1

Parliamentary Sovereignty
The word sovereignty is generally understood as referring to an ultimate
source of authority. The term Parliamentary sovereignty closely associated with
Diceys perspective while considering UKs constitution. However, the other
meaning of sovereignty in the context of international law, relations and politics to
indicate that a state is independent and sovereign (French and Italy). As a
consequence, a number of legal academics prefer to use the term the legislative
supremacy of parliament. Parliamentary Sovereignty refers to parliaments capacity
to make whatever laws it wishes, by mean of legislation. (It is also referred to as
Parliaments legislative supremacy as mentioned above.) the concept of
Parliamentary sovereignty is understood as under the English constitution, the
parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever, and further, no
person or body is recognized by the law of England has the right to override the
legislation of parliament.
The significance of parliamentary sovereignty is that if compares UKs
constitution to any other countrys constitutions such as US, which has a written
constitution, thus the constitution of America is generally supreme or fundamental
which is the legal source of governmental power, including the power to legislate.
Whereas in UK, while having no written constitution, the sovereignty of parliament
is considered as the one fundamental law of the British Constitution. The
sovereignty of parliament is indispensable/crucial since without it, there would be
no legal basis for the constitutional itself. Parliamentary Sovereignty is the central
element of the British constitution and it is impossible to understand the nature and
mechanics of the constitution without an appreciation of this principle.
The concept of parliamentary sovereignty was emerged/occurred as a result of the
struggle between the king and the parliament, the boll of 1689 established the
supremacy of parliament over the crown, this concept was called the constitutional
monarch this is the monarch is s the only symbol. Under the sovereignty there are
two main authorities named legal and political sovereignty. In the past the Queen
was the main legislative authority and was able to pass any law. This was known as
the Queen in parliament. Also the concept that the parliament does not misuse its
powers as a result of the conventions, but there is no hard and fast rule stating in
the positive. Or in UK Queen in Parliament (Crown in Parliament) can in legal theory
pass any law and the legislation which is enacted/passed in not subject to judicial
review by the courts. This is because parliament has not historically been
constrained by a higher set of legal rules enshrined in written constitution. In other
words, Acts of Parliament could not be tested or questioned against an overriding
codified constitution. *
The classical principle of sovereignty is which important in British
constitutional law-means Legislative (Acts). Dicey analysis of parliamentary
sovereignty started from the proposition that parliament can make any laws it
likes, with the result that there are, in theory, no legal limits to parliamentary
sovereignty. Furthermore, Dicey expressed the principles of Parliamentary
sovereignty in terms of two complementary principles, such as
1) Positive- Acts of parliament which makes new law or which repeals or amend
existing aw will be obeyed by the courts.

2
2) Negative- a) nobody can make rules which can over-ride or set aside an Act of
Parliament, (A third principle, but follows from the above). b) Parliament cannot
bind its successors/replacement.
It cannot pass an act which is
immune/protected from repeal or amendment by a subsequent parliament. (The
process sometimes known as entrenchment.)

1) Positive- Acts of parliament which makes new law or which repeals or

amend existing law will be obeyed by the courts.
There are a number of judicial statements which indicates that the courts accept
Acts of Parliament as the law, and dont challenge the Act of Parliament, as best
understood through the case, Edinburgh and Dalkeith RY Co. v Wauchope
(1842). Wauchope unsuccessfully argued that a statute should not be applied as
the standing orders of the HCs had not been complied with. No court of justice can
inquire into the manner in which an Act was introduced into parliament, what was
done previously to its being introduced, or what passed in parliament during its
procedures through both houses.
Parliamentary sovereignty and the constitution: Parliament can pass any
primary legislation as it chooses. This is essence symbolises the positive element of
parliamentary sovereignty, such as the Queen in Parliament can, in legal theory,
pass any law. Parliament can pass any law it consider is necessary because legally,
under the British constitution there is nothing to stop Parliament from doing so.
Parliamentary sovereignty and the law making:
Parliament has
legislated/authorised to alter the law making process for passing primary legislation,
thereby changing the legal and constitutional relationship between the two houses
of parliament.
Parliamentary sovereignty and the interpretation of legislation: The
constitutional role of judiciary is to interpret Acts of parliament with a view to
determining the intention of parliament. Parliament has given judicial guidance in
interpreting legislative provisions s.6 (a) Interpretation Act 1978.
In British Railways Board v Pickin (1974), the HL held that a claim that HC had
been misled during the passing of an Act could not be entertained by the court and
that, it having been passed, it was the duty of the court to give effect to the Act.
The principle was again followed in Martin v OSullivan (1982), if the statute has
been passed, it is the duty of the courts to see that it is compiled/obeyed with, and
not to go behind it.
For example: it is for parliament, not the courts, to investigate whether an Act has
been obtained in breach of Parliamentary procedure.
British RY Board v 1974
A railway line was
Pickin
The
court
cannot constructed under an
question the procedure Act of 1836 by which
by which an Act of the lands on which it
Parliament is passed was built should, if
any
more
than
its abandoned, return to
content.
the
owner
of
the
adjoining
land.
However, the British

