Open Access Research Article
EXPLORING THE NEXUS OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Published Paper
Article Details
EXPLORING THE NEXUS OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY
AND PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
AUTHORED BY - RADHIKA GAWALI
ABSTRACT-
The
relationship between the legislature and the judiciary is central to the
functioning of democratic governance, with two key concepts at its core:
parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy. This paper explores the
definitions, historical evolution, and global application of these doctrines,
focusing particularly on their manifestation in India. Originating from the UK,
parliamentary sovereignty vests unrivalled lawmaking authority in Parliament,
while judicial supremacy empowers courts to strike down unconstitutional
legislation. In India, both doctrines coexist, with the judiciary possessing
the authority to invalidate laws while Parliament retains the ability to amend
the Constitution. This paper examines the merits and criticisms of parliamentary
sovereignty and judicial supremacy, highlighting their implications for
governance, individual rights, and democratic accountability. Landmark cases
from India and other countries illustrate the tension between these principles
and the ongoing debates over the separation of powers. Through comparative
analysis, this paper elucidates how different nations reconcile these tensions
and offers insights into potential approaches for effective governance and
democratic reform.
KEYWORDS-
Parliamentary Sovereignty, Judicial Supremacy, Separation of Powers,
constitutional interpretation, legislative autonomy, judicial oversight.
When discussing the
relationship between the legislature and the judiciary, two pivotal concepts
emerge: parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy. These ideologies
embody distinct perspectives on the ultimate authority in legal interpretation
and application. This article will delve into the definitions, historical
development, and global application of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial
supremacy, particularly in India. Originating in the UK, parliamentary
sovereignty grants Parliament unrivalled lawmaking authority, while judicial
supremacy empowers courts to nullify unconstitutional legislation. In India,
both doctrines coexist, with the Supreme Court possessing the authority to
invalidate laws, yet Parliament retains the ability to amend the Constitution. [1]While
each approach has merits and drawbacks, their juxtaposition often precipitates
conflict or ambiguity. Subsequent discussions will delve deeper into the merits
and criticisms of these doctrines. In every civilized society worldwide, the establishment
of laws, effective administration, and the implementation of rules and
regulations are indispensable for the smooth functioning of all societal
aspects. Laws serve as the bedrock for maintaining peace and harmony among both
individuals and communities. Globally, the Constitution holds paramount
importance as the foundation for legislative processes. It delineates the
fundamental framework upon which all future laws are built. Should any
legislation contravene constitutional provisions, it is deemed invalid,
illustrating the principle of Constitutional Supremacy. Conversely,
Parliamentary Sovereignty allocates primary lawmaking authority to the
parliament in democratic or sovereign nations. However, when parliament is
bestowed unchecked power to create or modify laws without external oversight,
it raises concerns about potential abuses of authority. This unchecked
legislative authority, known as Parliamentary Sovereignty, grants parliament
the capacity to enact or amend laws without facing scrutiny from other
governing bodies, potentially compromising democratic principles.[2]
Parliamentary
Sovereignty- Parliamentary
sovereignty is a principle granting the legislative body of a country supreme
authority in enacting, amending, or repealing laws. This post will delve into
the essence of parliamentary sovereignty, examine its adoption in various
nations, and assess its advantages and disadvantages in governance. Under this
principle, typically embodied by the Parliament, legislative bodies are deemed the
highest legal authority, allowing them to enact or amend laws without being
overruled by other governmental entities, including the judiciary. Proponents
argue that this system ensures accountability to the electorate, facilitating
responsiveness to societal needs. However, critics contend that unchecked
legislative power may result in abuses, potentially infringing upon individual
rights and democratic principles.[3]
Judicial
Supremacy- A concept
known as "judicial supremacy" grants the judiciary the highest
authority to interpret a nation's laws and Constitution. This article will
define judicial supremacy, discuss some nations that uphold this idea, and
weigh the benefits and drawbacks of this form of government. The judiciary is
empowered to interpret a nation's laws and Constitution, and all other branches
of government are required to abide by its interpretations, according to the
doctrine of judicial supremacy. This implies that a law or action can be
overturned by a judge if they find it to be unconstitutional, regardless of
whether the legislative or executive branches passed it. The United States[4] is
the primary country associated with the doctrine of judicial supremacy, as it
originated there. Because of the broad authority bestowed upon it by the US
Constitution, the US Supreme Court is universally regarded as the most potent
and significant court in the world. Other nations that use this strategy are
South Africa, Canada, and India. A primary justification for judicial supremacy
is its ability to safeguard individual liberties and guarantee that the
