Introduction
The concept of parliamentary sovereignty forms the foundation of many democratic systems. In the United Kingdom, Parliament enjoys absolute supremacy because the Constitution is unwritten and flexible. India, however, follows a different path. When the Constituent Assembly drafted the Constitution, it chose to create a system where Parliament exercises wide law-making powers, yet remains subject to constitutional limits. Understanding the scope and limitations of Parliament’s sovereignty is essential because it helps explain how Indian democracy balances authority, accountability and constitutional supremacy. This topic becomes particularly important for law students, UPSC aspirants and anyone trying to understand the federal structure of India.
Meaning of Parliamentary Sovereignty in India
Parliamentary sovereignty in India refers to the authority of the Parliament to make, amend or repeal laws for the country. This authority covers subjects in the Union List and, in certain situations, the Concurrent List. Parliament also holds the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, which makes it one of the most powerful institutions in the country.
However, unlike the British Parliament, India’s Parliament does not enjoy unlimited power. Its authority flows from the Constitution, and not the other way around. Therefore, while Parliament plays a central role in shaping law and governance, it must always act within constitutional boundaries. The supremacy of the Constitution ensures that Parliament operates under a structured framework that prioritises rights, justice and democratic values.
Why Parliamentary Sovereignty in India Is Not Absolute
India adopted a written Constitution in order to create a stable legal structure. This written framework distributes powers among the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. It also protects fundamental rights and establishes federal principles. Because of this, parliamentary sovereignty cannot override constitutional supremacy. If Parliament attempts to pass a law that violates the Constitution, courts can strike it down.
This system prevents concentration of power and guards the rights of citizens. The intention of the framers was clear: Parliament should remain strong, but not uncontrolled. The experience of colonial rule convinced leaders that unlimited legislative authority could lead to abuse. Therefore, the Constitution deliberately created a system in which Parliament enjoys power, but only within defined limits.
Scope of Parliament’s Law-Making Powers
The Constitution grants Parliament the authority to legislate on a wide range of subjects. It is free to frame laws on any matter in the Union List. It also shares authority with states on subjects in the Concurrent List. During emergencies, Parliament’s authority expands significantly. It gains the power to legislate even on matters listed in the State List. This ensures national stability in extraordinary situations.
Parliament also possesses the power to change the Constitution. This amending power makes it possible for the legislature to adapt the constitutional structure to new social and political realities. However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amending power has shaped the limits within which Parliament can act.
The Indian Parliament also influences governance through budgetary control, oversight of the executive, and the ability to create new states or change their boundaries. These functions underline Parliament’s central role, but they do not make it fully sovereign in the absolute sense.
Judicial Review: The Strongest Limitation
The power of judicial review represents the most significant limitation on parliamentary sovereignty. The Supreme Court and High Courts review legislation to ensure conformity with the Constitution. If a law violates fundamental rights, disturbs federal balance or undermines constitutional principles, the courts have the authority to invalidate it.
This limitation emerged from constitutional design, but the judiciary strengthened it through landmark judgments. In the early years, courts allowed Parliament wider freedom. Gradually, as constitutional challenges increased, judicial review became more assertive. Today, judicial review stands as a cornerstone of Indian democracy, ensuring that parliamentary authority does not supersede constitutional values.
Basic Structure Doctrine: A Permanent Restraint on Sovereignty
The Basic Structure Doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case changed the understanding of parliamentary sovereignty forever. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This doctrine created a powerful safeguard against excessive amendments.
The basic structure includes essential features such as the rule of law, judicial review, secularism, separation of powers and federalism. If an amendment destroys or damages these principles, the courts can strike it down. This doctrine prevents Parliament from transforming the nature of the Constitution. It ensures continuity and protects the identity of India’s democratic framework.
The doctrine has been reaffirmed in several other judgments. Each ruling emphasises that while Parliament holds the power to amend, its sovereignty is not absolute. Constitutional morality and democratic principles limit Parliament’s reach.
