Parliamentary sovereignty and administrative accountability
1. Conceptual Overview
Parliamentary Sovereignty
The doctrine that Parliament (or the legislature) is the supreme legal authority in the state.
No person or body, including courts, can override or set aside legislation passed by Parliament.
Rooted in the UK constitutional tradition (Dicey’s definition).
Implies that Parliament can make or unmake any law, and no other body can question its validity.
Administrative Accountability
The principle that administrative or executive bodies must be accountable for their actions, ensuring legality, fairness, and reasonableness.
Accountability mechanisms include judicial review, legislative oversight, and internal administrative procedures.
Ensures that administration acts within the law, respects rights, and follows proper procedures.
The Tension
Parliamentary sovereignty implies that Parliament’s laws cannot be challenged.
Administrative accountability means administrative bodies must operate within legal bounds and can be challenged when exceeding authority.
The tension arises when administrative actions conflict with legislative intent or when courts review administrative decisions under the law.
2. Key Case Law Illustrating the Doctrine and Its Limits
Case 1: R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 (UK House of Lords)
Issue: Validity of the Hunting Act 2004 passed using the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 without House of Lords consent.
Significance:
The case reaffirmed Parliamentary sovereignty but recognized that constitutional fundamentals might limit Parliament’s power.
Lord Steyn suggested that Parliamentary sovereignty might be subject to fundamental principles of the constitution, opening debate on limits.
Relevance: Demonstrates the supremacy of Parliament but also acknowledges constitutional principles shaping that sovereignty.
Case 2: Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (the GCHQ case) (UK)
Facts: Government banned GCHQ employees from union membership citing national security without consulting unions.
Holding:
Courts held that although the government has prerogative powers, those powers are subject to judicial review for procedural fairness.
This was a landmark decision establishing that administrative decisions are reviewable, reinforcing administrative accountability.
Relation to Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament’s laws govern, but even prerogative powers exercised by the executive are accountable to the law.
Case 3: Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK)
Facts: A statutory ouster clause tried to prevent courts from reviewing decisions of a government commission.
Outcome: The House of Lords held that any error of law made by a public body rendered its decision a nullity, and thus review was possible despite the ouster clause.
Importance:
Significantly enhanced administrative accountability by limiting the effect of parliamentary attempts to oust judicial review.
Courts prioritized the rule of law and administrative accountability over strict parliamentary sovereignty claims to ouster.
Case 4: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513 (UK)
Issue: The Home Secretary promised compensation regulations but failed to implement them.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that failure to exercise discretion in good faith violated the rule of law.
Established that administrative authorities must act lawfully, consistent with parliamentary intent.
Implication: Reinforces administrative accountability within the framework of parliamentary legislation.
Case 5: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists [1953] 1 QB 401 (UK)
Context: Sale of drugs subject to regulation; challenged whether the sale happened inside or outside the pharmacy.
Decision: Confirmed the principle that administrative and statutory regulations must be complied with, supporting administrative accountability.
Relation: Reflects how administrative bodies implement parliamentary laws and must be accountable in enforcement.
3. Further Discussion: Parliamentary Sovereignty vs Rule of Law and Administrative Accountability
While Parliament is supreme, the courts have increasingly read statutes as allowing judicial review to ensure administrative accountability.
Courts have limited parliamentary attempts to exclude judicial review (ouster clauses), maintaining checks on administration.
Parliamentary sovereignty does not mean arbitrary government; administrative bodies must act within law.
This balance preserves democratic lawmaking power while ensuring the executive is accountable, transparent, and lawful.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Principle | Outcome | Impact on Parliamentary Sovereignty vs Accountability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anisminic Ltd v FCC | 1969 | Judicial review despite ouster clauses | Expanded judicial review powers | Enhanced administrative accountability despite parliamentary attempts to restrict |
| CCSU v Minister for Civil Service | 1985 | Judicial review of prerogative powers | Government actions reviewable | Reinforced administrative accountability under law |
| R (Jackson) v AG | 2005 | Parliamentary sovereignty limits | Affirmed sovereignty but acknowledged constitutional principles | Opens discussion on limits of absolute sovereignty |
| Ex parte Fire Brigades Union | 1995 | Lawful exercise of discretion | Government must act in good faith | Enforced administrative accountability consistent with Parliament’s laws |
| Boots Cash Chemists | 1953 | Statutory compliance by admin bodies | Affirmed administrative adherence to law | Supported rule of law principle within parliamentary framework |
Conclusion
Parliamentary sovereignty remains the cornerstone of constitutional law in many systems like the UK, but it is balanced by the rule of law and administrative accountability.
Courts protect administrative accountability by reviewing administrative decisions to ensure they comply with parliamentary statutes and legal principles.
Over time, judicial review has curtailed absolute parliamentary sovereignty in practice, ensuring administrative bodies operate within lawful bounds.
RELATED Blog
0 comments