Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Introduction of Special Courts in the UK

Delve into the balance of power between Parliament, the courts, and the European Convention on Human Rights, providing a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between these fundamental elements of the UK's constitutional framework.

  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24x7 Online Help
  • No AI Generated Content
- +
35% Off
£ 6.69
Estimated Cost
£ 4.35
11 Pages 2634Words

Introduction of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK

The parliament’s sovereignty is a constitutional principle created by the UK constitution. Thus it provides authority to the parliament to be supreme legal in the UK. This authority allows the parliament to generate or demolish any law. Primarily, the court has no authority to overrule the legislation process & they lost the authority to pass any law which cannot be changed in the future. That means if one rule is made by the parliament that can be overruled by the future parliamentary body. Parliamentary sovereignty plays a very important role in the UK constitution. The common masses sometimes direct the UK to have an “unwritten constitution” thus it is not completely true. This act of the constitution may not cover a small portion of laws such as the USA or Germany but a huge portion of it has been written down. These laws are passed in the parliament which is known as the statute law. Accordingly, the constitution of the UK sometimes represents it as partly written & wholly uncodified. Here the term uncodified means the government of the UK has no single, written down constitution. Over the decades, the parliament has released many laws which have a limit on the application that belongs to parliamentary sovereignty. These kinds of laws contemplate the political development of the UK, inside and also outside of the country.

Choose New Assignment Help's UK services for a reliable and professional academic support system.

Explain the balance of power within the UK constitution

Jean Bodin introduced the concept of Sovereignty in the 16th century. He came up with this new concept where the “sovereignty tobolster”, which is authority to the “French king”for the disobedient “feudal lords”, has been encouraging of evolution of “feudalism to nationalism”. America proposed independence in 1776. That particular time one expression has been found in the French constitution of 1791, which states that “sovereignty” is one, “imperceptible”, unalienable & indivisible. Thus it belongs to the country and there is no group that can feature sovereignty nor has the ability to revoke it individually (Ekins, 2019).

Austin’s country of legislative sovereignty has not completely fit the American situation. The UK constitution, the basic regulation of the federal union, even has no authority to support the country's congress with the “supreme power” but it has implemented specific restrictions on this. After this implementation, one further intricacy was included at the time when the UK’s Supreme Court successfully announced in Marbury v. Madison in the year 1803. It contains the laws that have been declared unconstitutional by a process that remarks “Judicial review”.

Despite the fact that this evolution did not result in judicial sovereignty, it appeared to give the Constitution of its American constitution core source, the sovereign power. The notion that the power to suggest & adopt modifications to the Constitution was placed not just in Congress as well as in provinces & also in special conventions convened for that cause made this concept of “constitutional sovereignty” extremely complicated. Thus, it can be claimed that the regions or the citizens still had all of the sovereign powers that the Constitution did not directly grant in the United States or immediately prohibit the states or people from exerting. Primarily, the doctrine of sovereignty, had an important impact on developing the states also the main leverage of it has the association between states.

basic rules of the parliament

Figure: the basic rules of the parliament

(Source: self-created smart art)

Analyze the Human Rights Act” 19th decades on the balance of power in the UK constitution

