Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has vehemently maintained that Parliament is the paramount authority in India, emphasizing that no other entity is superior to it. Speaking at an event hosted by Delhi University, he criticized what he characterized as judicial overreach, particularly in response to a recent Supreme Court directive that imposed a three-month timeline for the president to act on bills sent for assent by state governors. Dhankhar contended that these judicial interventions infringe upon the authority of the executive and legislature and cautioned against the transformation of the judiciary into a “super Parliament.” He argued that the Constitution does not establish any authority beyond Parliament and that elected representatives are the ultimate custodians. He also emphasized the significance of constitutional functionaries and citizens in the preservation of democratic values, emphasizing that democracy is thriving as a result of active citizen engagement.
Dhankhar’s comments reignited a debate regarding the separation of powers in India and elicited criticism from legal and political figures. Kapil Sibal, a senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP, refuted Dhankhar’s assertions by asserting that the Constitution, not Parliament, is the paramount authority. Sibal criticized Dhankhar’s opposition to the Supreme Court’s judgments, highlighting that judicial review is a constitutional mechanism intended to preserve equilibrium among the branches of government. He emphasized that the judiciary’s responsibilities include the interpretation of the Constitution and that Parliament’s supremacy is not absolute if laws violate constitutional provisions. Sibal also cited historical precedents in which the judiciary acted independently, such as the case against former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, to exemplify the judiciary’s constitutional authority.
Other Major Democracies
The constitution of the United Kingdom is founded on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which establishes Parliament as the ultimate legal authority. Parliament has the authority to enact or repeal any law, and courts are generally prohibited from overruling its legislation. No Parliament has the authority to constrain future Parliaments, which means that laws can be amended or repealed by subsequent Parliaments. The United Kingdom lacks a singular codified constitution; rather, it is a combination of written and unwritten documents, with a significant portion of it being enshrined in statutes that have been enacted by Parliament. An Act of Parliament cannot be declared unconstitutional by the UK Supreme Court due to Parliament’s sovereign status. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court is responsible for the interpretation of laws and the enforcement of constitutional principles, including the rule of law and parliamentary accountability, by the government. For instance, in the 2019 prorogation case, the Supreme Court determined that the Prime Minister’s recommendation to prorogue Parliament was unlawful due to its interference with Parliament’s constitutional obligations. This demonstrated the Court’s ability to protect constitutional principles without jeopardizing parliamentary sovereignty.
In contrast, the Constitution in nations such as the United States establishes a system of separation of powers in which the Supreme Court (the judiciary) interprets and determines the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress (the legislature). The Supreme Court’s ability to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional effectively restricts legislative supremacy. In response, Congress is empowered to amend the Constitution or laws, which serves as an example of a system of checks and balances.
In India, which has a written constitution and a system of judicial review, the Supreme Court has the authority to invalidate laws passed by Parliament if they contravene the Constitution. The Indian Constitution does not explicitly distinguish between judicial and parliamentary supremacy; however, judicial review effectively enables the Supreme Court to scrutinize Parliament’s legislation.
Views of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi
The ideas and contributions of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi are widely recognized as the two foundational figures who are essential for understanding and resolving debates regarding the supremacy of Parliament versus the role of the judiciary in India’s constitutional democracy.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi held distinct yet complementary perspectives regarding the judiciary’s function and the supremacy of Parliament within India’s constitutional framework.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the primary architect of the Indian Constitution, was a staunch advocate for parliamentary democracy. However, he also underscored the significance of constitutional safeguards and judicial independence. He cautioned against the potential for Parliament to amend the Constitution excessively or arbitrarily, as he believed that unbridled parliamentary power could compromise the stability of the Constitution and the rights of individuals. Ambedkar promoted an equitable system in which the judiciary serves as a guardian of the Constitution, capable of safeguarding fundamental rights through judicial review. He considered Article 32, which grants the right to constitutional remedies, to be the “soul of the Constitution,” enabling the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights and serve as a check on legislative and executive excesses. Ambedkar opposed absolute veto powers for Parliament or the Chief Justice in relation to judicial appointments. He instead advocated for a consultative process that would preserve judicial independence while preventing political or individual dominance. The judiciary must be independent to prevent tyranny by the legislature or executive, as his vision was unambiguous.
Mahatma Gandhi’s perspectives on parliamentary supremacy were significantly influenced by his overarching philosophy of morality and democracy. Gandhi believed that laws and governance must be rooted in ethical principles and serve the welfare of all, particularly the marginalized, while also supporting democratic governance and the role of elected representatives. Gandhi underscored the concept of moral authority and the notion that genuine sovereignty is derived from the people and their conscience, rather than merely legislative power. Gandhi’s perspective, despite his lack of constitutional expertise in comparison to Ambedkar, emphasized the necessity of constraints on power, which included moral and social accountability beyond formal institutions.