The Power Of Parliament And Parliamentary Sovereignty

'The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power'. Discuss

“In theory Parliament has total power. It is sovereign” were the words of Dicey in his book Law of the Constitution. A.V. Dicey was a British jurist and constitutional theorist in the 20th century who was adamant and argued extensively about the absolute nature of sovereignty of the Parliament which he derived from Coke and Blackstone. He had said “"Parliament" has

(England) was that the power of the legislature "... is limited to the public good of the

Before evaluating whether or not Parliament is sovereign, it’s important to define what sovereignty means. Sovereignty can be split into two; political and legal. Legal sovereignty is the ultimate power to make laws which will be enforced within the state. Members of Parliament and the Prime Minister have ultimate legal power because they propose and enforce legislation. Citizens have no legal sovereignty because they don’t play a role in the legislative function even though pressure group activity may influence decisions. Political sovereignty is where real political power lies, and depending on the situation political sovereignty doesn’t always lie within Parliament. Critics have argued that due to recent changes, Parliament is no longer

Parliamentary sovereignty has no set definition, but in Dicey’s view it meant that parliament is the supreme law making body, able to amend or repeal any legislation it wishes without its legal validity being questioned by any other body, including the executive or judicial bodies. It also cannot bind the preceding parliament or the future parliament.

A secondary way in which parliamentary sovereignty in the UK can be seen to be moving is though the introduction of devolution which is challenging the UK parliament’s sovereignty. The UK is a unitary state, so only one body can in theory

‘Parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional relic. It has been rendered obsolete, in particular, by the supremacy of EU law and the UK’s statutory recognition of human rights. We should no longer talk about this irrelevant doctrine.’

The history of parliament has demonstrated that a traditional role was to provide consent for the Monarch’s legislation. This still remains one of the main functions, also though any government enjoys a mandate from the electorate, it is still important that's it's authority to legislate is underpinned by parliament. It carries out legitimising functions as being the body which approves and sanctions major decisions in the life of the nation. For example in 2013 it did not confer legitimacy to the Government to intervene in Syria. But it can be said to have failed in the past by not fulfilling the wishes of the wider public by legitimising the war in Iraq. It is said to lack legitimacy when the government commands a large majority in the Commons. The House of Lords is also said to lack democratic legitimacy

Following the five knights case, parliament believed their rights and liberties were being attacked, and so in 1628, the Petition of Rights was drawn up which would define royal powers and prevent Charles from interpreting his royal prerogative as he wished. Charles saw this as an attack on his authority and felt as though parliament were undermining his position as king. In this way, parliament can be held responsible as this action led to increased tension between themselves and the crown. This is also a further factor that supports the idea that the way in which England was governed was changing, as before, such attacks on royal power were rare. The developing rules of governing can be blamed for the breakdown in relation in this way as such opposition to the monarchy was only a recent development.

Evaluating the Argument that Powers and Privileges of Parliament Increased Steadily at the Expense of Royal Power

For many years it has been argued that parliamentary sovereignty has, and still is, being eroded. As said by AV Dicey, the word ‘sovereignty’ is used to describe the idea of “the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit”. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, able to create and remove any law. This power over-rules courts and all other jurisdiction. It also cannot be entrenched; this is where all laws passed by the party in government can be changed by future parliaments. In recent years sovereignty of parliament has been a

In 17th century France, Louis XIV ruled as an absolutist monarch with few checks to his dominion. Louis ignored the French Parliament, taxing French people as a source of income. This weakened the Parliament’s power and it was no longer a powerful entity in the French political system. At a certain point, Louis removed Parliament’s power to create laws further weakening it and strengthening his rule. England had a different government at this time. William and Mary were rulers of the country and their power was limited by Parliament which was considerably stronger than them at this point. Documents including the English Bill of Rights along with other legislation weakened their control and

The power to strike down Acts of Parliament is defined as the power to declare legislation invalid because it is unconstitutional. This paper will critically assess sections 3 and 4 of the HRA 1998 by defining them, reviewing case law surrounding their use, and by evaluating the powers that they give to the judiciary. By doing so, it will demonstrate that section 3 gives judges powers that are not significantly different from the power to strike down Acts of Parliament, whereas section 4 does not.

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

There is no doubt that there is an absolute requirement to confer upon the Parliament certain powers, immunities and privileges to ensure its independent functioning and also for the preservation of its prestige and dignity. However, it is also absolutely necessary that such powers and privileges are made use of in a responsible and diligent manner and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the other provisions enshrined under Part-III of the Constitution of India. For the purpose of securing greater clarity and certainty with respect to the provisions contained under Article 105(3) (and also Article 194(3)), it is necessary that constitutional mandate contained in the first part of the above provisions be implemented and thereby, the privileges also be codified. Moreover, it is completely baseless to consider that the codification of the Parliamentary Privileges would result in the detraction from the prestige and sovereignty of the Parliament. In fact, if