Parliament Or Judiciary : Which Is Supreme?
In a Democracy, Who is Supreme – Parliament or Judiciary?
In every democratic setup, the question of supremacy between various organs of the government often arises. This debate is especially relevant in countries like India, where the structure is based on the principle of separation of powers. Two of the most vital organs in a democracy — Parliament and Judiciary — frequently come under scrutiny when interpreting their powers and limitations. The fundamental question remains: Who is supreme in a democracy — Parliament or Judiciary? The answer lies not in identifying a singular supremacy but in understanding the delicate balance of power, with the Constitution as the highest authority.
Understanding the Structure of a Democracy
A democracy functions through three primary organs:
- Legislature (Parliament) – which makes the laws.
- Executive – which implements the laws.
- Judiciary – which interprets the laws.
Each organ operates within a defined framework, but overlaps and tensions can arise, especially between the legislature and judiciary. In India, a parliamentary democracy governed by a written Constitution, both Parliament and the Judiciary are powerful entities with constitutionally assigned roles. However, the Constitution is supreme, and all institutions must operate within its boundaries.
The Role of Parliament
The Indian Parliament represents the sovereign will of the people. Members of Parliament are elected to enact laws, amend existing laws, and ensure that the executive functions responsibly. Parliament has vast legislative powers as defined in the Union and Concurrent Lists of the Constitution. It also has the authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368. Through debates, discussions, and legislative actions, Parliament plays a critical role in shaping the legal and political framework of the country.
Parliament also holds the power to oversee the executive, ensuring accountability through mechanisms like question hour, zero hour, no-confidence motions, and parliamentary committees. It is thus a central institution in upholding democratic values and reflecting the voice of the people.
The Role of the Judiciary
The Judiciary in India, headed by the Supreme Court, is the guardian of the Constitution. It ensures that all laws passed by the Parliament conform to constitutional principles. Through the power of judicial review, it can strike down any law or executive action that violates fundamental rights or the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Judiciary is also entrusted with the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Over the decades, the Indian judiciary has played a transformative role in expanding the scope of rights through progressive interpretations. Its independence and integrity are fundamental to the idea of justice in a democratic society.
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers
The Indian Constitution does not explicitly lay down the doctrine of separation of powers as in the American model. However, it implies this principle by assigning different functions to different organs. Each organ is expected to act within its sphere, maintaining mutual respect and restraint.
However, this balance has been tested many times in Indian history, especially during constitutional amendments, judicial activism, and clashes between the two institutions. These instances often spark debates over the limits and supremacy of each branch.
Judicial Review vs. Parliamentary Sovereignty
A central issue in this debate is the power of judicial review — the ability of the judiciary to assess the constitutionality of laws. This power ensures that Parliament does not enact laws that contravene the Constitution. The landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic features.
This ruling clearly established that Parliament is not supreme — it is subordinate to the Constitution. Even constitutional amendments passed by a two-thirds majority can be reviewed and invalidated by the Supreme Court if they violate the basic structure.
This doctrine became a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law and reinforced the idea that the Constitution is supreme, not Parliament.
Judicial Activism and Checks on Parliament
The Judiciary in India has often taken an activist role to fill legislative and executive voids, especially on issues involving environmental protection, human rights, and corruption. While judicial activism has been praised for delivering justice where other institutions have failed, it has also been criticized for encroaching into the domain of the legislature.
Instances where courts have issued directives on administrative or policy matters have raised concerns about judicial overreach. However, defenders of judicial activism argue that such intervention becomes necessary when Parliament or the executive fails to perform its duties effectively or acts arbitrarily.
How Parliament Can Prevent Judicial Overreach
While the Judiciary must protect the Constitution, Parliament must also ensure that the principle of judicial restraint is respected and judicial overreach does not erode the democratic framework. Parliament can take several measures to curb potential misuse of judicial power:
- Robust and Precise Legislation:
One reason for judicial interference is vague or loosely worded laws. Parliament can minimize judicial interpretation by drafting clear, precise, and comprehensive laws that leave little room for ambiguity. - Constitutional Amendments (Within Basic Structure):
If Parliament feels that a judicial interpretation hinders governance or public interest, it can pass constitutional amendments — as long as they do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. For example, the First and Ninth Amendments were responses to judicial verdicts. - Legislative Debates and Public Discourse:
Parliamentarians can use debates, motions, and resolutions to highlight concerns regarding judicial overreach. This helps raise public awareness and encourages judicial restraint. - Reforming Judicial Appointments:
Through laws and constitutional amendments, Parliament can seek to reform the judicial appointment process, ensuring greater transparency and accountability without compromising judicial independence. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was one such attempt, though struck down by the Supreme Court. - Judicial Accountability Mechanisms:
Parliament can legislate mechanisms for judicial accountability, such as setting up an independent oversight body to address misconduct or ethical breaches, provided it does not interfere with the judiciary’s core independence. - Encouraging Institutional Dialogue:
A healthy democracy thrives on dialogue among institutions, not confrontation. Parliament can initiate formal or informal interactions with the judiciary to ensure better coordination, mutual respect, and understanding of constitutional roles.
Parliamentary Privilege and Judicial Restraint
Parliament, too, enjoys certain privileges that restrict judicial intervention in its internal proceedings. The courts generally refrain from interfering in the procedural conduct within the legislature. This mutual respect is essential to maintain institutional harmony.
However, when Parliament’s actions affect the rights of individuals or violate constitutional mandates, the judiciary can and does step in. In such cases, Parliament must carefully examine whether its conduct aligns with constitutional values.
Comparative Perspective: India vs. Other Democracies
In the United Kingdom, Parliament is considered sovereign due to the absence of a written constitution. The concept of parliamentary supremacy means that no court can declare an Act of Parliament invalid. On the other hand, in the United States, the doctrine of separation of powers is rigidly followed, and the Supreme Court has final authority in interpreting the Constitution, similar to India but with more defined boundaries.
India strikes a middle path, combining elements from both the British and American systems. The Indian model ensures a balance of power, with the Constitution acting as the final arbiter.
Conclusion: Constitution is Supreme
In conclusion, the question of whether Parliament or Judiciary is supreme in a democracy like India is best answered by affirming that neither holds absolute supremacy. Instead, the Constitution reigns supreme. Both Parliament and the Judiciary derive their authority from the Constitution and are bound by its provisions.
The Parliament enacts laws, but those laws must conform to constitutional principles, as interpreted by the Judiciary. The Judiciary interprets the Constitution and protects citizens’ rights, but it must also respect the domain of the legislature. This system of checks and balances ensures that no single organ becomes authoritarian, thus preserving the democratic ethos of the nation.
Importantly, while the Judiciary guards constitutional values, Parliament must be vigilant against judicial overreach. It must act with foresight, clarity, and constitutional responsibility to maintain institutional balance and uphold democratic sovereignty.
Comments are closed.