A composed constitution is a formal record characterizing the idea of the protected settlement, the principles that oversee the political framework and the privileges of residents and governments in a systematized shape. The UK’s constitution isn’t composed in a solitary archive, yet gets from various sources that are partially composed and part unwritten, including collected traditions, works of expert, Acts of Parliament, the customary law, and EU law. Generally, the UK has not had a perceptible proclamation of individual rights and opportunities either – the 1689 Bill of Rights sets out the forces of parliament opposite the ruler – yet rather depends on the thought of lingering flexibility and the idea of parliamentary sway. Along these lines, people’s rights stay subject to impromptu statutory assurance or upon legal insurance under the customary law. This differences too numerous European and Commonwealth nations and the United States, which have an obviously characterized established settlement. The nearest thing the UK has to a bill of rights today is the Human Rights Act 1998, which consolidates the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 (ECHR) into residential law. The UK, notwithstanding not having a formal composed constitution, has a progression of remarkable protected recordsWe can say that even the current constitution of UK is not codified but the Magna Carta was the first written or codified piece of document in the UK constitution as it also gave birth to the bill of rights and it was hoped that in near future that the government can opt the written constitution or maybe codify it but it has been done yet and doing it will cause a lot different thing nowThe section of the UK into the European Union in 1973 was a noteworthy established advancement, bringing Britain under the supra-national purview of the EU in a set number of zones, which have developed in the next years. The Factortame instance of 1990 (including the foreswearing of UK angling rights claims) outlined the disintegration of the UK’s free power. The fuse of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 furnished people with the capacity to acquire claims residential courts in light of these recommended human rights. The Act is of real established noteworthiness in light of the fact that it fortifies the capacity of normal individuals to challenge the activities of the different foundations of government. The Act is formally constrained to the demonstrations of open experts by segment six. For the vast majority, particularly abroad, the United Kingdom does not have a constitution at all in the sense most ordinarily utilized the world over — a record of basic significance setting out the structure of government and its association with its natives. Every single current state, sparing just the UK, New Zealand, and Israel, have embraced a narrative constitution of this kind, the first and most total model is that of the United States of America in 1788. In any case, in Britain we absolutely say that we have a constitution, however, it is one that exists in a conceptual sense, including a large group of assorted laws, practices, and traditions that have developed over a drawn-out stretch of time. The key milestone is the Bill of Rights (1689), which built up the amazingness of Parliament over the Crown following the coercive substitution of King James II (r.1685– 88) by William III (r.1689– 1702) and Mary (r.1689– 94) in the Glorious Revolution (1688). From a similar viewpoint, we have what is known as an ‘unwritten constitution’, albeit some want to depict it as ‘uncodified’ on the premise that huge numbers of our laws of an established sort are in reality recorded in Acts of Parliament or law reports of court judgments. This part of the British constitution, its unwritten nature, is its most recognizing trademark. There are various related attributes of Britain’s unwritten constitution, a cardinal one being that in law Parliament is sovereign in the feeling of being the preeminent authoritative body. Since there is no narrative constitution containing laws that are major in status and better than normal Acts of Parliament, the courts may just decipher parliamentary statutes. They may not overrule or announce them invalid for being in opposition to the constitution and ‘unlawful’. In this, too, there are no settled in methodology, (for example, an exceptional energy of the House of Lords, or the necessity of a choice) by which the unwritten constitution might be changed. The administrative procedure by which an established law is canceled, changed or instituted, even one managing a matter of central political significance, is comparable in kind to some other Act of Parliament, however inconsequential its topic. Another normal for the unwritten constitution is the extraordinary criticalness of political traditions known as ‘traditions’, which oil the wheels of the connection between the antiquated organizations of the state. These are unwritten tenets of protected practice, essential to our legislative issues, the workings of government, however not submitted into law or any composed frame whatsoever. The very presence of the workplace of Prime Minister, our head of government, is simply traditional. So is the control whereupon he or she is named, being whoever charges the certainty of the House of Commons (the lion’s share party pioneer, or leader of a coalition of gatherings). The Monarchy is one of the three segments of Parliament (shorthand for the Queen-in-Parliament) alongside Commons and Lords. In lawful hypothesis, the Queen has supreme and judicially unchallengeable energy to decline her consent to a Bill go by the two Houses of Parliament. Notwithstanding, tradition manages the exact inverse and practically speaking she consequently gives her consent to any administration Bill that has been appropriately passed and concurred by Parliament. Another critical tradition is that administration priests must take a load off in Parliament (and, on account of