This essay censoriously discusses the importance of “Human rights” law acts, in which such practices are being counted to rule for the practice of authority of “UK”. The procedure of the “European convention” on “Human rights 1950 (ECHR)”& the “Human rights act 1998”, these power has an impact on the parliament thus the “Supreme Court” will have to focus on it. The idea that “human rights law” operates to a constraint of the accumulation authority will be demonstrated as being more metaphorical than practical. Thus when it is considered as the real impact given to the rights, inscribed in these laws. This doesn't imply, that the law has still not promoted a responsibility culture for stopping violations of “human rights”. To regard, the “human rights” ruling could be considered to certain control over how power is exercised inside the UK, however, it would be more accurate to say that “human rights law” is managed by how power is exercised inside the UK. The practice to the “Human rights” law is very essential to the “judicial institution”, which implies & decodes it. “Human rights” 1998, “section 2”, creates a responsibility of the “UK courts” in the circumstances of “ECHR”, requiring them to consider into consideration, rulings of the “European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)” while debating “ECHR” related matters. The courts are required to construe existing law in accordance with the ECHR under “section 3” of the “HRA 1998”, & they have the authority to show existing “law incompatible” if this is not possible. “Sections 2& 3” of the “HRA 1998” were primarily written to prevent Parliament from passing laws that violate “ECHR rights”, & as an outcome, they might be argued to have greatly increased the court's “freedom of law” interpretation. Rather desired to “ordinarily follow” “ECtHR” findings. There have specific occasions where the court of the UK has absolutely dominated the decisions of the “ECtHR” & in “Lyons”. Thus this situation was considered as there has room for implementing dialogue on these kinds of matters.

“Human Rights Act”, have become less deferential towards Parliament’s will

Judgement Patanjali sastri, C.J

In this case, “State of West Bengal” is appealing decisionto the “Full Bench” of the “High Court” of “Judicature in Calcutta” that overturned of defendant’s judgment through the “supreme Court”originatedwithin “section 3” of the “West Bengal Special” “Courts Ordinance”, “1949” “(Ordinance No. 3 of 1949)”, that was supplemented on“March 1950” through the “West Bengal” “Special Courts Act, 1950”. The participants & 49 others were reported with numerous violations alleged, which have been attempted through them in the approach to their incursion as a fully “armed gang” on a specific industry, which is named as “Jessop factory” at “Dum Dum”. Those individuals were condemned &sentence to contrasting “terms of imprisonment” by the “special court” to where this report was transferred to the trail of “Governor of West Bengal”, and they were served with a report date of “26th January, 1950”, in the practice to the authority converse by “section 5(1)” of the law.

The participant then made an application for the “High Court” pursuant to “article 226” to the “Constitution”of the issuance for rehearing curtailing the guilty verdict to the grounds that the “Special Court” lacked the authority to hear the case because “section 5 (1)”, under which it was referred to that “Court for trial”, was invalid under “Article 13(2)” because it rejected the accused, the “equal protection” of laws mandated by “article 14”. The conviction was overturned & the appellant & the remaining accused people were ordered to be tried in accordance with the law by the “High Court’s” “Full Bench”, which was made up of the “Chief Justice” & 4 other judges. Then the question is why the report.

“The Act” is to commence an action to give specifically to the “faster trial” of a specific offense. Also, the overture states that this is sensible to nourish for the fastest trial for this specific offense. “Section 3” designates the “state government” for the special notice in the professional gazettes to comprise “special courts” & “section 4” nourishes for the meeting of the “special judges” to handle over the courts. & “section 4” equips to the meeting of the “special judges” to conduct over. & “section 5” that is constitutionally challenged.

Here section 3 of this act designates the “state government” to comprise the notice of the “special courts” of criminal jurisdiction for specific areas.

“Section 4” delivers to get the appointment of a “special judge to preside over a supreme court” also cited the capabilities at the time when a special judge shall proceed with it.

On “October 28th”, 1949, the time, “Ordinance factory” was yet under pressure from the “West Bengal government”, that time he was the “special judge” of the “Alipore court”, who was the specialist in such cases like this. Who has the responsibility in “Appeal No. 297”, forward with other 49 individuals who were summon in the case of “Dum Dum” “ordinance factory”. The attack was attempted on the year 1949, 26th Feb. The main accused & along with the team get arrested after this incident. A notice has been released against the accused and the team of the accused, which is considered to be attempt, stated “by Mr. S.N Guha” in agreement to the conditions of the “Ordinance”. On April 2, 1950, next the “Special Courts Act” was approved &“the Ordinance” was returned, an “official complaint” was brought well before “A special Judge” regarding these 50 individuals. The “trial lasted” over many months, & the “Special Judge” found the defendants guilty for several sections of the “Indian Penal Code” in his judgment dated “March 31, 1951”. Some of the defendants obtained life sentences of mass transit, while others received sentences of varying lengths of imprisonment depending on the seriousness of their crimes.

