M.V. Geethika Reddy, Alliance School of Law, Alliance University, Bangalore
ABSTRACT:
This article "Parliamentary Sovereignty v. Judicial Supremacy: World and India" compares the legal systems used by countries with common law and those with civil law. The essay briefly addresses the positive and negative aspects of judicial review and parliamentary sovereignty and also judicial supremacy.
According to the concept of "parliamentary sovereignty," the parliament is a nation's top law-making body, and no other institution has the authority to overrule it. Contrarily, judicial supremacy refers to the belief that the judiciary is the final arbiter of constitutional problems and that it has the power to invalidate any law approved by the Parliament if it is seen to be in violation of the Constitution. In interpreting the Constitution and invalidating laws that are deemed to be unconstitutional, the Indian court has taken a proactive role. This has drawn some criticism from some who contend that the judiciary is invading the legislative branch's authority.
Both in India and around the world, there is a complicated and ongoing discussion about the relative merits of judicial and parliamentary supremacy. To defend individuals' rights and uphold the Constitution, it is crucial to find a balance between the two.
Keywords: Parliament sovereignty, judicial supremacy, constitutional law, constitution, judicial review, citizen’s rights, balance, powers of the parliament, independent judiciary, fundamental rights.
