Our Constitution Mandates Supremacy Of Constitution; Not Parliamentary Sovereignty: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said that the Indian Constitutional framework does not subscribe to parliamentary sovereignty, nor does it vest unqualified supremacy in the judiciary.
CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While striking down some of the provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the Supreme Court emphasised that our Constitution mandates supremacy of Constitution.
The Court was deciding a Writ Petition preferred by the Madras Bar Association (MBA), challenging Sections 3(1), 3(7), 4, 5, 6, 7(1), and 33 of the Tribunals Reforms Act.
The two-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “Our Constitution mandates the supremacy of the Constitution. The underlying principles embodied in it guide not only the judiciary, but also the legislature and the executive. While the function of the judiciary is to interpret, protect, and expand these foundational principles, the legislature and the executive are entrusted with the duty to give effect to them through law and governance. In their distinct spheres of action, each organ of the State remains bound by a common constitutional obligation: respect for and adherence to the supremacy of the Constitution. It is this shared responsibility that ensures the unity of purpose within the framework of the separation of powers.”
The Bench said that the Indian Constitutional framework does not subscribe to parliamentary sovereignty, nor does it vest unqualified supremacy in the judiciary.
Senior Advocates Arvind P. Datar and C.S. Vaidyanathan appeared for the Petitioners, while Attorney General of India (AGI) R. Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Respondents. Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra, P. S. Patwalia, Sanjay Jain, Porus F. Kaka, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Balbir Singh, Gagan Gupta, Puneet Mittal, Sachit Jolly, B.M. Chatterji, and Advocate Ninad Laud appeared for the Applicants.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, remarked, “The architecture of our Constitution is firmly rooted in the principle of constitutional supremacy.”
The Court quoted Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, “No constitutional Government can function in any country unless any particular constitutional authority remembers the fact that its authority is limited by the Constitution and that if there is any authority created by the Constitution which has to decide between that particular authority and any other authority, then the decision of that authority shall be binding upon any other organ.”
“The form of the administration must be appropriate to and in the same sense as the form of the Constitution. The other is that it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution, without changing its form by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution.” - Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Constituent Assembly (4 November 1948)
In the above regard, the Court noted that the foresighted Constitutional vision of Dr. Ambedkar is strikingly evident in the present series of litigations concerning the tribunal system.
“The repeated reenactment of the same provisions, which have been struck down by the judiciary, shows that the “form of the administration” is being made “inconsistent” with the spirit of the Constitution, as Dr. Ambedkar had highlighted. The issues raised in the present petitions are not new to constitutional adjudication”, it added.
The Court said that instead of giving effect to the well-established principles laid down by the Court on the question of the independence and functioning of tribunals, the legislature has chosen to re-enact or re-introduce provisions that reopen the same constitutional debates under different enactments and rules.
“In a judicial system already burdened with a staggering pendency across the Supreme Court, High Courts, and district courts, the continued recurrence of such issues consumes valuable judicial time that could otherwise be devoted to adjudicating matters of pressing public and constitutional importance. The responsibility of reducing pendency in courts does not rest only on the judiciary. It is a shared institutional duty. While the judiciary must strive to enhance efficiency in case management and decision-making, the other branches of government must exercise their legislative and executive powers with due regard to constitutional principles and judicial precedent”, it further noted.
The Court also observed that respect for settled law is as essential to good governance as it is to judicial discipline and it ensures that institutional time is spent in advancing justice rather than revisiting questions long resolved.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Writ Petition and struck down the provisions of the impugned Act.
Cause Title- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1330)
