Page 115 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes by the Cabinet. The result is the omnipotent position of the Cabinet that is sometimes identified
with its ‘dictatorship’. The essential thing is that the liberties of the people be preserved: while
the Americans have done it by following the principle of ‘separation of powers,’ the English
people have accomplished the same by having the ‘diffusion of powers.’ As Bagehot appreciates:
“But we happily find that a new country need not fall back into the fatal division of powers
incidental to a presidential-government; it may, if other conditions serve, obtain the ready,
well-placed, identical sort of sovereignty which belong to the English constitution under the
unroyal form of Parliamentary government.”
6. Sovereignty of Parliament
The Parliament of Britain affords the solitary case of a sovereign law-making body. While
writing in 1885, Dicey said that the sovereignty of Parliament is, from a legal point of view, the
dominant characteristic of the English constitution. He further added that it “means neither
more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament thus defined has, under the English Constitution,
the right to make and unmake any law whatever, and further no person or body is recognised
by law of England as having a right to over-ride and set aside the legislation of Parliament.”
While highlighting the same position, another writer mentions that in England Parliament is
legally omnipotent and it “can do anything and achieve any result which can be achieved by
man-made laws.”
This classical phrase has certain important implications:
(i) It signifies that the legislative power of the Parliament is unlimited and absolute. As De
Lolme said, it can do everything except changing the sex of a person; or as Bagehot
commented, it can make any law to do anything except making a man a woman and vice
versa. The reason is that there is no written constitution in the country to define the area
of legislative power of the Parliament and there is no federal system forestalling the
authority of the national government. As a result, the Parliament is all-powerful to make
a law, then change it, or eve repeal it.
(ii) There is no distinction between constitutional law and ordinary law of the land. In the
absence of a written constitution with a special procedure of amendment, the British
constitution is the model of flexible constitution. As a result, the Parliament possesses full
constituent powers. By passing a law with its simple majority it can lay down any
constitutional provision or make any charge in the existing arrangement.
(iii) It signifies that there is no judicial authority in the country which may question the
validity of a law passed by the Parliament. The courts are bound to enforce every law
made by the Parliament.
(iv) The sovereignty of Parliament, in a more accurate language, means the supreme authority
of the House of Commons. Legally speaking, the term King-in-Parliament means King
and the House of Lords and the House of Commons. But now both the King and the
House of Lords have lost their former position of power and become subservient to the
will of the House of Commons.
(v) The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is a legal fiction. It is a patent truth to a man of
law who finds that a law made by the Parliament is binding and enforceable by the courts
of the country.
As Parliamentary sovereignty is a legal fiction, the doctrine has been criticised from other
angles. A man of politics highlighting the fact of political sovereignty is not prepared to accept
the view that Parliament is omnipotent to pass any law as it is always under the control of the
electorate. Democracy means power with the people and thus no Parliament can do anything
to disregard the weight of public opinion. In case the Parliament makes a law contrary to the
premises of the rule of law, it imperils its own supremacy. As Barker says, the sovereignty of
Parliament and the rule of law “are not only parallel; they are also inter-connected and mutually
interdependent.” So, while attacking the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty from moral
and humanitarian standpoints, it is argued that no Parliament can pass a law going against the
celebrated norms of decent human life. Jennings is of the view that no Parliament can make a

110 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY