The Indian parliamentary system is different from the British parliamentary system in that India has the system of judicial review.

- The British parliamentary system is based on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which means that the Parliament is the supreme law-making authority and its decisions cannot be challenged by the courts. This means that there is no system of judicial review in the British parliamentary system.

- On the other hand, the Indian parliamentary system is based on the principle of constitutional supremacy, which means that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all laws and actions must be in conformity with it. As a result, the Indian Constitution provides for the system of judicial review, which allows the courts to review the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.

- The system of judicial review in India is derived from the American model, where the power of judicial review was established by the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. In India, the power of judicial review is vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. These courts have the authority to declare laws and executive actions as unconstitutional if they violate the provisions of the Constitution.

- The system of judicial review in India has played a crucial role in upholding the fundamental rights of citizens and ensuring the rule of law. It acts as a check on the legislative and executive branches of government and helps prevent the abuse of power.

- The system of judicial review in India has also been used to interpret and evolve the Constitution over time. The Supreme Court has delivered several landmark judgments that have shaped the constitutional landscape of the country.

- Overall, the system of judicial review in India distinguishes it from the British parliamentary system and helps safeguard the rights and liberties of the citizens. It is an important feature of the Indian parliamentary system and contributes to the democratic governance of the country.