexistence and shared influence.


Numerous scholars contend that British colonial rule initially fostered post-colonial democracy, but there has been significant debate regarding the sustainability of this outcome and its underlying causes. The study reveals a distinct temporal pattern in this relationship. While former British colonies exhibited notably higher levels of democracy than other nations immediately after gaining independence, subsequent trends during the post-Cold War era erased these distinctions. Neither alternative colonial-era theories, per-colonial characteristics, nor post-colonial influences account for these findings, which remain consistent across diverse subsets of British colonies. Existing theories on the connection between British colonialism and democracy also fail to convincingly explain this temporal shift. The study suggests that differing policy approaches to decolonization by European powers contributed to this short-term effect. These findings have three broader implications. Firstly, the study’s focus on various samples and time periods offers a potential model for other investigations into colonial legacies, whether examining democracy or other outcomes like economic development. Secondly, the results challenge narratives of British superiority and refute recent arguments suggesting that colonizer identity was inconsequential, at least in the short term. Lastly, the study provides valuable insights for international democracy promotion, emphasizing that although external actors can establish democratic institutions in challenging contexts, the impact of these interventions may diminish over time.

The modern British Constitution bears a substantial imprint from colonialism, as evident in landmark cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Mabo v. Queensland, and Brown v. Board of Education, which underscore the enduring consequences of colonial-era inequalities. The legacy of colonial prerequisites continues to be a focal point in discussions about sovereignty, the monarchy’s role, human rights, and the distribution of powers within the government. Core elements influencing this legacy encompass economic interests, political aspirations, cultural and religious factors, indigenous cultures, geographical considerations, historical events, trade networks, technological progress, and social structures. An examination of intellectual exchanges between British and colonial thinkers offers insights into power dynamics, the intricate nature of colonialism, and the dissemination of ideas. The constitutional adaptation and evolution in British colonies were shaped by various factors, including legal pluralism, economic interests, social and cultural influences, conflicts and resistance, and established colonial legal precedents. The significant role played by colonial prerequisites in shaping the British Constitution is underscored by the governance challenges faced by the British government in colonial experiences, notably in regions like America, India, and Africa. These challenges, in turn, left a lasting impact on constitutional developments.

In summary, colonial prerequisites exerted a profound and enduring influence on the British Constitution, shaping not only its legal and political dimensions but also contributing to the establishment of constitutional principles that continue to shape contemporary governance in Britain and its former colonies.




Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *