Definition: Parliamentary Sovereignty is a principle of constitutional law asserting that the legislature holds supreme legal authority, meaning it can create, amend, or repeal any law. While the British model grants the Parliament absolute supremacy, the Indian model operates under a system of constitutional supremacy, where the legislature is limited by the provisions of the written Constitution and subject to judicial review.
The British Model: Absolute Sovereignty
In the United Kingdom, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the cornerstone of the political system. It implies that the British Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.
Because the UK lacks a single, codified “written” constitution, there is no higher legal document that the courts can use to invalidate an Act of Parliament. The judiciary is bound to interpret and apply the laws passed by Parliament, but it cannot declare them unconstitutional. This creates a system where the legislative will is the ultimate source of legal authority.
“The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” — A.V. Dicey
The Indian Context: Constitutional Supremacy
Unlike the British model, India adopted a system of Constitutional Supremacy. Our founding fathers recognized that in a diverse, federal, and democratic nation, the legislature must operate within the boundaries defined by the Constitution. The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land, and any law passed by the Parliament that violates its provisions is ultra vires (beyond its powers).
The Indian Parliament is a “creature of the Constitution.” It derives its power from the Constitution and must function strictly within the limits prescribed by it. This ensures that the fundamental rights of citizens and the federal structure of the country are protected against the potential tyranny of a simple legislative majority.
Judicial Review: The Check on Legislative Power
The most significant departure from the British model is the power of Judicial Review vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts of India. Under Article 13, any law that is inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights is void. This gives the judiciary the authority to examine the validity of legislative enactments.
The doctrine of the Basic Structure, established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, further restricts the Parliament’s power. Even under its constituent power to amend the Constitution (Article 368), the Parliament cannot alter the “basic features” of the Constitution. This ensures that the core identity of the Indian democratic framework remains inviolate.
Comparison of Legislative Approaches
To understand the distinction clearly, one must look at how the two systems handle legislative challenges and constitutional amendments. The following table highlights the core differences between the British and Indian approaches:
Important Facts: Comparison Table
| Feature | British Parliament | Indian Parliament |
|---|---|---|
| Source of Power | Unwritten Constitution/Tradition | Written Constitution |
| Supreme Authority | Parliament | Constitution |
| Judicial Review | Limited/Non-existent | Extensive/Constitutional |
| Amendability | Can change any law easily | Subject to Basic Structure doctrine |
Synthesis of Powers: A Balanced Approach
While the Indian Parliament is not “sovereign” in the British sense, it is not weak either. It possesses vast powers to amend the Constitution and enact laws for the welfare of the people. The Indian system is a unique blend of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Supremacy. It creates a system of checks and balances where the legislature is free to govern as long as it respects the constitutional mandate.
This balance is essential for maintaining the rule of law. If the Parliament were absolutely sovereign, it could potentially undermine individual liberties. Conversely, if the judiciary had total control, it could paralyze the governance process. The Indian model forces a continuous dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary, ensuring that the law serves the spirit of the Constitution.
Key Points to Remember
- British System: Based on the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty; no written constitution to limit legislative power.
- Indian System: Based on Constitutional Supremacy; the Parliament is limited by the written Constitution.
- Article 13: Empowers the judiciary to declare laws void if they violate Fundamental Rights.
- Basic Structure Doctrine: A major limitation on the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
- Federalism: The Indian Constitution divides power between the Centre and States, preventing the Parliament from having total control over all legislative subjects.
- Rule of Law: The ultimate guiding principle in India, ensuring that no body, including the Parliament, is above the Constitution.
Quick Revision Summary
- Britain follows the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, whereas India follows Constitutional Supremacy.
- In India, the Constitution is the supreme law; the Parliament is a creation of the Constitution.
- Judicial Review is the mechanism that keeps the Indian Parliament within its constitutional limits.
- The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) introduced the Basic Structure doctrine, limiting the amending power of Parliament.
- Indian democracy relies on a system of checks and balances between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
- Article 13 is the primary tool for judicial invalidation of unconstitutional laws.
- The Indian model is a synthesis of parliamentary democracy and judicial oversight.
