The Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty asserts that Parliament holds supreme legislative authority, capable of enacting, amending, or repealing any law. In India, this doctrine is nuanced by constitutional supremacy and judicial review, ensuring a balance between legislative power and constitutional integrity.

MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

Parliamentary Sovereignty signifies the ultimate legislative power vested in Parliament, enabling it to legislate on any subject within its jurisdiction. In the Indian context, this power is not absolute; it operates within the confines of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution delineates the distribution of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, ensuring that parliamentary actions remain within constitutional boundaries.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

The concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty originates from the British legal system, where Parliament holds unrestricted legislative authority. In India, the framers of the Constitution adopted a modified version, embedding checks and balances to prevent absolute power concentration. This adaptation was influenced by colonial experiences and the desire to establish a democratic framework that upholds individual rights and judicial oversight.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

In the United Kingdom, Parliamentary Sovereignty is absolute, with no written constitution to limit legislative power. Conversely, countries like the United States practice constitutional supremacy, where a written constitution restricts legislative authority, and judicial review ensures laws align with constitutional provisions. India’s system incorporates elements of both, granting Parliament significant powers while subjecting it to constitutional limitations and judicial scrutiny.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

Several constitutional provisions outline the scope and limitations of Parliamentary Sovereignty in India:

• Article 245: Empowers Parliament to legislate for the entire country, subject to constitutional provisions.

• Article 246: Defines the subject matter of laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures through Union, State, and Concurrent Lists.

• Article 368: Grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, with certain limitations to preserve its basic structure.

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND LIMITATIONS

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in reviewing parliamentary legislation to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates. This system of checks and balances prevents the enactment of laws that violate fundamental rights or alter the Constitution’s basic structure.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
   This landmark case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental framework. The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, challenged the Kerala government’s land reform laws, leading to a verdict that certain constitutional amendments infringing on the basic structure are invalid.

2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):
   The Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, emphasizing the inviolability of these rights. The petitioners, the Golaknath family, contested land ceiling laws, resulting in a decision that constitutional amendments affecting Fundamental Rights were invalid.

3. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980):
   The Court reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine, striking down clauses that granted Parliament unlimited amending power, thus preserving judicial review and the Constitution’s supremacy. Minerva Mills challenged certain amendments that sought to curtail judicial review, leading to a verdict reinforcing constitutional limitations on parliamentary authority.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

• Basic Structure Doctrine: Asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by parliamentary amendments, ensuring the preservation of its core principles.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES

• Constitutional Supremacy: The principle that the Constitution is the ultimate authority, and all laws and actions must conform to it.

• Rule of Law: The doctrine that law governs the nation, ensuring that no individual or institution is above the law.

AMENDMENTS / ADDITIONS / REPEALING

Parliament holds the authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368, but such amendments must not violate the Constitution’s basic structure. This ensures that while the Constitution can evolve, its foundational principles remain intact.

CRITICISM / APPRECIATION

The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty in India is lauded for empowering democratic governance through elected representatives. However, it faces criticism when perceived to encroach upon judicial independence or fundamental rights. The balance between legislative authority and constitutional limitations remains a subject of ongoing legal and academic discourse.

CONCLUSION

In India, Parliamentary Sovereignty operates within a framework that balances legislative authority with constitutional supremacy and judicial review. This ensures that while Parliament possesses significant legislative powers, it functions within the constraints of the Constitution, preserving democratic principles and protecting individual rights.

REFERENCES

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.
3. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.