Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy asserts that the Constitution is the ultimate authority in a legal system, and all laws, policies, and actions must conform to its provisions. In India, this doctrine ensures that the Constitution prevails over parliamentary enactments and executive decisions, maintaining the rule of law and protecting citizens’ rights.

MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

Constitutional Supremacy means that the Constitution is the highest legal authority, and any law or action inconsistent with it is invalid. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution embodies this principle by declaring that laws contravening Fundamental Rights are void. This framework ensures that all branches of government operate within constitutional limits, safeguarding democratic governance.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

The framers of the Indian Constitution drew inspiration from various sources, notably the U.S. model of judicial review and the British principle of parliamentary sovereignty. They adopted a balanced approach, granting the judiciary the power to review legislative and executive actions while allowing Parliament to amend the Constitution, subject to certain constraints. This balance was established to prevent the abuse of power and to protect individual rights.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

• In the United Kingdom, parliamentary sovereignty implies that Parliament can make or repeal any law, with no authority, including the courts, able to override its legislation.
• Conversely, the United States practices judicial supremacy, where the Constitution is supreme, and the judiciary has the authority to invalidate laws conflicting with it.
• India’s model incorporates elements of both systems, ensuring that neither Parliament nor the judiciary holds absolute power.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

Several constitutional provisions uphold the doctrine of constitutional supremacy in India:

• Article 13: Declares laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights as void.
• Article 32: Provides the right to constitutional remedies, allowing individuals to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
• Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue certain writs for enforcement of rights.
• Article 368: Outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution, ensuring that amendments do not alter its basic structure.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

Several landmark judgments have reinforced constitutional supremacy in India:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its ‘basic structure’. This case involved challenges to land reform laws and the extent of Parliament’s amending power. The Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that certain fundamental features of the Constitution remain inviolable.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Court struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that limited judicial review, reaffirming that judicial review is integral to the Constitution’s basic structure. This case emphasized the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, reinforcing the importance of judicial oversight.
• I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any Fundamental Rights, emphasizing the supremacy of the Constitution over parliamentary amendments. This case involved the validity of land ceiling laws and questioned Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights. The decision led to significant constitutional amendments and debates on the extent of parliamentary authority.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

The Basic Structure Doctrine is pivotal in maintaining constitutional supremacy. It posits that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by Parliament. This doctrine ensures the preservation of the Constitution’s core principles, such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES

The principle of “Ultra Vires” applies here, meaning ‘beyond the powers.’ Any law or action exceeding the authority granted by the Constitution is deemed void. This principle ensures that all governmental actions remain within constitutional boundaries, preventing misuse of power.

AMENDMENTS / ADDITIONS / REPEALING

The 42nd Amendment (1976) attempted to curtail judicial review and enhance parliamentary sovereignty. However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case invalidated these changes, reaffirming the Constitution’s supremacy and the essential role of judicial review in maintaining constitutional balance.

CRITICISM / APPRECIATION

While the doctrine of constitutional supremacy safeguards democratic principles, some critics argue that excessive judicial intervention may impede legislative functions. However, this system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful, ensuring the protection of individual rights and the rule of law.

FLOWCHART: DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY IN INDIA

graph TD
A[Constitution of India] --> B[Supreme Law of the Land]
B --> C[Legislative Actions]
B --> D[Executive Actions]
B --> E[Judicial Actions]
C --> F{Conform to Constitution?}
D --> F
E --> F
F --> |Yes| G[Valid]
F --> |No| H[Invalid]

This flowchart illustrates that all actions by the legislative, executive, and judiciary must conform to the Constitution. If they do, they are valid; if not, they are invalid, reinforcing the doctrine of constitutional supremacy.

TABLE: COMPARISON OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY AND PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY