What is parliamentary sovereignty? Do you think Indian Parliament is sovereign?

Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Comparative Analysis with Focus on India

Introduction:

Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of many constitutional systems, particularly those based on the Westminster model. It essentially means that the legislature (Parliament) is the supreme legal authority within its jurisdiction. It is not bound by any prior legislature or any other body, including the judiciary or the executive. A.V. Dicey, a prominent jurist, defined parliamentary sovereignty as “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.” However, the extent and application of this principle vary across different countries, often influenced by their unique historical and constitutional contexts. This essay will examine the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and analyze whether the Indian Parliament truly embodies this principle.

Body:

1. Defining Parliamentary Sovereignty:

The core tenets of parliamentary sovereignty include:

Legislative Supremacy: Parliament’s power to create, amend, or repeal any law is absolute.
No External Limits: No external body, such as a written constitution or a higher court, can limit Parliament’s legislative power.
No Internal Limits: Parliament cannot bind its successors; future Parliaments can repeal or amend laws passed by previous ones.
Judicial Deference: Courts generally defer to Parliament’s legislative decisions, even if they disagree with the policy implications.

2. The Indian Context: A Qualified Sovereignty:

Unlike the UK, India operates under a written constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution explicitly states that any law inconsistent with the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III is void. This immediately introduces a significant limitation on the Indian Parliament’s sovereignty. The Supreme Court of India, through numerous judgments (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973), has asserted its power of judicial review, enabling it to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional.

3. Limitations on Indian Parliament’s Power:

Judicial Review: The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review acts as a significant check on the Parliament’s legislative power. This contrasts sharply with the concept of absolute parliamentary sovereignty.
Federal Structure: India’s federal structure, with power divided between the Union and State legislatures, further limits the Parliament’s absolute authority. State legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters.
Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court’s articulation of the “basic structure doctrine” prevents Parliament from amending the Constitution in a way that alters its fundamental features. This significantly restricts the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution at will.
International Law: While not directly limiting legislative power, international treaties and conventions influence domestic legislation, indirectly impacting the Parliament’s absolute freedom.

4. Arguments for a Qualified Sovereignty:

While the Indian Parliament lacks absolute sovereignty, it still holds considerable power. It can legislate on a vast range of subjects, and its laws are generally binding throughout the country. The limitations imposed by the Constitution and the judiciary are designed to protect fundamental rights and maintain a balance of power, not to completely negate the Parliament’s legislative authority.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, while the Indian Parliament possesses significant legislative power, it does not enjoy absolute parliamentary sovereignty in the same way as the UK Parliament. The existence of a written constitution, judicial review, the federal structure, and the basic structure doctrine all impose significant limitations. The Indian system is one of a qualified or limited parliamentary sovereignty, where the Parliament’s power is balanced against other constitutional safeguards. This balance, while potentially leading to occasional legislative gridlock, ultimately serves to protect fundamental rights and ensure a more just and equitable society. Moving forward, a healthy dialogue between the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive is crucial to ensure the effective functioning of this qualified parliamentary sovereignty and the continued upholding of constitutional values. This collaborative approach will foster a more robust and sustainable democracy, prioritizing the holistic development of the nation.

[/lockercat]HPPCS Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for HPPCS Prelims and HPPCS Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by HPPCS Notes are as follows:-

For any doubt, Just leave us a Chat or Fill us a querry––