The essential concept of parliamentary sovereignty is epitomized in the first two decades of the

eighteenth century as constitutional lawyer Sir William Blackstone quoting Sir Edward coke
said that “The power and Jurisdiction of the parliament is no transcendent and absolute, that it
cannot be confined, either be confined either for causes or persons within any bounds. To this
the parliament no authority upon earth can undo”
Prior to bill of right in Dr. Bonham’s case Lord Cooke highlighted that the parliament was
established newly therefore an outrageous Act could be challenged in the courts.
However, this position changed after the Glorious Revolution of 1869 “Bill of Right” which
firmly established the sovereignty of the parliament.
Limitations on parliament:
The parliament may be the supreme authority in the drafting of UK constitution which cannot
be challenged by any authority however, in my opinion there are certain limitations which
parliament imposed on themselves and which gives a challenge to their sovereignty
The first limitation which was imposed on parliament was the enrolled bill rule which is defined
as that courts can declare an Act a nullity where it is challenged on the grounds of procedural
irregularity, fraud on parliament and or either it is in conflict with the international laws.
Such as highlighted in the case of Edinburgh Railway v Wauchope (1842) the courts were
inquired to find that the legislation in question, a parliamentary Act was passed improperly and
was therefore declared invalid by the courts. As Lord Campbell stated that if there is an Act that
has passed the both Houses of the parliament and has received the Royal Assent, a court can
neither inquire into the manner in which it was introduced in parliament, neither in what was
passed during the progress through various parliamentary stages.
Discussing further the courts are not entitled to examine the proceedings of an Act of
parliament to show that the particular Act was passed due to fraud. Which can be illustrated in
the case of Prikin v British Railway Board which affirmed any legislation which received both
Houses of parliament approval and royal assent it no court can question the manner in which it
was introduced.

The second limitation that parliament imposed on itself is the membership with EU law and the
ECHR there is a presumption that parliament cannot legislate contradicting the principles of
international law and a statute would be interpreted as far as possible that it does not conflict
with international law (The Zamora 1916) however, in my opinion the legal of powers of
parliament to make laws contrary thereto remains and redress would have to be sought by
diplomatic action and not through the courts where a statute is clear and unambiguous the
“comity of nations” is irrelevant as per Lord porter in Theophile v Solicitor General (1950) the
provisions must be followed even if it contradicts the international law.
The membership EU law proposed two principles as the direct law which was established in the
case of Van Gendenloos which states that in the domestic courts of member states EU rights
can be enforced correspondingly it is obligatory on them to impose EU law. The supremacy of
EU law was illustrated in Costa v ENEL which clarified that in case of conflict between a national
and international law it will be the EU law that will get preference.
As highlighted in s.2(1) of EU law all powers from time to time will be given legal effect in UK
and will be used in the courts. And as per s.2(4) any law passed in UK must be in line with EU
law which was illustrated in case of Ex parte Factortame-2 where merchant shipping Act was
deemed to be override because it was in conflict with the EU law as highlighted by Lord Bridge
in his judgement that it is the duty of courts to look into a statute and override it if it is found to
be in conflict with EU law.
The third limitation imposed on parliament is the impact of HRA (Humans Right Act) 1998
incorporation of ECHR via HRA 1998 on national law endless convention rights were to be
enforced in national courts rather than in European Court of Human rights in Strasbourg also
known as the Strasbourg Court. However, in my opinion the Act specifically preserved the
sovereignty of the parliament by denying that judges have the power to declare an Act invalid
however if they find an Act incompatible with ECHR or HRA they can issue a declaration of
incompatibility thereby leaving it on the parliament to make necessary changes as illustrated in
s.4(6) the continuity if an Act conflicting with HRA will be deemed invalid and is not binding on
the proceedings in which it is made. The effect that this declaration has is that it places a legal
pressure rather than political pressure on the government, it will be unlikely from parliament in
my opinion to deliberately enact a legislation which is incompatible with convention rights as it
remained opened to them to do so. Illustrated in the case R(Animal Defenders International) a
declaration of incompatibility is a kind of warning to government and parliament that if in the
perspective of courts the UK is in breach of international obligations it is for them to decide to
do anything about it.
In the case of Ghaidan v Mendoza when Rent Act 1972 was in conflict with Article 14 of the
ECHR a declaration of incompatibility was issued and homosexual partners were recognized as
a married couple.
Concluding from the discussion above in my opinion the parliament although, is the supreme or
sovereign authority in the United Kingdom however, it itself has imposed certain limitations on
itself just as discussed above the membership of EU and incorporation of HRA and ECHR in the
domestic laws of UK as highlighted in CJS knight article there is a bipolar method of
parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom which runs in line with UK law moreover, the
parliament has the power to withdraw from any international treaties they signed as we have
the example of BREXIT where they withdraw from the membership of EU. As quoted by Marine
le pen “Brexit has really broken a taboo. The Brits have shown us that you can leave the
European Union, and you can come out better” which clearly highlights the fact in my opinion
that the withdrawal from EU was a remarkable example of the British Parliament to show their
 supreme or sovereign authority. Which cannot be challenged in any courts or whatsoever.
which was clarified by the Honorable prime minister of Great Britain Boris Johnson as he said
that “We have taken back control of laws and our destiny. We have taken back control of every
jot and tittle of our regulation in a way that is complete and unfettered.”

