Parliamentary Sovereignty in India
Parliamentary Sovereignty in India refers to the concept that the Indian Parliament, as the supreme legislative body, has the authority to make, amend, and repeal laws on any matter within its competence, subject to the constraints of the Constitution of India. However, it is important to note that while India is a parliamentary democracy, its Parliament does not have absolute sovereignty, as it is constrained by the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any laws or actions by Parliament must conform to its provisions.
Several key cases have clarified the limits and scope of parliamentary sovereignty in India, especially in relation to the Constitution, the fundamental rights of individuals, and the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Here are some landmark cases related to Parliamentary Sovereignty in India:
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Key Principle: Basic Structure Doctrine
The Kesavananda Bharati case is one of the most significant rulings in Indian constitutional law. The case dealt with the scope of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
Facts: The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, challenged the Kerala government's decision to impose land reforms that affected his religious institution. The case also questioned whether Parliament had the power to amend fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled by a narrow majority (7-6) that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution but cannot alter its "basic structure." This landmark decision significantly curbed the idea of absolute parliamentary sovereignty. The Court identified certain unamendable features in the Constitution, such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and federalism.
The basic structure doctrine restricts Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution in a way that would violate its core principles, even though technically Parliament holds the power to amend any part of the Constitution.
2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Key Principle: Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
This case further reinforced the principle of basic structure and the limitations on parliamentary sovereignty. It involved a challenge to the 42nd Amendment, which sought to give more power to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and reduce the importance of fundamental rights.
Facts: The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the 42nd Amendment, which aimed to enhance the primacy of DPSPs over Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 31C, which protected laws made to implement DPSPs from judicial review.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes the supremacy of fundamental rights. The Court ruled that no law could destroy or damage the balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles) of the Constitution.
This case reaffirmed that even Parliament cannot alter the balance between these two parts of the Constitution, further limiting the scope of parliamentary sovereignty.
3. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Key Principle: Judicial Review and Parliamentary Sovereignty
The case arose during the Emergency (1975–77) and centered around the validity of the 39th Amendment to the Constitution, which aimed to protect the election of the Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) from judicial review.
Facts: The petitioners, led by Raj Narain, challenged Indira Gandhi's election to the office of Prime Minister. The 39th Amendment, passed by Parliament, made certain electoral challenges (including the Prime Minister's election) non-justiciable, i.e., immune from judicial review.
Judgment: The Supreme Court, while upholding the 39th Amendment, struck down certain parts of it, arguing that no law could completely prevent judicial review. The Court emphasized that the Constitution cannot be altered in such a way that it violates the basic structure, even by Parliament.
This case demonstrated that while Parliament has significant legislative powers, it is not above the law, and its actions are subject to judicial scrutiny.
4. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Key Principle: Limitation on Parliament's Power to Amend Fundamental Rights
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under Article 368 of the Constitution.
Facts: The petitioners challenged the 17th Amendment, which sought to modify land reform laws in Punjab, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights. The question before the Court was whether Parliament could amend Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend the fundamental rights, as these are "immutable" under the Constitution. This case was a significant move in restricting the sovereignty of Parliament by affirming that fundamental rights cannot be altered by constitutional amendments. The Court's judgment was based on the idea that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute, and there are certain inviolable provisions.
5. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
Key Principle: Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution
The Shankari Prasad case dealt with whether Parliament could amend the Constitution to abridge or take away the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
Facts: The petitioners challenged the validity of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which allowed the Parliament to amend laws that interfered with the fundamental rights, particularly land reform laws.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. The Court held that Article 368 gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, and there was no restriction placed on amending the Fundamental Rights.
However, this judgment was later overruled by Kesavananda Bharati, where the Court concluded that although Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.
Conclusion:
While Parliamentary Sovereignty is a foundational concept in Indian constitutional law, it operates within the framework set by the Constitution. The Kesavananda Bharati case introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which significantly limits the powers of Parliament by stating that it cannot amend the Constitution in ways that undermine its basic structure. Judicial review, as emphasized in the above cases, acts as a critical safeguard to ensure that laws passed by Parliament do not violate the Constitution’s core principles. Thus, Indian parliamentary sovereignty is not absolute and is checked by judicial oversight, especially in relation to the protection of fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
comments