Synthesis of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Supremacy

The notion of parliamentary sovereignty is connected with the British Parliament, whereas the principle of judicial supremacy is associated with the American Supreme Court. The judicial review authority of the Supreme Court of India is narrower than that of the US, much as the Indian parliamentary system varies from the British one. It is due to the American Constitution allowing the process of law as made by the Constitution of India’s procedure established by Article 21. As a result, the Indian Constitution’s founders favoured a correct synthesis of the British concept of parliamentary sovereignty and the American principle of judicial supremacy. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has the authority of judicial review to declare parliamentary laws invalid. The Parliament, on the other hand, has the constitutive jurisdiction to modify the majority of the Constitution. India adopted a parliamentary system of government as opposed to a presidential type of administration, in which each head of government is held accountable. Being under the control of the British government in the early years, the court followed a pro-legislative attitude in its different judgements; nonetheless, between 1970 and 1975, the State enacted more than 100 legislations that were deemed illegal by the Parliament.

What is Judicial Supremacy?

In the Minerva Mills case, the Indian Supreme Court expressly reaffirmed constitutional supremacy, ruling that “government, legislature, executive, and the judiciary are all bound by the Constitution, and none is above or beyond the Constitution.” Every legislation approved by the legislature is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court in light of the Constitution’s principles and aims. If it goes beyond that, it can be deemed null and invalid. The separation of judicial and parliamentary supremacy is not clearly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, yet it is not entirely obvious either. Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution and enact legislation; the judge must determine whether such legislation violates the fundamental structure of the Constitution. After the legislature has completed its task, the Supreme Court conducts a judicial review to determine if the legislation is valid. There have been clashes between parliamentary and judicial supremacy.

What is Parliament Sovereignty?

1. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, says that the Constitution, federal laws made according to it, and agreements passed under its power are the “supreme law of the land,” superseding any opposing state laws. In India, parliamentary supremacy is controlled by the Indian Constitution, which is subject to judicial scrutiny.
2. In reality, this implies that, while the Parliament can alter the Constitution, the modifications must be legal within the parameters of the Constitution.
3. Sovereignty represents the belief that there must be some ultimate authority in the final decision in any form of governance.
4. The individual or body making such a judgement must be legally competent and practically capable of enforcing it.
5. Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the legislature’s, i.e., Parliament’s, dominance over all other government entities, including the executive and judiciary.
6. In India, however, there is constitutional sovereignty rather than parliamentary sovereignty.
7. The Indian Constitution makers chose a middle path between the system of America’s judicial supremacy and the principle of British Parliament sovereignty by granting the judiciary the power of judicial review and the Parliament the sovereign power of amending the Constitution with certain constraints.
8. We see a resounding endorsement of constitutional primacy when we look at the situation. It is clearly stated in Article 49 that “Every monument, location, or item of aesthetic or historic interest designated by or [under the law established by Parliament] to be of national importance will be protected against spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal, or export, as the case may be.”
9. When it comes to protecting the people’s natural rights, the Constitution has always been there.
10. The Indian Constitution distributes the country’s jurisdiction into three autonomous and interconnected entities.
11. This separation of power instils responsibility and keeps each of these organisations in check.
12. The three strong pillars of the Constitution are the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The legislature is referred to as the Parliament.
13. On the other hand, these forces never illustrate how ineffective parliamentary sovereignty is.
14. It can change the Constitution’s rules under Article 159 of the Indian Constitution. Citizens’ rights can be completely revoked.

Fundamental Rights of an Indian

Right to equality

In a society like ours, the right to equality is critical. This right aims to create the rule of law, where all citizens are treated equally before the law. It has five articles (Articles 14-18) that guarantee equality before the law or the protection of the law for all individuals in India and prohibit discrimination based on religion, race, caste, place, birth, or gender.

Equality before the law

The Constitution ensures that all people shall be treated equally in the eyes of the law. It signifies that the country’s laws will protect everyone equally. Nobody is above the law. It means that if more than one person or two people engage in the same criminal activity, they will get the same punishment without any compromise.

No discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth

The State may not discriminate against a person based on religion, race, place of birth, caste, or sex. It is much needed to get social equality. Every Indian citizen enjoys equal rights to visit places such as grocery stores, public places, restaurants, amusement areas, or the usage of wells, tanks, or roadways. The State, however, gives the right to make special arrangements and compromises for children and women.

Equality of opportunity to all citizens concerning public employment

The State is not permitted to discriminate against anybody in public employment. Therefore, everyone is open to applying for jobs in the government sector, and such employment will be purely based on credentials and merit. There are, however, several restrictions to this right. There is a particular provision for people from scheduled tribes, castes, and other backward castes to have certain positions reserved for themselves.

Abolition of untouchability

Under the law, unjust practices such as untouchability become a serious offence. This provision improves social standing among millions of Indian individuals who still suffer and are kept away from social rights because of their caste and nature of work. However, it is disgraceful that this social ill persists despite constitutional restrictions.

Abolition of titles

Every British title, such as Sir (Knighthood) or Rai Bahadur, bestowed to British loyalists under British rule, has been abolished since they established artificial differences. However, the President of India has the authority to bestow civil and military medals to special people who have invested distinguishably in servicing the country in multiple ways. Civil honours such as the Padma Vibhushan, Veer Chakra, Bharat Ratna, Padma Bhushan, Padma Shri, and military medals like the Paramveer Chakra Ashok Chakra are bestowed.

Conclusion

The latest Supreme Court decision on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Parliament’s populist response in enacting Section 18A in the Act, which effectively circumvents the diktat of the Supreme Court’s judgement., are some of the challenges that ‘judicial review’ continues to face and have been a great source of inspiration for constitutional experts to ponder.