government is answerable to the Constitution. The judiciary's ultimate say over
legal issues serves as a check on the authority of the other branches of
government and guarantees that laws are enacted in accordance with the
Constitution. However, detractors contend that judicial supremacy may cause
unelected judges to become political actors and tamper with the democratic
process. Additionally, they contend that an imbalance in the separation of powers
could result from the judiciary overreaching its bounds and growing too
powerful. [5]
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE-
The
research aims to comprehensively analyze the dynamics between parliamentary
sovereignty and judicial supremacy within governance systems globally. It seeks
to elucidate the evolution, implications, and significance of these doctrines
in shaping legal frameworks and democratic governance. Through comparative
examination, the research aims to explore how different countries reconcile the
tensions between legislative autonomy and judicial oversight. Furthermore, it
seeks to identify the challenges and opportunities presented by these
principles for effective governance, individual rights protection, and
democratic accountability. Ultimately, the research aims to contribute to a
nuanced understanding of the interplay between legislative and judicial
branches in modern governance and inform potential avenues for reform and
improvement.
STATUTORY
PROVISIONS-
Provisions
of the Indian Constitution Supporting Supremacy of the Constitution as –
1. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution provides
for ‘equality before the law and the equal protection of laws.’ The term
“Equality before the Law” means that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law
no one is above the law and there are no exceptions.[6]
2. Article 124(1) of the Indian Constitution provides
for the establishment of a Supreme Court of India.[7]
The
Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority that safeguards and
protects the Constitution. It is the duty of the judiciary to test the laws and
constitutional amendments for their validity and their ‘constitutionality’
i.e., whether or not they are violating the provisions of the constitution.
PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY AND JUDICIAL SUPREMACY IN INDIA-
The
ongoing discourse on the interplay between parliamentary sovereignty and
judicial supremacy resonates throughout global constitutional law. In India,
this dynamic is particularly pronounced, as its constitutional framework
endeavors to reconcile these concepts while the judiciary assumes an
increasingly pivotal role in interpretation and enforcement. Examining the
governance landscape of India illuminates the intricate dance between the
judiciary and legislature, underscored by landmark cases highlighting the
tension between these principles. India's constitutional journey, deeply
entwined with its struggle for independence, birthed a democratic Constitution
in 1947, establishing a federal system with a robust central government and independent
judiciary. Over time, India's judiciary has wielded considerable influence,
particularly the Supreme Court, empowered to strike down laws inconsistent with
the Constitution, safeguarding individual liberties and key constitutional
tenets like secularism and democracy.[8]
However, this expanded judicial power has engendered friction with the
legislature, sparking debates over the balance of powers. Advocates of
parliamentary sovereignty assert the legislature's supreme authority, rooted in
democratic accountability and the imperative to legislate in the nation's best
interests. Conversely, proponents of judicial supremacy advocate for the
judiciary's role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation,
ensuring governmental adherence to constitutional principles. This tension
underscores a fundamental disagreement over the judiciary's role in democracy,
with each perspective offering distinct visions of governance and the
separation of powers. [9]
1. Kesavananda
Bharati case- The Supreme
Court ruled that the Constitution of India could not be amended in a
way that would alter its basic structure or undermine its fundamental
principles. This decision limited the power of the legislature to amend the
Constitution and strengthened the power of the judiciary to interpret it.[10]
2. Indira
Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975- Election
malpractices led the Supreme Court to declare the election of the Indian
Parliament's lower house, the Lok Sabha, of the then-prime minister Indira
Gandhi, to be void. The decision reaffirmed the judiciary's authority to uphold
the rule of law and dealt a serious blow to the authority of the legislature
and the prime minister. [11]
3. S.R.
Bommai v. Union of India 1994- The
Supreme Court ruled that a state government's ability to be dismissed could
only be used in specific, restricted situations and that it was subject to
judicial review. This ruling enhanced the judiciary's function as a check on
the federal government's authority.[12]
4. National Judicial Appointments
Commission (NJAC) case of 2015- A law passed by the legislature that attempted
to alter the process of appointing judges to the higher judiciary was
overturned by the Supreme Court. The law, the court ruled, was unconstitutional
and went against the idea of judicial independence.[13]
India's
constitutional structure strives to harmonize parliamentary sovereignty and
judicial supremacy, with the judiciary assuming a growing significance in
interpreting and upholding the Constitution. Although the interplay between
these principles has sparked discourse and contention within India, the
nation's autonomous judiciary has played a pivotal role in safeguarding
individual liberties and holding the government answerable to constitutional
mandates.
