Synthesis of Parliamentary Sovereignty & Judicial Supremacy  

• Parliamentary sovereignty implies that parliament is superior to the executive and judicial branches of government and thus has the authority to enact or repeal any law it deems appropriate. Judicial supremacy means that courts fulfil that role, and other authorities must respect their decisions in individual cases as well as follow the general principles established by judges when developing future public policy. The Indian Constitution's founders advocated for a proper synthesis of the British concept of parliamentary sovereignty and the American principle of judicial supremacy.  
• What is the meaning of Parliamentary Sovereignty?  
  • Sovereignty embodies the idea that in every system of government, there must be some absolute power of final decision.  
  • The person or body making such a decision must be both legally competent and practically capable of enforcing it.  
  • Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the legislature's supremacy over all other government bodies, including the executive and judiciary.  
  • In India, however, there is constitutional sovereignty rather than parliamentary sovereignty.  
  • Sovereignty, in any form of government, expresses the idea that there must be some ultimate authority in the final decision.  
  • The Indian Constitution makers chose a middle path between the system of American 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.  
  • For example, the British Parliament is sovereign, which means it has absolute power within the state and is not limited in its authority and jurisdiction by legislation.  
  • The term "doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty" refers to the British Parliament.  
• What exactly is Judicial Supremacy?  
  • Judicial supremacy is a concept that grants a country's judiciary the highest authority.  
  • Whatever directives and laws are enacted by the legal system, particularly the highest judicial court, are supreme in such a country.  
  • Judicial review entails the judiciary's ability to review legislative and judicial actions, thereby enshrining the Rule of Law principle and upholding the separation of powers principle at the grassroots level.  
  • When public bodies' decisions or policies exceed the powers granted by the Constitution, judicial review is a powerful tool for reining them in and holding them accountable.  
  • It keeps effective checks and balances in place by limiting arbitrary, irrational, or unjust acts by the Executive and the Legislature.  
  • Under Article 13 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has the authority to exercise judicial review.  
  • In India, judicial review consists of three components: legislative action, administrative action, and judicial decisions.  
  • Judicial review, according to the Supreme Court, is a fundamental feature of the Constitution.  
  • As a result, judicial review by courts is not subject to change and has effectively been removed from Parliament's power to amend or abridge.  
  • The judiciary has promised to keep the legislature at bay.  
  • The court would vigorously protect human rights, fundamental rights, and citizens' rights to life and liberty in exercising its judicial review power.  
• The Indian Context of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Supremacy  
  • The scope of the Supreme Court's judicial review power in India is narrower than in the United States, just as the Indian parliamentary system differs from the British system.  
  • This is because the American Constitution guarantees 'due process of law,' whereas the Indian Constitution guarantees 'lawful procedure' (Article 21).  
  • The framers of the Indian Constitution desired an appropriate synthesis of the British principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the American principle of judicial supremacy.  
  • As a mixed political system, India has supported parliamentary federalism, a completely unique politico-constitutional arrangement with no precedent in the history of constitution development.  
  • On the one hand, the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review to declare parliamentary laws unconstitutional.  
  • The Parliament, on the other hand, has the constituent power under Article 368 to amend the majority of the Constitution.  
  • Our constitution gives the legislature legislative sovereignty and the Supreme Court judicial review authority.  
  • By inserting Articles 31(D), 32(A), 131(A), 144(A), 226(A), 228(A), 323(A-B), and 329 (A), the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 tainted this delicate balance.  
  • The Janata government, however, corrected this imbalance in 1977 with the 43rd and 44th amendments, which repealed all preceding articles except 323. (A-B).  
  • The Supreme Court gained much ground for judicial review in the Keshavananda Bharti case in 1973 by inventing a new doctrine known as "the basic structure."  
  • The legislature, executive, and judiciary are required by the Constitution to exercise their powers with checks and balances, but not in a watertight rigid mould.  
• Significance  
  • The Indian Constitution is supreme, and Parliament's powers are limited within the four walls established by the Constitution.  
  • Nonetheless, it provides for striking a balance between the various pillars without encroaching on each other's territory while also providing effective governance.  
  • The ability to conduct judicial reviews is a necessary corollary of fundamental rights; otherwise, enshrining individual rights as fundamental in a constitution is meaningless if they are not enforceable in courts of law against the state.  
  • The conflict for supremacy between Parliament and the Supreme Court cannot be overlooked because it resulted in the evolution of many notable and prodigious doctrines such as: the doctrine of Basic Structure, the essence of the word 'law' under Article 21, i.e., due process of law, and so on.  
  • Article 13 states that states are not permitted to pass laws that are inconsistent with Part III of the constitution and violate Fundamental Rights.  
  • Thus, the article provides a judicial review of pre- and post-constitutional laws, thereby synchronising the constitution's provisions.  
  • Article 368 of the Constitution provides for constitutional amendments, which require a majority of total members to introduce such a bill in either house of Parliament.  
  • It must then be presented to the President, who must approve it.  
  • State representation in the Parliament requires ratification by at least half of the states in some cases, such as Articles 54, 55, 73, 162, or 241.  
• Limitations  
  • Supporters of complete judicial independence argue that democracy cannot thrive without an impartial, independent, and supreme judiciary.  
  • According to proponents of parliamentary supremacy, the concept of judicial supremacy, as expressed through judicial review, is incompatible with a democratic government.  
  • The legislature is constantly repealing and amending existing laws while also enacting new ones.  
  • The judiciary also plays a role by declaring certain laws or parts of laws unconstitutional.  
  • There is constant misperception and instability. The two most powerful government organs have been feuding and competing for years.  
  • In India, the constitution is supreme. The constitution defines and limits the powers of Parliament.  
  • Because of India's federal system, powers are divided between the Union and the states. Legislation on subjects on the state list cannot be passed by Parliament.  
  • Furthermore, because the constitution is supreme, any law passed by parliament may be declared "Ultra vires" by the Supreme Court.  
  • Parliament may enact only laws that are consistent with the provisions of the constitution. As a result, the supremacy of the constitution limits parliament's powers.  
• Several Examples  
  • The Supreme Court's decision on the 99th Constitution Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).  
  • The Supreme Court ruled that they were unconstitutional.  
  • This is an example of judicial review being used to overturn a parliamentary act as unconstitutional.  
  • According to the Supreme Court's decision on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989: Parliament enacted Section 18A in the said Act, which effectively circumvents the Supreme Court's diktat.  
  • These are the difficulties that 'judicial review' continues to face.  
• Conclusion  
  • The judiciary, the legislature, and the executive are the three pillars that support the successful operation of the government. Balance, rather than conflict, is essential for achieving ultimate public welfare and running the constitutional machinery smoothly. India, on the other hand, bears the supremacy of the Constitution, which limits the powers of the Parliament within the four walls established by the Constitution while still allowing for a balance between the various pillars without encroaching on each other's territory and providing effective governance.