Although there have been debates around the world about the nature of the UK constitution and its success and failure in the modern world, we can all see and understand that the UK has a single system of governance which is called an uncodified constitution. Referring to JAG Griffith's definition, which I also believe is the most appropriate, it is stated that "the Constitution is neither more nor less than what happens". Everything that happens is constitutional. And if nothing happened, this too would be constitutional'1. There are multiple definitions, from Kings to Ridley, but they are all a little vague or too specific. There are basically three pillars in the United Kingdom which together make up a constitution and provide a basic structure to a country. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The first pillar that constrains and controls the allocation of government power are conventions, which are the non-legal rules practiced by the government. There are many countries that have conventions, but in the UK they play an important role because the UK has an S constitution. They are not enforceable in courts but are rarely violated. Conventions can be defined more broadly as non-legal rules of conduct that guide the actions and relationships between politicians and officials under the UK Constitution. This makes them rules of the utmost importance that cannot be taken to court. But in recent times courts have been seen, albeit indirectly, to take into account conventions in domestic application cases, for example Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752 (CA) is a notable example where a convention is taken into consideration while dealing with a case, TRA Allen clearly stated that the use of a convention in a case was only done because it justified its nature2. There have been long debates regarding the differentiation between laws and conventions and there is not much to deduce other than the fact that laws (statute) and conventions are very similar and Jennings' criticism cited municipal tax reform4. One of the fundamental questions that arises when reading about the importance of conventions in the UK constitution is why they are not codified even when they shape the basic structure of government structure. We must understand that codifying the various conventions is not the same as making them enforceable in courts. Codification only involves publishing the conventions, which has happened a few times now. The Ministerial Code 1992 ee published by the Cabinet sets out the conduct of Ministers. The addition of this civil service code is also a prime example. Gmarshal and gc moodie have provided a balanced argument regarding codifications of conventions 22. There have been various occasions where conventions have been considered for conversion into common laws, but the courts have always rejected them, but there have been some conventions which were transformed into bills such as money bills and fixed parliamentary laws. In a few words we can express that the conventions have been shaped over the years and codifying them all would not be positive because at present they can be easily modified depending on the circumstances, but once codified and inserted into the legislation they must be modified following the appropriate procedure that it could take months or years. people wonder about the easily changing nature of conventions is dangerous as it may go against the public interest, but they tend to forget that MPs sitting in parliaments are their own elected representatives. The second.