UNWRITTEN VS WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS: STRUCTURAL CONTRASTS BETWEEN BRITAIN AND INDIA

This comparative study investigates the democratic functionality of written and unwritten constitutions by analyzing India’s codified constitutional framework and the United Kingdom’s uncodified model between 2020 and 2024. The study is crucial given the global debate on constitutional adaptability amidst crises such as Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, and digital governance challenges. Utilizing a qualitative comparative approach with secondary data, the research draws from over 40 scholarly and institutional sources. Employing statistical tools-Pearson correlation, regression, and t-tests-the study found a strong negative correlation (r = -0.981) between constitutional codification and public trust, while legal clarity showed a robust positive relationship (r = 0.996) with judicial independence. A significant difference (t = 10.73, p < 0.001) was found in policy responsiveness, favoring the UK's flexible structure. The composite regression model yielded R² = 0.976, confirming that 97.6% of the variance in democratic performance is explained by codification, legal literacy, policy lag, and adaptability. The results imply that while codified systems offer clarity, they hinder responsiveness, whereas flexible models enhance agility but may lack transparency. The study recommends hybrid governance models, legal simplification, and improved civic education to enhance democratic resilience globally.