Federal Structure and Division of Powers
India’s federal system places another limitation on parliamentary authority. The Constitution divides legislative powers between the Union and the states. Parliament cannot legislate on matters that belong exclusively to the State List unless special conditions apply. Even on matters in the Concurrent List, a central law prevails only when it does not violate the Constitution.
This federal division ensures that Parliament respects regional autonomy. States possess their own elected legislatures, which enjoy constitutionally protected authority. This separation of powers prevents Parliament from assuming complete control and reinforces the idea that sovereignty in India belongs to the Constitution, not a single institution.
Fundamental Rights as a Constraint
Fundamental rights represent a major restraint on parliamentary action. Any law that infringes these rights becomes invalid. Articles 14, 19 and 21 form part of the golden triangle of rights, and courts interpret violations very strictly. This means Parliament cannot pass a law that creates unreasonable discrimination, restricts freedoms without justification or violates the right to life and dignity.
Even during emergencies, certain rights cannot be suspended. The 44th Constitutional Amendment introduced more safeguards to prevent misuse. These protections ensure that parliamentary power does not reduce individual liberty.
Role of the President in Limiting Parliamentary Powers
Although the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, the President plays a constitutional role in the law-making process. A bill becomes law only after receiving presidential assent. The President may return a non-money bill for reconsideration. This mechanism adds another check, even if it operates within narrow limits.
The President also enjoys the power to reserve bills for the consideration of the President of India in the case of state laws. This creates a balance between state and central legislation, demonstrating how the constitutional structure distributes authority and prevents concentration of power.
Judicial Independence as a Constitutional Safeguard
Judicial independence functions as another strong limitation on parliamentary sovereignty. The judiciary remains free from legislative and executive interference. It performs the critical role of reviewing constitutional amendments, interpreting statutes and protecting fundamental rights.
Parliament cannot interfere with the functioning of the courts. It may pass laws, but courts determine constitutionality. This system ensures that the balance of power remains intact, preventing any branch of government from overpowering the others.
Amending Power vs. Constitutional Identity
The amending power of Parliament under Article 368 offers flexibility, but courts ensure that amendments do not alter the identity of the Constitution. Parliament has used its amending power extensively to correct errors, expand rights and adjust governance mechanisms. However, amendments that attempt to remove judicial review, eliminate federalism or concentrate power face judicial resistance.
This interaction between Parliament and the judiciary creates a dynamic balance. Parliament possesses the authority to reform, but not to dismantle the foundational principles.
Political Accountability and Public Opinion
Democratic accountability places a natural check on Parliament. Members of Parliament answer to the people, and public opinion influences legislative decisions. If Parliament enacts unpopular or unconstitutional laws, citizens can challenge them in court or reject the government in elections.
This democratic process reinforces the idea that sovereignty ultimately rests with the people. Parliament functions as their representative body, but not as an all-powerful entity. The will of the people, expressed through elections and democratic institutions, acts as a guiding force for legislative action.
Overall Assessment of Parliamentary Sovereignty in India
The Indian Parliament remains powerful, but its authority operates within strict constitutional limits. Judicial review, basic structure doctrine, federal division of powers, protection of fundamental rights and democratic accountability create a system of balanced governance. This structure prevents concentration of power and preserves constitutional democracy.
The Indian model neither adopts absolute parliamentary sovereignty nor restricts Parliament excessively. Instead, it balances parliamentary authority with constitutional supremacy. The Constitution stands at the top of this hierarchy, guiding every institution and safeguarding democratic principles.
Conclusion
The sovereignty of the Indian Parliament reflects a unique constitutional design that emphasises authority with accountability. Parliament enjoys broad legislative and amending powers, yet these powers remain limited by judicial oversight, fundamental rights, federal principles and the basic structure doctrine. This balanced framework ensures that no single institution controls the constitutional order. The Indian Constitution, rather than Parliament, remains supreme. The limitations placed on parliamentary sovereignty protect democracy, preserve rights and maintain the federal structure. As India continues to evolve, the partnership between Parliament, the judiciary and the Constitution will remain essential for the stability and integrity of the nation’s governance.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