The legal
doctrines of judicial supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty have greatly
influenced the development of the constitutions of numerous nations worldwide.
However, the way these ideas are implemented can vary greatly based on the
legal framework that is in place in a given nation. Some nations adhere to the
judicial supremacy principle, while others follow the doctrine of parliamentary
sovereignty. The conflict between these two doctrines is illustrated by an
overview of the various legal systems found around the world, their
perspectives on parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy, and notable
cases from other nations.[14]
Parliamentary
sovereignty is the norm in common law nations like the United Kingdom, Australia,
Canada, and New Zealand. According to this theory, the legislature is the
ultimate body that makes laws, and the courts are powerless to overturn or
contest any of its decisions. The judiciary's function in these nations is to
interpret the law, not to make or amend legislation. Since the Glorious
Revolution of 1688, parliamentary sovereignty has been a cornerstone of British
policy. The supreme authority for enacting laws in the UK is the Parliament,
which has the authority to do so. Nonetheless, laws cannot be declared
unconstitutional by the courts. However because EU law supersedes national law
in some instances, the UK's membership in the EU has limited parliamentary
sovereignty in some ways.[15]
Australia-
Parliamentary sovereignty is a basic principle in Australia as well. A federal
system of government with distinct powers for the federal and state governments
is established by the Australian Constitution. While the Australian High Court
can interpret the Constitution and rule on the legality of laws, it is not as
empowered as the US Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional.[16]
Perspective
in the United Kingdom- In the United Kingdom, unlike
many other nations, the Constitution is not codified into a single written
document. Here, parliamentary supremacy holds sway over constitutional
supremacy. This hallmark feature of the UK constitution empowers Parliament to
enact or modify laws without fear of challenge or scrutiny from any other body,
including the judiciary. Consequently, no law can be deemed unconstitutional,
as Parliament wields unchecked authority in legislative matters. [17]
Civil
Law Countries- Nations
with civil law, like France, Germany, and Japan, adhere to the idea of judicial
supremacy. According to this theory, the judiciary has the final say on whether
a law is constitutional and the authority to overturn those that it deems to be
unconstitutional. In these nations, the legislature's job is to enact laws, and
the judiciary's job is to check that those laws abide by the constitution. The
President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly, and the
President of the Senate appoint nine members of the Constitutional Council,
which oversees judicial review in France. The Council's decisions are final and
it has the authority to overturn laws that it deems to be unconstitutional.
Judicial
review is the domain of the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany. The Court
can order the government to amend laws that it finds to be unconstitutional.
All other courts and governmental organisations must abide by the Court's
rulings. In Japan, laws can be declared unconstitutional and the Constitution can
be interpreted by the Supreme Court. There is no parliamentary override
mechanism, and its decisions are final and enforceable.
Landmark
Cases from Other Countries that Demonstrate the Tension between Parliamentary
Sovereignty and Judicial Supremacy[18]
1. Marbury v. Madison, (1803)- The United
States Supreme Court has the authority to invalidate laws that it finds to be
unconstitutional because of this historic case that established the judicial
review principle.[19]
The case not only established the US's judicial supremacy principle but also
highlighted the conflict between it and the UK's parliamentary sovereignty
doctrine. In the process, the case also established the US's judicial supremacy
principle and illustrated the conflict between it and the UK's parliamentary
sovereignty doctrine.
2.
Minister
of Home Affairs v. Fisher, (1979)- In this
instance, the South African Constitutional Court ruled that a statute
permitting the detention of people without charge or trial was
unconstitutional. [20]The
case highlighted the conflict between the judicial supremacy principle and the
parliamentary sovereignty doctrine that had previously prevailed in South
Africa, as well as the role of the judiciary in defending fundamental rights
and freedoms.
