Doctrine of supremacy of Parliament over administration
🏛️ Doctrine of Supremacy of Parliament Over Administration
🔹 What is Parliamentary Supremacy?
The Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy (also called Parliamentary Sovereignty) is the principle that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in a state, and it has the power to make, amend, or repeal laws. Under this doctrine:
No body, including the executive or judiciary, can override or set aside an Act of Parliament.
Administration (executive branch) must act within the bounds of law as set by Parliament.
Delegated legislation made by the executive is valid only within the framework allowed by Parliament.
🔹 Key Features:
Parliament > Executive: The executive (government) is subordinate to Parliament and must implement laws as enacted.
No Unwritten Power: The executive cannot assume powers unless authorized by statute.
Delegated legislation can be reviewed or repealed by Parliament.
Parliament can override previous laws (except in India, where constitutional supremacy limits this power).
Judicial review of executive action ensures compliance with laws passed by Parliament.
🔹 Difference in Approach:
| UK | India |
|---|---|
| Follows parliamentary sovereignty | Follows constitutional supremacy |
| Parliament is supreme, can make any law | Parliament is limited by Constitutional provisions |
| No judicial review of statutes | Judicial review is part of basic structure |
📚 Case Laws Supporting the Doctrine
✅ 1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – India
Facts:
A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged his detention as a violation of fundamental rights.
Issue:
Can the judiciary question the validity of a law passed by Parliament that authorizes administrative detention?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that as long as the law is enacted by Parliament and follows procedure established by law, the administration can act upon it.
The judiciary will not question the wisdom or fairness of the law, only whether the executive followed what Parliament had prescribed.
Significance:
Reinforced the supremacy of Parliament in authorizing administrative action.
Executive actions are valid only when supported by Parliamentary law.
✅ 2. Entick v. Carrington (1765) – United Kingdom
Facts:
Government agents (under orders of a Secretary of State) broke into the home of John Entick and seized papers without any statutory authority.
Issue:
Can the executive act without explicit statutory authority from Parliament?
Judgment:
Lord Camden ruled that no one can enter a person’s property without legal authority.
The Secretary of State’s warrant was illegal, as it was not backed by any Act of Parliament.
Significance:
A foundational case asserting that executive powers must come from law.
Established the principle that the administration is subordinate to Parliament.
The rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary executive action.
✅ 3. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) – United Kingdom
Facts:
The Home Secretary chose not to bring into force parts of a law passed by Parliament regarding criminal injuries compensation and instead introduced a new scheme through executive power.
Issue:
Can the executive override or delay a law passed by Parliament and implement its own scheme?
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that the executive cannot frustrate the will of Parliament.
The Secretary of State’s action was declared unlawful.
Parliamentary supremacy requires that laws be implemented, not ignored.
Significance:
Strong reaffirmation of Parliament’s supremacy over executive discretion.
Executive cannot substitute its own policies for those passed by law.
✅ 4. State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly (1958) – India
Facts:
The Bihar government withdrew a reference it had made to the Industrial Tribunal, after the case had started.
Issue:
Can the executive withdraw or interfere with a quasi-judicial process that was initiated under a Parliamentary law?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not act arbitrarily, and its powers were defined strictly under the Industrial Disputes Act, a Parliamentary statute.
The executive’s withdrawal was invalid because it was not in line with the statute.
Significance:
Executive must act strictly within the powers granted by Parliament.
Reinforces that statutory authority defines and limits administrative power.
✅ 5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – India
Facts:
The case challenged the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
Issue:
Can Parliament make laws that give the executive unlimited power, or are there constitutional limits?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament is not supreme over the Constitution.
However, executive power must flow from valid Parliamentary legislation.
Even Parliament’s power is subject to the basic structure doctrine, but within that, it controls administration.
Significance:
While this case emphasized constitutional supremacy, it clarified that the executive derives power only through Parliament, not independently.
✅ 6. R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) – UK (Brexit Case)
Facts:
After the Brexit referendum, the UK government wanted to trigger Article 50 (exit from the EU) using prerogative powers, without an Act of Parliament.
Issue:
Can the executive make such a critical decision without Parliamentary approval?
Judgment:
The UK Supreme Court ruled that the government must seek Parliamentary approval before triggering Article 50.
Only Parliament can change domestic law or withdraw rights given under statute.
Significance:
Executive is bound by the will of Parliament, especially in altering citizens' rights.
Reinforced constitutional conventions and legislative supremacy.
🔍 Summary Table
| Case | Country | Key Issue | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras | India | Preventive detention law | Valid if authorized by Parliament |
| Entick v. Carrington | UK | Executive intrusion into property | Illegal without Parliamentary authority |
| Ex parte Fire Brigades Union | UK | Non-implementation of statute | Executive must respect Parliamentary law |
| State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly | India | Administrative withdrawal of case | Must follow statute |
| Kesavananda Bharati | India | Limits on Parliament | Parliament controls administration, but not Constitution |
| Miller Case (Brexit) | UK | Use of prerogative powers | Executive needs Parliamentary approval |
⚖️ Conclusion
The Doctrine of Supremacy of Parliament over Administration plays a vital role in ensuring democratic accountability, rule of law, and prevention of arbitrary governance.
In the UK, Parliament is legally supreme; the executive is entirely subordinate.
In India, while the Constitution is supreme, the executive can only act based on laws passed by Parliament, subject to judicial review.
Across jurisdictions, courts have consistently held that the administration cannot override or ignore Parliament, and executive actions must be rooted in statutory authority. This principle is a cornerstone of modern constitutional governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments