“Supremacy of the Constitution & Supremacy of the parliament: A Comparative Study”

Abstract

This research explores two key principles in constitutional law: "Supremacy of the Constitution" and "Supremacy of the Parliament." These principles are central to understanding how governments operate and how laws are made and enforced. Different countries adopt one of these principles based on their historical, political, and governance needs, shaping the structure and functioning of their systems. In systems where the constitution is the highest legal authority, such as in the United States, the government must operate within constitutional limits. Courts have the power to review laws and declare them invalid if they contradict the constitution. This principle, known as constitutional supremacy, is most effective in federal systems of government, where power is divided between the central and regional governments. The constitution acts as the binding force, ensuring that all levels of government work together under a single legal framework to protect balance and citizens’ rights. In contrast, in systems like the United Kingdom, where parliamentary supremacy is the foundation, Parliament has the ultimate authority to make, change, or repeal any law, with no higher institution to challenge its decisions. This principle works best in unitary governments, where power is concentrated in a central authority, allowing for flexibility and quick decision-making, especially in smaller or more homogenous states. This study investigates the historical evolution of these principles, their practical implications, and their suitability in different governance systems. It explains how written constitutions, which are often rigid and require judicial oversight, support federal systems, while unwritten or flexible constitutions empower parliamentary sovereignty in unitary systems. Using case studies from countries like the United States, United Kingdom, India, and South Africa, the research shows how these principles operate in practice. For instance, India combines constitutional supremacy with a strong central government, while South Africa’s constitution governs a complex federal-like system. These examples highlight the strengths and limitations of each principle. Finally, the study addresses contemporary challenges. In federal systems, constitutional supremacy may lead to judicial overreach, while in unitary systems, parliamentary supremacy can centralize excessive power, risking the erosion of checks and balances. The research concludes that constitutional supremacy is better suited for federal governments, while parliamentary supremacy aligns well with unitary systems.