3. Roe v. Wade, (1973)- In this
historic US case, state laws restricting access to abortion were overturned and
the right to an abortion was declared a constitutional right. [21]The
case illustrated the conflict between the ideas of parliamentary sovereignty
and judicial supremacy, as well as the judiciary's role in interpreting the US
Constitution and defending individual rights.
Parliamentary
sovereignty and judicial supremacy stand as pivotal legal doctrines that have
profoundly influenced the constitutional structures of numerous nations
globally. While parliamentary sovereignty predominates in common law
jurisdictions, civil law countries adhere to the principle of judicial
supremacy. Landmark legal cases from various nations vividly illustrate the
inherent tension between these doctrines and the perpetual endeavour to
harmonize the powers of the legislature and judiciary within democratic
frameworks.
The
research employs a comparative analysis methodology, examining case studies
from various countries to explore the implementation and impact of
parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy. Data will be collected from
legal documents, scholarly articles, and official reports. It involves a
systematic literature review to identify key concepts and to examine real-world
applications. Findings will be triangulated to ensure validity and reliability.
The research will also consider historical context and legal precedents to
provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding the
interaction between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy.
In
modern governance systems, the optimal balance between parliamentary
sovereignty and judicial supremacy is crucial for ensuring effective lawmaking,
protecting individual rights, and upholding democratic principles. It suggests
that a harmonious interplay between these principles promotes stability,
accountability, and the rule of law.
ANALYSIS-
Possible Approaches to Reconciling Parliamentary Sovereignty
and Judicial Supremacy are as follows:
Judicial deference to the
Legislature: A possible solution to balance
judicial supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty is for the judiciary to submit
to the legislature when making policy decisions. According to this strategy,
the courts would only get involved when there was an obvious infringement on
someone's constitutional rights or values. This strategy is frequently linked
to parliamentary sovereignty because it gives the legislature the freedom to
decide without worrying about court interference. This approach's primary
benefit is that it upholds the principles of parliamentary sovereignty by
enabling the legislature to make decisions without fear of judicial
intervention. However, because the court would not step in until there was an
obvious violation, this strategy could also result in the violation of
fundamental rights and principles.[22]
Judicial
activism: Another strategy is for the judiciary to actively
participate in limiting the legislative branch's authority. According to this
strategy, the judiciary would actively monitor legislative actions to make sure
they adhere to the ideals and principles of the constitution. This method,
which gives the judiciary the authority to overturn legislative decisions, is
frequently linked to judicial supremacy. This approach's primary benefit is
that it gives the judiciary the authority to defend constitutional rights and
principles against potential legislative violations. But this strategy can also
be viewed as undemocratic since it gives the courts the power to overturn the
choices made by elected officials.[23]
Dialogue
theory:
The dialogue theory is a third strategy that contends that in order to
balance their different responsibilities, the legislature and the judiciary
should have ongoing conversations. This strategy would allow the judiciary to
overturn unconstitutional laws while simultaneously facilitating communication
between the legislature and the judiciary to help reconcile their respective
roles. The two branches of government must, however, have a high degree of
trust in one another for this strategy to work, which may not always be feasible.[24]
How Other Countries Have Reconciled
Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Supremacy-
United
States: The US Supreme Court has the authority to overturn any legislation or
action that is in violation of the US Constitution. This is known as the
judicial supremacy doctrine. Nonetheless, the separation of powers principle
guarantees the legislative branch's substantial legislative authority. The
framework for cooperation and power checks between the two branches is provided
by the Constitution. In actuality, this means that while the legislative branch
has the authority to amend both the Constitution and the laws, the Supreme
Court interprets the Constitution and declares unconstitutional laws
unconstitutional. [25]
Germany: With
certain restrictions, Germany practices parliamentary sovereignty. Any law that
contravenes the German Basic Law (Constitution) may be reviewed by the German
Constitutional Court and overturned. But the court lacks the authority to enact
laws or decide on matters of policy. This implies that while the German
Parliament continues to be the main legislative body, the Constitutional Court
serves as a check on its authority.[26]
Canada: The
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms offers some protection for individual
rights, but the country adheres to the theory of parliamentary sovereignty. The
Canadian Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Charter and overturn
legislation that contravenes it. This implies that the Parliament must consider
the Charter when enacting laws, even though it is still the main legislative
body. [27]
In each of
these situations, a system of checks and balances is used to manage the
conflict between judicial supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty. In order to
prevent any one branch from becoming overly dominant, the various branches of
government cooperate with one another to limit each other's authority. In
the end, the tension between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy
is best managed through a system of checks and balances, where the different
branches of government work together to limit each other's power and ensure
that no one branch becomes too dominant. This helps to ensure that both concepts can coexist in a functional democracy,
with the ultimate goal of protecting individual rights and promoting the common
good.
