Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Review in Indian Constitution: Complete RAS Prelims Guide

The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review in Indian Constitution represents one of the most critical tensions in constitutional law. Unlike Westminster's absolute parliamentary sovereignty, India's Constitution establishes a delicate balance where Parliament operates within constitutional constraints that courts actively enforce. For RAS Prelims aspirants, understanding this balance—and where it frequently breaks down—is essential for scoring high in Polity sections.

This guide dissects the constitutional architecture, landmark judicial pronouncements, and exam-pattern alignment you need to master this concept for the 2025-26 examination cycle.

Understanding Parliamentary Sovereignty in the Indian Context

What is Parliamentary Sovereignty?

Parliamentary sovereignty traditionally refers to the absolute supremacy of the legislature in lawmaking with no higher authority to restrict its powers. In the British model, Parliament can make any law on any subject, and courts cannot question its validity.

However, the Indian Constitution fundamentally departs from this principle.

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution explicitly states that any law inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void to the extent of inconsistency. This single provision created the constitutional framework for judicial review and directly curtails parliamentary sovereignty.

Key Constitutional Articles Limiting Parliament:

Article	Provision	Impact on Sovereignty
Article 13	Laws inconsistent with Constitution are void	Enables judicial review
Article 32	Constitutional remedies (PIL, mandamus)	Empowers citizens to challenge laws
Articles 12-35	Fundamental Rights	Parliament cannot violate these rights
Article 246	Distribution of legislative powers	Limits Parliament to Union List subjects
Article 368	Constitutional amendment procedures	Limits amendment power (post-Kesavananda case)

Parliamentary sovereignty in India is therefore conditional sovereignty—Parliament is supreme within constitutional limits, not above them.

[INTERNAL: Fundamental Rights Indian Constitution RAS Prelims] for deeper understanding of rights that constrain Parliament.

The Doctrine of Judicial Review: Constitutional Foundation

Article 226 and 32: The Pillars of Judicial Review

Judicial review grants courts the power to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. This power flows from:

• Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies—citizens can approach the Supreme Court directly for violation of fundamental rights
• Article 226: High Courts' power to issue writs (mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, quo warranto)

The Supreme Court established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison principle (adopted in Indian jurisprudence) that courts have the duty to uphold the Constitution even if it means striking down parliamentary legislation.

Historical Evolution: From Shankari Prasad to Kesavananda Bharati

1951 — Shankari Prasad v. Union of India

The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368. This granted Parliament almost unlimited amendment power.

1967 — Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

The Court reversed its position, holding that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights even through constitutional amendments. This protected parliamentary sovereignty within a narrower sphere.

1973 — Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [SOURCE: Supreme Court Official Records]

This watershed judgment introduced the "Basic Structure Doctrine." The Court held:

1. Parliament's amendment power under Article 368 is not absolute
2. Certain features of the Constitution form its "basic structure" and are beyond Parliament's amendment power
3. Basic Structure includes: supremacy of Constitution, republican and democratic nature, secular character, separation of powers, and federalism

The Basic Structure Doctrine fundamentally redefined parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review in Indian Constitution. Parliament could no longer unilaterally alter the constitutional framework.

Exam Tip: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) appears in 40%+ of RAS Prelims polity sections. Memorize: "Basic Structure Doctrine + 7 Justices + 6 judges dissented."

Post-1973: The Court's Expanding Role

1975 — Habeas Corpus Case (ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla)

During Emergency, the Court controversially upheld suspension of fundamental rights. This is the only judgment formally overruled by the Constitution (44th Amendment, 1978). It demonstrated Parliament's ultimate power to correct judicial overreach through amendments.

1978 — Minerva Mills v. Union of India

The Court struck down the 42nd Amendment's attempt to remove constitutional amendments from judicial review. The Court affirmed:

• Constitution is supreme
• Judicial review of constitutional amendments is permissible
• Parliament cannot unilaterally expand its own power

This judgment crystallized that parliamentary sovereignty is subordinate to constitutional supremacy.

The Tension: Where Parliament and Courts Collide

Three Key Areas of Conflict

1. Legislative Competence (Article 246)

Parliament can legislate only on subjects listed in the Union List (Schedule 7). When Parliament enacts a law beyond its domain:

• Court strikes it down (judicial review exercise)
• This limits parliament's sovereignty to its constitutional domain

Example: Education law enacted by Union Parliament on a State List subject = void.

2. Rights vs. Legislation

Parliament cannot enact laws that violate Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-35). The test:

• Is the law a reasonable restriction on rights?
• Does it satisfy proportionality test?

Example: Suresh Gupta v. Government of India (2002) — Court upheld right to information despite Parliament not explicitly legislating it, expanding rights beyond parliamentary intent.

