Introduction
Constitutional supremacy establishes that a written constitution is the supreme law of the land, binding all state organs, as seen in the United States. In contrast, parliamentary sovereignty, exemplified by the United Kingdom, grants the legislature unfettered and legally unlimited authority to enact or repeal any law without judicial invalidation.
Key Differences between Constitutional Supremacy and Parliamentary Sovereignty
- Source of Authority: Under constitutional supremacy, the constitution serves as the ultimate source of power from which all organs derive their legitimacy. Under parliamentary sovereignty, the legislature itself is sovereign and wields omnipotent power.
- Judicial Review: In a system of constitutional supremacy, courts possess the power of judicial review to strike down ultra vires legislative enactments. In contrast, under parliamentary sovereignty, courts cannot declare an act of parliament invalid or unconstitutional.
- Amendment Procedure: Constitutional supremacy typically mandates a rigid and specialised amendment procedure to prevent arbitrary modification. Parliamentary sovereignty allows constitutional alterations through regular legislative procedures by simple majority.
How India Balances the Two Doctrines
The framers of the Indian Constitution synthesised the British principle of parliamentary sovereignty with the American doctrine of judicial supremacy, avoiding the extremes of both systems.
- Legislative Domain and Amending Power: Parliament is vested with extensive legislative authority under the Seventh Schedule and broad constituent powers under Article 368 to amend the Constitution to realise socio-economic goals.
- Judicial Oversight: Legislative authority is constrained by the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 13, 32, and 226, ensuring that statutes conform to fundamental rights and constitutional provisions.
- The Basic Structure Doctrine as a Balancer: Propounded in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), this doctrine serves as the ultimate harmonising mechanism. It recognises Parliament's wide constituent powers under Article 368 while restricting it from altering or destroying the foundational framework of the Constitution.
- Judicial Reaffirmation of Equilibrium: In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) and the 2015 NJAC verdict, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Parliament, being a creation of the Constitution, cannot claim absolute sovereignty, thereby preserving the delicate separation of powers.
Conclusion
India's constitutional architecture avoids rigid extremes by establishing a dynamic equilibrium where Parliament executes the democratic will of the people, while the judiciary ensures that the supremacy of the Constitution remains inviolable.