Doctrine of parliament supremacy

It is argued that the doctrine of parliament supremacy practised strictly by adhering to the concept that the parliament does not use its sovereign power instituted by the legislature, in an oppressive and tyrannical way. In the absence of a written constitution it is possible for the legislature to use its powers in an unauthorized manner. Even if this could be identified as the matter due to the presence of the conventions we believe that parliament would not do this due to principles of constitutionalism and rule of law. With regards to Geoffrey Marshall's argument “the most obvious and undisputed convention of the British constitutional system is that parliament does not use its ultimate sovereign power of legislation in an oppressive or tyrannical way. That is a vague but a clearly accepted constitutional rule resting on the principle of constitutionalism and the rule of law.” three fundamental questions arise. At first we need to consider as how is this convention “enforced”? and secondly whether this convention is an adequate protection against oppression and tyranny and finally how might such protection be strengthened. Though the writer argues that as “clearly accepted” in my view I partially agree and disagree with the writer for the reasons I indicate below. The doctrine of parliament sovereignty establishes the supreme law making body of England which is the legislature. The statutes created by the parliament are non justiciable which shows the capacity of parliament as a retrospective law making body. Though this is the fact, it was different before the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688. The unlimited parliament legislative authority was not always being accepted in courts. In the case of Dr Bonham's it is stated that the common law had the power to control Acts of parliament and sometime declare them to be void and similarly in Day v Savadge the view was expressed that if an Act was against natural equity in that it made a man a judge in his