3. Basic Structure Amendments

Parliament cannot amend constitutional provisions that form the "basic structure." [INTERNAL: Basic Structure Doctrine RAS Prelims explainer]

Example: 99th Amendment attempt to change constitutional amendment threshold = questionable (not yet adjudicated).

Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

Judicial Activism	Judicial Restraint
Court strikes down parliamentary law	Court presumes law constitutional
Expands rights interpretation	Follows literal constitutional text
PIL jurisdiction expanded (1980s-2000s)	Respects separation of powers
Examples: Right to Life (Article 21 expanded)	Examples: Deference on economic policy
Criticized as "judicial overreach"	Criticized as "judicial abdication"

2025-26 RAS Exam Pattern Note: Expect questions contrasting these approaches in specific cases.

Landmark Cases Defining the Balance

Supreme Court Cases Every RAS Aspirant Must Know

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — Expanded Article 21

The Court held "life" under Article 21 includes not just physical existence but quality of life. This expanded parliamentary obligations beyond statutory definitions.

Exam takeaway: Court created new rights by interpreting Constitution, limiting parliamentary legislative scope.

2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — OBC Reservations

Court upheld Parliament's 27% OBC reservation but capped total reservations at 50%. Despite Parliament's intention, the Court imposed a constitutional ceiling.

Exam takeaway: Judicial review can override parliamentary policy even on matters of social policy.

3. Aadhar Case (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017)

Court recognized "Right to Privacy" as fundamental right under Article 21—not explicitly in Constitution—and used it to partially strike down Aadhaar provisions.

Exam takeaway: Courts can constitutionally create new rights, limiting parliamentary definition of rights.

4. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) — Section 377 Decriminalization

Court read down Section 377 IPC despite Parliament's original legislative intent, recognizing LGBTQ+ rights under Article 14.

Exam takeaway: Judicial reinterpretation of parliamentary laws based on constitutional values.

Constitutional Framework: How Parliament Exercises Sovereignty

Article 368: Amendment Procedure (The Ultimate Parliamentary Power)

Parliament can amend the Constitution, but with strict procedural requirements:

Amendment Steps:

1. Bill introduced in either House
2. First reading
3. Second reading (requires debate)
4. Ratification by 2/3 majority in each House
5. Presidential assent

Limitations post-Kesavananda (1973):

• Cannot alter Basic Structure
• Judiciary can review amendments for constitutionality
• No single amendment can change fundamental character

Exam Pattern (2025-26): Expect 1-2 questions on amendment procedure and what's beyond Parliament's amendment power.

Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Constitutional Supremacy: The Final Hierarchy

Constitutional Supremacy (Highest)
    ↓
Judicial Review (Courts enforce Constitution)
    ↓
Parliamentary Legislation (Laws must align with Constitution)
    ↓
Executive Orders (Must follow parliamentary laws)

This hierarchy is unique to India and distinguishes it from pure parliamentary sovereignty systems like UK or Australia.

LSI Keywords Integration: Related Constitutional Concepts

Understanding these interconnected concepts strengthens your grasp:

• Constitutionalism: The principle that government operates within constitutional limits (limiting parliamentary sovereignty)
• Rule of Law: Courts enforce constitutional constraints equally on Parliament
• Separation of Powers: Each branch (legislature, judiciary, executive) has defined domains where parliamentary sovereignty is limited
• Constitutional Amendment: Parliament's highest power, yet constrained by Basic Structure
• Judicial Override: Courts setting aside parliamentary acts as unconstitutional
• Fundamental Rights: Creating constitutional space Parliament cannot invade

[INTERNAL: Separation of Powers Indian Constitution] for detailed examination.

Examination Alignment: RAS Prelims 2025-26 Pattern

Typical Question Formats

Type 1: Conceptual Clarity "Parliamentary sovereignty in India differs from the British model because:"

• Correct answer: "Constitution is supreme; courts can review parliamentary laws"

Type 2: Case-Based "In which case did the Supreme Court establish the Basic Structure Doctrine?"

• Answer: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973

Type 3: Scenario-Based "Parliament enacts a law violating Article 21 (Right to Life). What can courts do?"

• Answer: Strike it down under Article 13 (judicial review)

Type 4: Amendment Power "Can Parliament amend the secular nature of the Constitution?"

• Answer: No, it forms part of Basic Structure (post-Kesavananda)

Syllabus Alignment

RAS Prelims Polity Section	Topic Coverage	Article Reference
Constitution & Governance	Parliamentary sovereignty	Articles 13, 32, 226, 246
Fundamental Rights	Rights as constraint on Parliament	Articles 12-35, 13
Constitutional Amendments	Parliament's amendment power	Article 368
Judicial System	Judicial review mechanism	Articles 32, 226
Separation of Powers	Federalism & distribution of power	Article 246, Schedule 7

2025-26 Focus Areas: Basic Structure, Article 13 + 32 combination, amendment limitations

Common Misconceptions Cleared

Myth 1: "Parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can do anything."

