Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The concepts of parliamentary supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty are central to understanding the nature of legislative power in democratic systems. While often used interchangeably, they represent distinct legal and political philosophies. Parliamentary supremacy, generally associated with the UK model, posits that Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, unbound by any higher law. In contrast, parliamentary sovereignty acknowledges Parliament’s authority but within a framework of constitutional limitations. The Indian Parliament, established by the Constitution of India, 1950, is a powerful body, but its position relative to the Constitution and the judiciary raises the question of whether it can truly be deemed ‘sovereign’.
Defining Parliamentary Supremacy and Sovereignty
Parliamentary Supremacy, as historically understood in the United Kingdom, implies that Parliament possesses unlimited legislative power. This means Parliament can make or unmake any law, and no court can question its validity. It stems from the idea that Parliament represents the will of the people and is therefore the highest authority. This doctrine is rooted in the absence of a codified constitution and the principle of unwritten constitutionalism.
Parliamentary Sovereignty, on the other hand, recognizes the authority of Parliament but acknowledges that this authority is exercised within the bounds of a constitutional framework. This framework may be codified (like India’s Constitution) or uncodified (like the UK’s evolving constitutional conventions). Sovereignty, in this context, isn’t absolute; it’s constrained by fundamental rights, constitutional provisions, and potentially, judicial review.
Comparing the Two Concepts
The key difference lies in the presence or absence of limitations. Parliamentary supremacy implies *no* legal limitations, while parliamentary sovereignty acknowledges *constitutional* limitations. Here’s a comparative table:
| Feature | Parliamentary Supremacy | Parliamentary Sovereignty |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Limitations | None | Constitutional Framework (written or unwritten) |
| Judicial Review | Generally absent or limited | Possible, depending on the constitutional design |
| Source of Authority | Popular will, historical evolution | Constitution, legal principles |
| Example | United Kingdom (historically) | India, Canada, Australia |
Powers of the Indian Parliament
The Indian Parliament, comprising the President, Lok Sabha, and Rajya Sabha, enjoys significant legislative powers under the Constitution. These include:
- Legislative Powers: The Parliament has exclusive power to legislate on subjects listed in the Union List (Article 246). It can legislate on subjects in the Concurrent List (Article 246) but state laws prevail in case of conflict (subject to Presidential assent).
- Constitutional Amendment Powers: The Parliament can amend most provisions of the Constitution under Article 368, though some provisions require ratification by state legislatures.
- Financial Powers: The Parliament controls the national budget and all financial matters (Articles 110-114).
- Executive Control: The Parliament exercises control over the executive through mechanisms like Question Hour, No-Confidence Motion, and parliamentary committees.
- Impeachment Powers: The Parliament can impeach the President and remove judges (Article 61, Article 124).
Is the Indian Parliament Sovereign?
Despite its extensive powers, the Indian Parliament cannot be considered a sovereign Parliament in the absolute sense of parliamentary supremacy. Several factors limit its authority:
- Constitutional Supremacy: The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article 368). Parliament’s legislative power is derived from and subject to the Constitution. The ‘basic structure’ doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, further limits Parliament’s amending power, preventing it from altering the fundamental features of the Constitution.
- Judicial Review: The Supreme Court of India has the power of judicial review (Articles 32, 136, 137). It can declare laws passed by Parliament unconstitutional, effectively nullifying them. The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case expanded the scope of judicial review to include fundamental rights.
- Federal Structure: India’s federal structure divides powers between the Centre and the States. While the Centre has significant powers, the States have autonomy in their respective spheres. Parliament cannot unilaterally alter the federal balance without constitutional amendments requiring state ratification.
- Fundamental Rights: Part III of the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to citizens. Parliament cannot pass laws that violate these rights, and any such law can be struck down by the courts.
Therefore, the Indian Parliament operates within a framework of constitutional limitations, judicial oversight, and federal constraints. It is a powerful legislature, but its authority is not absolute.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Indian Parliament possesses vast legislative powers, it is more accurately described as possessing parliamentary sovereignty rather than supremacy. The Constitution, the judiciary, and the federal structure act as crucial checks and balances, preventing the Parliament from exercising unlimited authority. The Indian model represents a deliberate departure from the UK’s historical parliamentary supremacy, prioritizing constitutionalism and the protection of fundamental rights. This balance is essential for maintaining a democratic and just society.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.