Question

Answer the question briefly.
Is the distinction between a written constitution and an unwritten constitution a real one? Discuss.

Answer 1

A distinction between written and unwritten constitution is not systematic or concrete. There is neither any constitution that is wholly written nor the one which is completely unwritten. Every written constitution has some unwritten elements and every unwritten constitution has some written elements. For example, the U.S.A. is a written constitution, but it is overlaid with conventions and traditions. The Constitution of America proposes an indirect election of the President, but the presidential election has become direct. Moreover, theoretically, the President of the US is vested with executive power, but partially he is also a ‘Chief Legislator’. Even Indian gives discretion to the President and the Governor to appoint anyone as Prime Minister and Chief Minister, but convention has grown to select the leader of the majority party. 

In fact, it is impossible to find an absolutely written or completely unwritten constitution. Since the socio-economic life of society is dynamic, the constitution keeps on changing as per the changing needs of society and mostly through convention instead of law. Similarly, the Constitution of England is an unwritten constitution. However, there are several written laws in it like Carta. The Magna 1215, The Petition of Rights 1628, The Bill of Rights 1689, The Habeas Corpus Act 1679, The Acts of Settlement 1701, Reforms Act of 1832, 1867, 1884, The Parliamentary Act of 1911, and The Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, etc.