3
Railway
Act
1968,
nullified the effect of
the 1836 act.
2) Negative- a) nobody can make rules which can over-ride or set aside an
Act of Parliament, (A third principle, but follows from the above).
Parliamentary sovereignty exists because for centuries, judges have consistently
stated that they do not have the constitutional power to review or question Acts of
Parliament, and that the judicial function is limited to interpreting legislation in
order to determine the intention of Parliament in passing it. Such as in the case
Cheney v Conn (1968), the high court held that the charge to tax under Act and
the tax assessments were not invalidated. Even if there was a conflict between
international law and statute. It was implied that what the statute itself enacts
cannot be unlawful, because what the statute say and provides is itself the law, and
is known as the highest form of law, so a court cannot claim its illegal.

2) Negative-b) Parliament cannot bind its successors/replacement. It

cannot pass an act which is immune/protected from repeal or
amendment by a subsequent parliament. (The process sometimes known
as entrenchment.)
Parliamentary sovereignty and the common law: acts of parliament (statutory
sources) are higher in legal status than the common law. If parliament decides to do
so, it can legislate to override the common law as illustrated in the context of law of
tort.
R v Jordan
1963
The leader of a right(Rule over on common
The courts had no
wing party was
law.)
power to question the
imprisoned for 18
validity of an Act of
months for offences
Parliament, which was
against the Race
supreme.
Relation Act 1965. He
required legal aid to
bring an action for
habeas corpus on the
ground that his rights
of free speech had
been unlawfully
curtailed by the Act,
which was
consequently invalid.
Limitation and Entrenchment. Can Parliament bind its successors? NOParliament cannot bind its successors.
The Statute of Westminster: section 4 of this Act supplements the established
convention that the British Parliament will not pass an Act which applied in a
dominion/territory, unless the dominion wishes it. It provides that, no Act shall
extend to a Dominion, unless it expressly declared in that Act that the Dominion has

4
requested and consented to the enactment thereof. Thus, considering this the
British Parliament irretrievable/permanent lost its ability to pass laws in the
dominions of its own initiative.
Such as: lord Denning stated in Blackburn v AG (11971) that in legal theory one
Parliament cannot bind another and no act is irreversible. * (changed)
However, in Manuel v AG [1983] - the duty of court is to obey and apply every Act
of Parliament. The court cannot hold any such act to be ultra vires. There may be
questions about hat the act means and there could be power to hold statutory
instruments and other subordinate legislation ultra vires, but once an instrument is
recognised as being an Act of Parliament, no English court can refuse to obey it or
question its validity.
Relationship between the houses:
The Parliaments Acts 1911 and 1949: it has been suggested that all Acts of
Parliament have a particular manner and form such as they must be authorised. To
become an Act, a bill must have received the royal assent. It will normally also have
been passed by both the houses. However, it is also possible that a bill to be given
the royal assent having been passed by the Commons alone, s. 1 and 2 of
Parliament Act 1911 and 1949. The Commons and Sovereign without the lords may
constitute Parliament for the purpose of enacting a Money Bill.
Dicey v Jennings on limitation on Parliamentary sovereignty. Pg 42
(Stevens book)
Parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law-unlocking con. Page 156 and
notes.