Parliament and Supreme Court : the Indian experience

Abstract

The framers of Indian Constitution adopted the British model of parliamentary government because Independent India is a product of the most massive freedom movement. Hence it could be a mass democracy, based on universal adult franchise. However they did not make it a sovereign law making body like its English counterparts. They placed supremacy in the hand of legislature, but it had to be restricted because unlike Great Britain, India has a lengthy written Constitution, a federal distribution of powers and a list of fundamental rights. Therefore parliamentary law to be valid must confirm in all respects with the constitution. The Indian Constitution has adopted a middle course and compromise between the British concept of the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of judiciary in America with its powers of Judicial Review of legislation. They also recognized that if excessive power vested in any of the organ it would undermine the democracy. They adopted the concept of checks and balances determining the functioning of each organ of the government. The separation of power and checks and balances are the two important pillar of Constitution for harmonious coexistence and mutual respects among them. Like all modern democratic Constitutions the Indian Constitution entrenches Judicial Review as a paramount principle of public law and ultimately it is the Supreme Court which is the final arbitrator of issue of constitutional interpretation. Judicial Review upholds the supremacy of the Constitution, adjusting the Constitution to new condition and needs of the time resulting into social and economic benefits to the people, evolving the consciousness of right and keenness to achieve redress against violation of individual rights.In India, since it is a parliamentary form of government, therefore its based upon intimate contact and close coordination among the legislative and executive wings.