The Rule of Law:

The doctrine of rule of law depends upon the principle of legality which clearly emphasizes on
the basic rule that no can interfere the individual rights unless the state has given them the
legal authority to do so. As illustrated in the case Entick v Carrington trespassing to private
property was ruled to be illegal even for ministers.
The doctrine of rule of law in my opinion may be interpreted as philosophy or a political theory
which lays the fundamental principles for law or it works as a procedural device by which those
power rule under the law.
For many years this doctrine is considered to be primary mean of subjecting governmental
powers to control. The essence of the concept is the sovereignty or supremacy of law over man.
However, despite of the fact that it is considered to be one of the fundamental principles in all
states and its value in political and constitutional discussion its meaning is far from precise as
highlighted by DM Waker in the “The oxford companion to law” the doctrine of rule of law is a
concept of utmost importance but it does not have the context which is readily definable.
Which means that the doctrine may mean different things to different people at different
times. Having the understanding in liberal democracies has little relevance in a totalitarian
state.
In my opinion however, in liberal democracies rule of law implies more than a regulation by
law. According to Mathew (the rule of law in an Apartheid society) only in a country where the
doctrine is more than a ‘formal’ legal validity will subjects enjoy real protection from official
tyranny and abuse. According to the western philosophy and political school of thought
government according to law is therefore not necessarily equivalent to government under law.
However, a great divergence follows amongst the jurists and philosophers relating the greater
content.
One of the well-known approach is the content free approach proposed by Joseph Raz
according to Joseph Raz which focuses only on the procedure in which the law was made not on
the content or substance of the law in itself. In my opinion there is no doubt about this theory
has an important quality which is necessary to the rule of law the importance can be seen in
various judicial decisions and statutes for examples Lord Donaldson MR in Court of Appeal and
Lord Diplock in House of lords while giving a judgement on Merker Island shipping corporation
v Laughter (1983) emphasized on the importance of having clear laws.
Laws in UK are general, prospective and stable. The judiciary is independent and the rules of
natural justice are observed and emphasized by courts in deciding the cases.

The courts can review administrative action, including the prerogative powers after the GCHQ
case on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The courts can even
look into a delegated legislation if it is ultra vires in their opinion as per R v Wood
Raz’s theory was supported by Paul Craig while addressing the House of Lord constitutional
report 2006-2007 he said that “If you wish to argue about the justness of society do so by all
means… it is however not…necessary or desirable to clock the conclusion in mantle of the rule
of law”

However, joseph raz’s theory only focused on the substantive nature of the doctrine which was
the focus on only the procedure of the law that was passed and focused less on the content of
the law.
Another theory was proposed by the Ronald Dworkin the content rich approached which along
with the substantive part as discussed above focuses on the content of the law too. Dworkin
also highlighted that laws are prospective in nature not retrospective, stable and the judiciary
shall be independent.
Lord Bingham had his own definition to rule of law and he further divided it into eight sub rules
according to Lord Bingham rule of law means that any authority public or private is equal under
the law and they are bound by it furthermore, the laws work prospectively and shall be publicly
administered in the courts.
According to Lord Bingham the laws must be accessible and shall be so far clear, predictable
and prospective. In my opinion this is a content free approach as highlighted by joseph raz
because it only highlights the fact that laws must be accessible and predictable it does not
mention about the content of the law.

The three main institutions played their role in protection of the doctrine of rule of law as the
judiciary upholds the doctrine by deciding cases and interpreting case laws as in the case of R
(Unison) v Lord Chancellor where Lord Chancellor retracted from his own decision of increasing
the tribunal fees. The judicial review also plays an important role in protection of this notable
doctrine as in The Belmarsh case highlighted by Lord Hoffman that it was justified for the
government to impose detention in case there is a public emergency but also it shall not be
applied in discriminatory manner.
The parliament can uphold the doctrine of rule of law by parliament having a say on statute
being passed determining the validity of the doctrine. The parliament can also uphold the
doctrine by holding accountability of the executives through their judgements. As Lord Hope
ruled in the case of Jackson v A.G “it is no longer right to say that parliamentary freedom to
legislate admits to qualification, the rule of law enforced by enforced by the courts in the
controlling principle upon which our constitution is based”
Lord Chancellor as an executive plays an important role in protection of the rule of law as
highlighted by Lord Phillips that the lord chancellor can uphold the rule of law by ensuring the
independence of judges moreover a question may rise that either government is contemplating
or is not in accordance with the doctrine of the rule of law. This is where Lord chancellor can
play a role as minister in protection of the doctrine of rule of law.

Concluding from the facts above the doctrine of the rule of law is most protected by judiciary in
my opinion in its highest form which can be seen in the cases above moreover, the Delhi
declaration 1959 also provided that a required representative and responsible government
provisions in law to ensure that a citizen’s wrongdoing shall have a remedy observance of
certain minimum standards regarding human rights and independence of the judiciary