The constitution

Figure 2: The constitution

(Source: self-created SmartArt)

Section 2

Individual Reflective

The main entity of the law has been assumed till the inferior court has decided to keep forwarding the competition & the broad language is restricted by the specific requirements & to the respective end. This act here is demanding the question that shows certainly the complete object & the objective of the ruling was to develop machinery for the fast trial of specific offenses. The question arises that whether the provision is been well developed or thus it “violates the prohibition” within “article 14 for the UK constitution”. “The first part” of the constitution declares the equivalency to the “civil rights” of all individuals to the regions to “India”& it glorifies the“American” analysts consider as the “fundamental principle” of “republicanism”. The second part of the constitution describes the “corollary of the main”& thus it “is based on” the ultimate articleto“the first section of the American constitution”. Which shall be equally protected for such persons for them to enjoy their rights & freedoms.


In this part of the conclusion, one major aspect needs to be clarified “parliamentary sovereignty”which is a basic part within the “UK constitution”. This is the place where the parliament gets supreme legal power. Thus this authority counts as the present judicial body can start or demolish any previously created law. Primarily the court has no right to overrule its lawmaking & no parliament can enact a law that cannot be changed by the future body of the parliament. Thus the principle of parliamentary sovereignty has been modified & restricted by the UK’s mindset to evolve into a member of the European community law. Parliament now has to pass any kind of law consistent with the European community. This certainly damages the doctrine of Sovereignty, because the parliament is not obtaining any “supreme legal” power. For all these kinds of rights, authority, disadvantages, droughts, & limitations, which is been created by the specified time or under the covenant, & all these elixirs maintain the processes provided under the covenant. In accordance with the accords are without further legislation to be provided “legal effect” or operated in the UK, & have recognition available in the act of law also be implemented. Following this, the countenance enforceable community right & equivalent expressions have to be read as directed to which this segment involves. Here “section 3” of this act designates the state government to comprise the notice of the special courts of criminal jurisdiction for specific areas &“section 4” delivers to the “appointment of” a “special judge to preside” to a “special court” & also cited capabilities at time when a special judge shall proceed with it.

Reference list


Bogdanor, V., 2019. Beyond Brexit: Towards a British Constitution. IB Tauris.

Ekins, R., 2019. Parliamentary sovereignty and the politics of prorogation. Policy Exchange, 16.

Gordon, M., 2020. Referendums in the UK constitution: Authority, sovereignty and democracy after Brexit. European Constitutional Law Review, 16(2), pp.213-248.

Loughlin, M. and Tierney, S., 2018. The Shibboleth of sovereignty. The Modern Law Review, 81(6), pp.989-1016.

McConalogue, J., 2019. The British constitution resettled? Parliamentary sovereignty after the EU Referendum. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 21(2), pp.439-458.

McConalogue, J., 2019. The British constitution resettled: Parliamentary sovereignty before and after Brexit. Springer.

Murkens, J.E.K., 2018. Democracy as the legitimating condition in the UK Constitution. Legal Studies, 38(1), pp.42-58.

Murphy, M.C., 2021. Northern Ireland and Brexit: where sovereignty and stability collide? Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 29(3), pp.405-418.

Tierney, S., 2022. PARLIAMENT AND THE BREXIT PROCESS: THE BATTLE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law, 12(1), p.1.

White, S., 2022. Brexit and the Future of the UK Constitution. International Political Science Review, 43(3), pp.359-373.

Wincott, D., Davies, G. and Wager, A., 2021. Crisis, what crisis? Conceptualizing crisis, UK pluri-constitutionalism and Brexit politics. Regional Studies, 55(9), pp.1528-1537.

Young, A.L., 2018. Populism and the UK Constitution. Current Legal Problems, 71(1), pp.17-52.

35% OFF
Get best price for your work
  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24*7 Online Help

offer valid for limited time only*