PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY VS. JUDICIAL SUPREMACY: ANALYSING THEIR IMPACT ON UPHOLDING PEOPLE’S RIGHTS IN COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

AUTHOR – ISHA DEVESHWAR, RESEARCH SCHOLAR AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH. EMAIL – ISHADEVESHWAR54@GMAIL.COM

BEST CITATION – ISHA DEVESHWAR, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY VS. JUDICIAL SUPREMACY: ANALYSING THEIR IMPACT ON UPHOLDING PEOPLE’S RIGHTS IN COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (5) OF 2025, PG. 402-414, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

Abstract

 Examining the principles of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Supremacy, this article evaluates their individual effects on protecting people’s rights inside comparative constitutional settings.  Common in the United Kingdom, Parliamentary Sovereignty stresses the total legislative power of Parliament, hence claiming that any other institution cannot override legislation passed by it.  On the other hand, Judicial Supremacy, shown by the constitutional framework of the United States and India, gives the court, especially the Supreme Court, power to interpret constitutional provisions, therefore possibly overriding legislative acts by means of judicial review to preserve basic rights.  This study investigates how every theory influences the safeguarding of democratic government and civil rights.  The article looks at historic cases and constitutional changes in the UK, India, and the US using a comparative constitutional method, hence stressing the conflict between legislative purpose and judicial interpretation.  Although Parliamentary Sovereignty can provide clarity and democratic legitimacy, it runs the risk of majoritarian dominance and the violation of minority rights.  Though important in protecting rights against political excesses, Judicial Supremacy could also cause worries about democratic deficiency and judicial activity, hence challenging the suitable boundaries of judicial power.  By means of this comparative study, the article finds that no theory in isolation ensures the efficient defence of people’s rights.  A balanced approach—constitutional discussion or cooperation between the legislature and judiciary—instead may perhaps harmonise democratic responsibility with strong rights protection.  Therefore, knowing how various countries balance these precepts offers insightful analysis of constitutional design and the continuous struggle to defend individual rights among rival institutional forces.

Keywords: Parliamentary Sovereignty, Judicial Supremacy, Comparative Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Judicial Review