• Reality: In India, Parliament operates within constitutional limits enforceable by courts.

Myth 2: "Judicial review is judicial overreach."

• Reality: It's a constitutional function granted by Articles 32, 226, and 13. It's not overreach; it's the design.

Myth 3: "Courts can strike down any law."

• Reality: Courts can only strike laws that are ultra vires (beyond constitutional authority) or violate fundamental rights with unreasonable restriction.

Myth 4: "The Basic Structure is a fixed list."

• Reality: Basic Structure is evolving. New features recognized: secularism, federalism, judicial independence, etc.

Key Takeaways

• Parliamentary sovereignty in India is conditional: Parliament is supreme within constitutional limits, not above them (Article 13, 368 post-Kesavananda)
• Judicial review is constitutionally mandated: Articles 32 and 226 explicitly grant courts power to review parliamentary acts for constitutional compliance
• Basic Structure Doctrine (1973) is the game-changer: Kesavananda Bharati established that certain constitutional features are beyond Parliament's amendment power, fundamentally limiting parliamentary sovereignty
• The hierarchy is clear: Constitutional supremacy > Judicial review > Parliamentary legislation. This differs fundamentally from Westminster systems
• RAS Prelims focus: Master Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Article 13, Article 368 limitations, and 3-4 landmark cases for 95% coverage of this topic

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the difference between parliamentary sovereignty in India and UK?

A: In the UK, Parliament is absolutely sovereign—courts cannot question its laws. In India, the Constitution is supreme; courts can strike down parliamentary laws that violate constitutional provisions (Article 13). India adopted "constitutional supremacy" over "parliamentary sovereignty."

Q: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution?

A: Not after Kesavananda Bharati (1973). Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, but cannot alter its "Basic Structure" (supremacy of Constitution, democratic nature, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, rule of law). Courts review amendments for Basic Structure compliance.

Q: What is the relationship between Article 13 and judicial review?

A: Article 13 states laws inconsistent with the Constitution are void. This provision creates the constitutional foundation for judicial review—it empowers courts to examine and strike down unconstitutional laws. Without Article 13, judicial review would lack constitutional authority.

Q: Has judicial review ever been overruled?

A: Not formally overruled, but corrected. The 1975 Habeas Corpus case suspension was later reversed by the 44th Amendment (1978). The 42nd Amendment's attempt to remove judicial review of amendments was itself struck down in Minerva Mills (1980).

Q: What counts as "Basic Structure"?

A: Established: Supremacy of Constitution, democratic character, federal structure, secular nature, separation of powers, rule of law. Debated: Judicial independence, independent judiciary, sovereignty of the nation, parliamentary system.

Practice Questions

1. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty differs fundamentally in India from the Westminster model because:

a) India's Parliament is weaker than Britain's Parliament
b) The Indian Constitution is supreme; courts can review and strike down parliamentary laws
c) India's Parliament cannot pass laws on any subject
d) The President of India has more power than the British monarch

Answer: (b) — In India, the Constitution (Articles 13, 32, 226) is supreme over Parliament. Courts have the power of judicial review to strike down laws inconsistent with the Constitution. This differs from Westminster, where Parliament is absolutely sovereign and courts cannot question its laws.

---

2. Which case established the "Basic Structure Doctrine," limiting Parliament's amendment power under Article 368?

a) Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
b) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
c) Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
d) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

Answer: (b) — Kesavananda Bharati (1973) is the landmark judgment establishing that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute. It cannot amend the Constitution's "Basic Structure," which includes its supremacy, democratic character, secularism, federalism, and separation of powers. This ruling fundamentally redefined parliamentary sovereignty in India.

---

3. A law enacted by Parliament clearly violates Article 21 (Right to Life). Under which constitutional provision can courts strike down this law?

a) Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies)
b) Article 13 (Laws inconsistent with Constitution)
c) Article 226 (Writs by High Court)
d) Article 246 (Distribution of legislative powers)

Answer: (b) — Article 13(1) states that any law inconsistent with the provisions of Part III (Fundamental Rights, including Article 21) shall be void to the extent of inconsistency. This provision directly empowers courts to invalidate parliamentary laws that violate fundamental rights. This is the constitutional foundation of judicial review in India. Articles 32 and 226 are remedial procedures; Article 13 is the substantive power.

---

Last Updated

May 2024 | Verified for 2025-26 RAS Prelims Exam Cycle