How does India balance Parliamentary Sovereignty with Judicial Review?

Of course. Here is a conceptual answer to your question, structured for a UPSC aspirant.

---

Direct Answer

India balances Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Review through a unique constitutional framework described as a 'synthesis' or 'middle path'. Unlike the absolute Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK or the pronounced Judicial Supremacy in the USA, India's Constitution grants Parliament the power to make laws (Article 245) and amend the Constitution (Article 368), but subjects these laws to the scrutiny of the judiciary. The Supreme Court and High Courts can declare a law unconstitutional if it violates Fundamental Rights (Part III) or any other constitutional provision, a power derived from Article 13. This dynamic equilibrium is maintained by the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', which prevents Parliament from altering the fundamental essence of the Constitution.

Background

The framers of the Indian Constitution were acutely aware of the two dominant constitutional models of their time:

1. The British Model: Based on the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, where Parliament is the supreme law-making body and no authority, including the judiciary, can question the validity of its laws.
2. The American Model: Based on Judicial Supremacy, where the Federal Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution and can strike down laws made by the Congress.

India deliberately chose a hybrid system. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not Parliament. Parliament's legislative power is extensive but not absolute; it is limited by the written Constitution. The judiciary acts as the guardian of this Constitution, ensuring that legislative and executive actions conform to its provisions. This setup inherently creates a tension between the will of the elected representatives (Parliament) and the interpretive authority of the judiciary.

Core Explanation

The balance between Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Review has evolved through a series of legislative actions and judicial pronouncements. This tug-of-war is best understood through a chronological progression:

1. Initial Phase (Parliamentary Assertion): In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), the Supreme Court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute and included the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The Court reasoned that a constitutional amendment was not "law" in the sense of Article 13(2).

2. Judicial Pushback: The landmark case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) reversed this position. The Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights were "transcendental and immutable" and that Parliament had no power to curtail them. It declared that a constitutional amendment was indeed "law" under Article 13(2) and would be void if it abridged any Fundamental Right.

3. Parliamentary Reassertion: To nullify the Golaknath judgment, Parliament enacted the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971. It amended Article 13 and Article 368 to explicitly state that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and that such an amendment would not be considered "law" under Article 13.

4. The Synthesis (The Basic Structure Doctrine): The conflict culminated in the monumental case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Supreme Court, in a historic 7-6 decision, overruled the Golaknath case but did not restore absolute power to Parliament. It devised the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', holding that:

   • Parliament's constituent power under Article 368 is vast but not unlimited.
   • Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, provided that the "basic structure" or fundamental features of the Constitution are not altered or destroyed.
   • Judicial Review itself was declared a part of this basic structure in subsequent cases like Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).

This doctrine created the final balance: Parliament can amend, but the judiciary can review the amendment to see if it violates the Constitution's basic framework.

Why It Matters

This constitutional balance is crucial for several reasons:

• Protection of Rights: It prevents a temporary legislative majority from dismantling the core rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens in Part III of the Constitution.
• Upholding Constitutionalism: It ensures that the government operates within the limits set by the Constitution, preventing a slide into authoritarianism.
• Democratic Stability: By providing a mechanism to resolve conflicts between the legislature and judiciary, it maintains the stability and integrity of the democratic framework. The Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a "safety valve."

Related Concepts

• Constitutionalism: The idea of a government limited by a constitution, operating under the rule of law. The balance between Parliament and the Judiciary is the practical application of this principle.
• Separation of Powers: While India follows a functional separation rather than a rigid one, this balance ensures checks and balances between the legislative and judicial branches.
• Constitutional Morality: The commitment to uphold the fundamental principles and spirit of the Constitution, which is the underlying duty of both Parliament and the Judiciary.

UPSC Angle

For the Civil Services Examination, examiners look for a nuanced understanding beyond a simple definition. You must demonstrate:

1. Evolutionary Understanding: Trace the relationship from Shankari Prasad to Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills, citing the correct cases and amendment numbers (e.g., 24th Amendment).
2. Comparative Analysis: Clearly distinguish the Indian model from the UK and US models, using the correct terminology (Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Judicial Supremacy vs. Synthesis).
3. Conceptual Clarity: Explain what the 'Basic Structure' is (e.g., judicial review, federalism, secularism, parliamentary system) and why it is the cornerstone of this balance.
4. Article Specificity: Mention key articles like 13, 32, 226, 245, and 368 to substantiate your arguments.
5. Balanced Conclusion: Conclude that India has a unique, synthesized system where neither Parliament nor the Judiciary is supreme; the Constitution is. The relationship is not one of antagonism but of dynamic equilibrium.