The President of India holds legislative powers such as summoning or dissolving the Parliament, addressing the first session, and granting assent to bills, along with the ordinance power under Article 123 . In contrast, a State Governor can summon, prorogue, and dissolve the State Legislature, grant assent to state bills, and issue ordinances under Article 213 . While both roles involve legislative procedures, the President's powers function at the national level, with the Governor's focused on state affairs .

The Indian Parliament is a bicameral legislature consisting of the President, Rajya Sabha (Council of States), and Lok Sabha (House of the People). The President is not a member but an integral part of Parliament, while the Rajya Sabha has a maximum strength of 250 and the Lok Sabha up to 552 members . Unlike the UK, where Parliament holds absolute sovereignty, Indian parliamentary sovereignty is limited by a written Constitution, a federal structure, and judicial review, as exemplified by the Doctrine of Basic Structure established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973 .

The Governor acts as the nominal head of a State, with powers such as appointing the Chief Minister, summoning and dissolving the State Legislature, and the ordinance power (Article 213). The Governor's office is often controversial due to its use by the central government to exert influence over State politics, leading to tensions within the federal structure of governance in India .

Parliamentary Privileges, governed by Articles 105 and 194, include the right to freedom of speech within Parliament, meaning members can speak freely without getting sued or charged for defamation . This privilege ensures parliamentary debates and discussions remain uninhibited, fostering transparency and accountability. However, these privileges remain uncodified by law, retaining a traditional nature akin to a "secret recipe" that allows Parliament to frame its own understanding and application .

The doctrine of Basic Structure is a judicial principle that limits the amending power of the Indian Parliament under Article 368, ensuring that any change does not alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution. This doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973, and underscores that while Parliament has extensive legislative powers, it cannot amend the Constitution in such a way that its core principles are destroyed .

The Supreme Court of India, as the guardian of the Constitution, exercises original jurisdiction over disputes between the Union and States, appellate jurisdiction on civil, criminal, and constitutional matters, advisory jurisdiction for Presidential references, and writ jurisdiction for protecting Fundamental Rights . High Courts, while overseeing state-level matters, possess wider writ jurisdiction than the Supreme Court, allowing broader protection for legal rights beyond just Fundamental Rights. Both courts together ensure comprehensive judicial oversight, preserving the Constitution's supremacy and offering avenues for justice in varied contexts .

Judicial independence in India is safeguarded by mechanisms such as security of tenure, fixed service conditions, and a prohibition on practicing post-retirement (for Supreme Court judges). Judges are appointed via the Collegium System, where judges appoint judges, a practice evolved through judicial rulings but not enshrined in the Constitution. Despite these provisions, the system faces criticism for its lack of transparency and accountability, as highlighted by the Supreme Court's striking down of the NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) through the 99th Amendment for interfering with judicial appointments .

Parliamentary privileges in India, as articulated in Article 105 for Parliament and Article 194 for State Legislatures, remain uncodified, meaning there is no formal legislative act defining them . This lack of codification allows for a flexible and adaptive framework, accommodating informal traditions and principles upheld by the Houses themselves. This can lead to ambiguity in how privileges are interpreted, potentially affecting transparency and consistency in legislative procedures. The traditional approach allows Parliament to self-regulate, preserving autonomy but also raising questions about the potential for arbitrary use and the need for clearer definitions .

The Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction, under Article 32, is specifically for enforcing Fundamental Rights, signifying its role as the primary protector of these rights . High Courts, in contrast, have broader writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which extends to both Fundamental Rights and other legal rights. This flexibility allows High Courts to address a broader range of rights-based issues, giving them a potentially wider influence in ensuring justice and upholding constitutional principles at the state level .

India's Lok Sabha, with a maximum strength of 552, is more powerful on most issues due to its direct election by universal adult franchise, and it exercises greater control over financial matters and government accountability . Rajya Sabha, the Upper House, indirectly elected by state assemblies, has a maximum strength of 250 and holds functions like revising legislation and representing state interests. However, it does not have significant power over money bills, which underscores the predominance of the Lok Sabha in the legislative process .