As far as
we can tell, there are a lot of distinctions between parliamentary and
constitutional supremacy, and different nations have chosen to adopt either
one. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but in my opinion, constitutional
supremacy is more advantageous and "balanced" than parliamentary
supremacy. The parliament is the ultimate authority, as demonstrated by the
case of the United Kingdom, and no court of law or other body has the authority
to even challenge a law that is under dispute. The aforementioned law will not
be deemed unconstitutional even if it oppresses 90% [28]of
the population. On the other hand, under the doctrine of constitutional
supremacy, a law is declared void or invalid if it conflicts with the
constitution. Laws passed by the Parliament must also adhere to the
constitutional framework; otherwise, they will be declared invalid and
unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court determines that a law passed by the
parliament violates or is inconsistent with the constitution, it has the power
to intervene and take appropriate action. Additionally, citizens have more
power and control over the government and laws passed thanks to constitutional
supremacy. For example, if citizens believe that a particular law violates
their fundamental rights or is not beneficial, they can file a petition in a
court of law, and the issue will be given top priority. On the other hand, as
long as Parliamentary Supremacy is in place, the people living in those nations
lack this right and are powerless to change it.
The
examination of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy reveals the
intricate dynamics between legislative autonomy and judicial oversight within
governance systems worldwide. These concepts, while originating from distinct
historical contexts, continue to shape the legal frameworks and democratic
governance structures of nations globally. In India, the interplay between
parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy is particularly pronounced,
reflecting the nation's constitutional journey and the evolving role of its
judiciary in interpreting and upholding the Constitution. The landmark cases
discussed, such as Kesavananda Bharati, Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, S.R.
Bommai v. Union of India, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission
(NJAC) case of 2015, underscore the tension between these principles and the
ongoing debates over the balance of powers between the judiciary and the
legislature. This tension highlights fundamental disagreements over the
judiciary's role in democracy, with each perspective offering distinct visions
of governance and the separation of powers. The comparative analysis of
parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy across various legal systems
further illuminates the diversity of approaches adopted by nations worldwide.
Common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New
Zealand predominantly adhere to parliamentary sovereignty, while civil law
nations like France, Germany, and Japan uphold the principle of judicial supremacy.
Landmark legal cases from these countries vividly illustrate the inherent
tension between these doctrines and the perpetual endeavour to harmonize the
powers of the legislature and judiciary within democratic frameworks.
In
light of these findings, it becomes evident that while both parliamentary
sovereignty and judicial supremacy have their merits and drawbacks, the
doctrine of constitutional supremacy, as exemplified by judicial supremacy,
offers a more balanced and advantageous approach. As nations continue to
navigate the complexities of governance and constitutional interpretation, the
quest for the optimal balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial
supremacy remains paramount for the preservation of democratic principles and
the rule of law.
BIBLIOGRAPHY-
Judicial
Supremacy v. Parliamentary Sovereignty in India, Lloyd Law College, https://www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/blog/judicial-supremacy-v-parliamentary-supremacy.html
Anand Nandan, Parliamentary Supremacy
and Judicial Review: Indian Perspective, Indian, Times of India, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/les-avis/parliamentary-supermacy-and-judicial-review-indian-perspective/
Rushikesh Kekade and Aditi Mishra,
Judicial Supremacy V. Parliamentary Supremacy in India, International Journal
of Research Publication and Reviews
INDIA
CONST. art. 14
INDIA
CONST. art. 124 cl.1
D.C.
Chauhan, Parliamentary Sovereignty Vs Judicial Supremacy in India, The Indian
Journal of Political Science, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24701031
Kesavananda Bharati
v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
Indira Nehru Gandhi
v. Raj Narain & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 2299
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association & Anr. v.
