Parliamentary Sovereignty in India: Implications and Limiting Factors

Introduction

The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle in the governance structure of India. Derived from the British parliamentary tradition, it holds significance in defining the authority and power of the Indian Parliament within the constitutional framework. This principle serves as a cornerstone of India’s democratic system, ensuring the primacy of the elected representatives in shaping the nation’s laws and policies.

Constraints on Parliamentary Sovereignty: A Comparison between India and Britain

• According to AV Dicey, This principle has three implications:
  • The Parliament can make, amend, substitute or repeal any law.
  • The Parliament can make constitutional laws by the same procedure as ordinary laws.
  • The Parliamentary laws cannot be declared invalid by the Judiciary as being unconstitutional.
• Factors Limiting the Sovereignty: Indian Parliament cannot be regarded as a sovereign body in a similar sense as there are ‘legal’ restrictions on its authority and jurisdiction. [UPSC 2021]. Factors that Limit the Sovereignty of Indian Parliament are: 
  • Written Nature of the Constitution: The Parliament must adhere to the boundaries set forth by the Constitution. 
    • There exists a legal differentiation between the legislative  and the constituent power of the Parliament. 
    • Some amendments to the Constitution also necessitate the ratification of at least half of the states.
    • In Britain, the Constitution is neither written nor there is anything like a fundamental law of the land.
• Federal System of Government: 
  • In India, the Federal system of government is where powers are constitutionally divided between the Union and the states. 
  • The Parliament’s legislative authority is limited to subjects listed in the Union List and Concurrent List and does not encompass subjects listed in the State List.
  • In Britain, there is a unitary system of government and hence, all the powers are vested in the Centre.
  • System of Judicial Review: In India, both the Supreme Court and high courts possess the authority to declare parliamentary laws null and void, as well as unconstitutional, If such acts violate any provision of the Constitution.
    • There is no system of judicial review in Britain.
  • Fundamental Rights: Article 13 of the Constitution prohibits the State from enacting laws that either take away or partially abrogate fundamental rights. 
    • Hence, Any parliamentary law conflicting with fundamental rights will be deemed invalid.
    • The British Parliament has not made any law that lays down the fundamental rights of the citizens as there is maximum liberty due to the presence of the rule of law.
• In this regard, the Indian Parliament is similar to the American Legislature (known as Congress). The sovereignty of Congress is legally restricted by the written character of the Constitution, the federal system of government, the system of judicial review and the Bill of Rights.

Conclusion

• The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in India reflects a delicate balance between legislative authority and constitutional principles, ensuring that the rights and freedoms of citizens are protected while allowing for effective governance. 
• It highlights the fundamental role of Parliament in shaping the democratic fabric of the nation and upholding the rule of law.