Parliamentary Sovereignty Case Study

The idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty extensively implies that Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law, and no individual is permitted to override or put aside the law of Parliament. Under parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative body has total sovereignty, significance in comparison to all other government organizations (counting any official or legal bodies as they may exist). Besides, it suggests that the legislative body may change or nullify any former legislative acts. Parliamentary sovereignty diverges from most thoughts of legal audit, where a court may topple enactment considered unlawful. Particular examples of parliamentary sovereignty exist in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. An act of Parliament can override the

In England, the famous case is the Burma Oil Company Ltd v Lord Advocate . In this case, by an act of the Parliament, the War Damage Act 1965, Parliament ousted by a retrospective Act, a judgment awarded by the court, awarding damages to Burma Oil Company Ltd for damage that was done by the British forces towards their property during the Second World War. This was for public policy reasons i.e. the consequence of the judgment was opening the doors to numerous claims against the British government from all over the world where the British was a colonial power, consequence of which was financial ruin for the British government. In Malaysia, the Societies Act 1966 was amended to remove the jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate in political disputes within a political party or disputes between members of a society . In this sense, the rule of law does not

This was the principle laid down in Pickin v British Railways Board . The jurisdiction of the courts is limited to interpreting and enforcing an act of Parliament. The duty of the courts is to enforce the laws passed by the Parliament. It cannot embark on an investigation as to whether correct Parliamentary procedure was adopted in enacting the law. Hence, this is to demonstrate the point that in a system of Parliamentary Democracy, the power is ultimately with the people who elected their representatives to Parliament to make laws that is in the interests of the people i.e. public interests. This means, the courts do not also have the jurisdiction to inquire if the laws passed by the Parliament was good on the grounds of public