The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy has exerted considerable influence in shaping the constitutional frameworks of India and the USA. Citing relevant case laws discuss the role of the judiciary in influencing the constitutional institutions in these countries. Is the scope of judicial review wider in India?

Parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy are two pillars of separation of powers engaged by Montesquieu. Influencing constitutional frameworks (1) Balance between the two principles is maintained. India (2) Article 121 prevents Parliament's to discuss judicial conduct of judges.

Case laws (1) Supreme Court in Uparkha case, Prakash Singh case has given guidelines to the government. (2) Parliament's power to amend the constitution has been upheld under Kesavananda Bharati case. (3) SC in Madhu Limayji v UOI, has also exercised judicial scutain. (4) Strict separation of power between the two organs has been maintained. USA (1) Strict separation of power between the two organs has been maintained. (2) Judicial supremacy has been accorded explicitly under the constitution. Scope of Judicial review

Wider in India (1) Indian Judiciary has been given powers under Article 142 and 32 (special leave) as well. (2) 'Basic structure' doctrine has been devised by SC which gives it major powers. (1) Due process of law rather than 'rule of law' is followed. (2) Complete separation provides more powers to judiciary there. However, Indian judiciary through Meneka Gandhi case has also come closer to the counterpart in USA.