the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly in the House of Commons) keep in mind the end goal to hold office. This is a fundamental part of what is known as the ‘Westminster arrangement of parliamentary government’, giving an immediate type of official obligation and responsibility to the lawmaking body. The case for a composed constitution is that it would empower everybody to recognize what the guidelines and organizations were that represented and coordinated pastors, government employees, and parliamentarians in playing out their open obligations. The sprawling mass of precedent-based law, Acts of Parliament, and European arrangement commitments, encompassed by various essential however here and there dubious unwritten traditions, is impervious to a great many people, and should be supplanted by a solitary record of fundamental law directing the working and operation of government in the United Kingdom effectively open for all. Moreover, it has turned out to be too simple for governments to actualize political and established changes to suit their own particular political comfort and dug in methodology to guarantee prominent and parliamentary assent are required that require a composed constitution. The present ‘unwritten constitution’ is an erroneous date filled with references to our old past, unsuited to the social and political vote based system of the 21st century and future yearnings of its kin. It neglects to offer supremacy to the sway of the general population and disheartens mainstream investment in the political procedure. A composed constitution would outline the limits of the British state and its association with Europe and the world. It would turn into an image and articulation of national personality today and a wellspring of national pride. The body of evidence against a composed constitution is that it is pointless, bothersome and un-British. The way that the UK arrangement of government has never been diminished to a solitary report means that the accomplishment of the Westminster arrangement of parliamentary vote based system and the steadiness it has conveyed to the nation. This is as opposed to most different nations whose composed constitutions were the result of insurgency or freedom. The unwritten idea of the constitution is something particularly British, it helps us to remember an awesome history, and is a wellspring of national pride. As opposed to claims that it is obsolete, it is developmental and adaptable in nature, all the more effortlessly empowering down to earth issues to be settled as they emerge and singular changes made, that would be the situation under a dug in a protected archive. While some are worried about the assumed presence of an “elective tyranny” and lacking governing rules in the political framework, there is in certainty an extensive variety of impressive weights applied upon clergymen trying to roll out disputable improvements. A composed constitution would make more case in the courts, and politicize the legal, expecting them to condemn the defendability of government enactment when the last word on legitimate issues should lie with chose legislators in Parliament, not unelected judges. There are such a significant number of commonsense issues inalienable in planning and authorizing a composed constitution, there is little point in thinking about the issue. As an open arrangement proposition it absences of any profundity of real famous help and, particularly given the huge measure of time such a change would involve, it is a low need notwithstanding for the individuals who bolster the thought. An endeavor to present one would be a diversion and may well have a destabilizing impact on the nation. The unwritten constitution enables a popularity based Parliament to be the incomparable determinant of law, instead of an unelected legal. In the event that the composed constitution conveyed a higher status and need in law, as composed constitutions typically do, at that point the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court would have the capacity to audit the defendability of specific areas in Acts of Parliament, giving judges as opposed to chose lawmakers the last say on what is and what isn’t the law. In the event that a Bill of Rights was to be incorporated into a constitution of this nature, it would empower the Supreme Court to imaginatively decipher and apply its human rights articles in cases brought before them in a way that successfully changes or makes new law, as opposed to leaving this to Parliament. As has been noted, most nations have composed constitutions. In fact most by far of individuals from the United Nations have a composed constitution contained in a solitary protected record which is settled in, from Afghanistan, Albania, and Algeria to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the two Koreas, Kuwait, Luxemburg, Libya, Malaysia through to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Yemen and Zimbabwe. Of those nations that have composed sacred archives India has the longest and the United States the most limited.through this paper I try to show the constitution of the UK which when changed will destroy the uniqueness of the country and will create a havoc about codifying all the rules and increase the work hours and as there are many more important things to cover as there war on drugs is on the go and “written constitutions do not happen by accident”, they are the product of specific events, such as revolutions, independence, unification or dissolution of a country. And when if changed If a written constitution for the future is to be prepared, it must be one that engages and involves everyone, especially young people, and not simply legal experts and parliamentarians. Some of the mystique and charm of our ancient constitution might be lost in the process, but a written constitution could bring government and the governed closer together, above all by making the rules by which our political democracy operates more accessible and intelligible to all.