PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY VS. CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
AUTHOR – RHITIK YADAV, LL.M. 2ND SEMESTER (2 YEARS PROGRAMME)
UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD, PRAYAGRAJ
BEST CITATION – RHITIK YADAV, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY VS. CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (3) OF 2026, PG. 909-921, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
ABSTRACT
This article undertakes a rigorous comparative examination of two foundational but contrasting constitutional doctrines: parliamentary sovereignty, as classically developed and applied in the United Kingdom, and constitutional supremacy, as enshrined and evolved in the Republic of India. Employing doctrinal, historical, and comparative methodologies, the article traces the philosophical origins, institutional embodiments, and judicial elaborations of each doctrine. It demonstrates that while the United Kingdom has historically vested supreme legislative authority in Parliament, rendering statute law immune from judicial invalidation, India adopted at its independence a written, justiciable, and supreme Constitution that subordinates all legislative and executive action to constitutional norms. The article further analyses how both systems have evolved under contemporary pressures — including rights adjudication, supranational obligations, and judicial assertiveness — and concludes that despite different starting points, both constitutions are converging towards a model in which neither the legislature nor the judiciary enjoys absolute supremacy, but rather each is constrained by an implicit or explicit commitment to constitutionalism, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights.
Keywords: Parliamentary Sovereignty, Constitutional Supremacy, Basic Structure Doctrine, Judicial Review, Dicey, Human Rights Act, Kesavananda Bharti , Rule of Law, Comparative Constitutional Law.