Parliamentary Sovereignty Vis-A-Vis Judicial Review: An Analysis
- IJLLR Journal
- 1 day ago
- 2 min read
Adv. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, LL.M., Amity Law School, Amity University
Dr. Aishwarya Pandey, Assistant Professor, Amity Law School, Amity University
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the dynamic interplay between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review, two foundational doctrines of constitutional law that play a crucial role in shaping democratic governance and the functioning of constitutional states. Parliamentary sovereignty is traditionally understood as the doctrine asserting that the legislature has the supreme legal authority to enact, amend, or repeal any law, and that no other body, including the judiciary, has the power to override or nullify its enactments. On the other hand, judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to assess the legality and constitutionality of legislative and executive actions and to invalidate those that contravene constitutional norms.
The tension between these doctrines raises significant constitutional questions about the limits of legislative power, the scope of judicial authority, and the proper balance between democratic decision-making and the protection of individual rights. This paper investigates how different constitutional systems have attempted to resolve this tension, with a focus on three major jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, the United States, and India. Each of these countries provides a unique perspective on the interaction between parliamentary authority and judicial oversight, shaped by their distinct constitutional histories, structures, and legal cultures.
In the United Kingdom, where the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is most prominently expressed, the courts have traditionally refrained from questioning the validity of parliamentary statutes. However, recent legal developments—such as the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights through the Human Rights Act 1998 and the constitutional implications of Brexit—have challenged this orthodoxy and opened the door to more nuanced forms of judicial interpretation and scrutiny. In contrast, the United States operates under a written constitution that is considered the supreme law of the land. Judicial review was established early in its constitutional history through the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), granting courts the authority to strike down laws inconsistent with the Constitution. This model places clear limits on congressional power and underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional supremacy.