Union of India, (2016) 2 SCC (LS) 253
M.V. Geethika Reddy, Parliamentary
Sovereignty V. Judicial Supremacy World and India, Vol.5, HeinOnline, 2023
Anand
Nandan, Parliamentary Supremacy and Judicial Review: Indian Perspective,
Indian, Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/les-avis/parliamentary-supermacy-and-judicial-review-indian-perspective/
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803)
Minister
of Home Affairs v. Fisher, 1979 44 WIR 107
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Prof.
Dr. Nishtha Jaswal, Dr. Lakhwinder Singh, Judicial Activism in India,
Manupatra, 2017
Centre
for Constitutional Studies, https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/dialogue-theory-2/#:~:text=What%20is%20'Dialogue%20Theory'%3F,and%20judicial%20branches%20of%20government.
David
Collins, Judicial Review and Parliamentary Supremacy, Judicature, 2020
[1] Rushikesh Kekade and Aditi Mishra,
Judicial Supremacy V. Parliamentary Supremacy in India, Vol.5, International
Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 1040-1044, 2024
[2] Judicial Supremacy v.
Parliamentary Sovereignty in India, Lloyd Law College, https://www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/blog/judicial-supremacy-v-parliamentary-supremacy.html
(last visited April 9th, 2024)
[3] LawBhoomi, https://lawbhoomi.com/parliamentary-sovereignty-in-india/
(last visited April 9th, 2024)
[4] Anand Nandan, Parliamentary
Supremacy and Judicial Review: Indian Perspective, Indian, Times of India,(
April. 9th, 2024, 7.30 PM), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/les-avis/parliamentary-supermacy-and-judicial-review-indian-perspective/
[5] Unacademy, https://unacademy.com/content/railway-exam/study-material/polity/judicial-supremacy/#:~:text=Judicial%20supremacy%20is%20a%20concept,of%20that%20system%20are%20paramount.
(last visited, 9th April 2024)
[6] INDIA CONST. art. 14
[7] INDIA CONST. art. 124 cl.1
[8] Rushikesh Kekade and Aditi Mishra,
Judicial Supremacy V. Parliamentary Supremacy in India, Vol.5, International
Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 1040-1044, 2024
[9] D.C. Chauhan, Parliamentary
Sovereignty Vs Judicial Supremacy in India, Vol.74, No.1, The Indian Journal of
Political Science, 99-106, 2013, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24701031
[10] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
[11] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain & Anr., AIR 1975 SC
2299
[12] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
[13] Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association & Anr. v.
Union of India, (2016) 2 SCC (LS) 253
[15] M.V. Geethika Reddy, Parliamentary
Sovereignty V. Judicial Supremacy World and India, Vol.5, Heinonline, 2023
[16] Parliamentary Education Office, https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/system-of-government/parliament-and-the-courts#:~:text=The%20decisions%20of%20judges%2C%20which,This%20is%20called%20parliamentary%20supremacy.
(last visited April. 11th, 2024)
[17] Anvaya Singh, Constitutional
Supremacy or Parliamentary Sovereignty, Judicateme, (April. 10, 2024, 9.30 PM),
https://judicateme.com/constitutional-supremacy-or-parliamentary-sovereignty/
[18] Anand Nandan, Parliamentary
Supremacy and Judicial Review: Indian Perspective, Indian, Times of India,(
April. 9th, 2024, 7.30 PM), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/les-avis/parliamentary-supermacy-and-judicial-review-indian-perspective/
[20] Minister of Home Affairs v.
Fisher, 1979 44 WIR 107
[21] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
[23] Prof. Dr. Nishtha Jaswal, Dr.
Lakhwinder Singh, Judicial Activism in India, Manupatra, 2017
[25] David Collins, Judicial Review and
Parliamentary Supremacy, Vol.104, No. 1, Judicature, 2020
[26] European Constitutionalism and
German Basic Law, Springer Link, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-273-6_10
[27] Government of Canada, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/rfcp-cdlp.html
[28] Anvaya Singh, Constitutional
Supremacy or Parliamentary Sovereignty, Judicateme, (April. 10, 2024, 9.30 PM),
https://judicateme.com/constitutional-supremacy-or-parliamentary-sovereignty/
Article Information
EXPLORING THE NEXUS OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Authors: RADHIKA GAWALI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/05/23
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.