The Parliament should be a powerful institution as the lawmaking body representing the people, but it should not be the most powerful without limits. In a democratic republic like India, power needs to be balanced among different institutions. If Parliament had unlimited power, it could pass laws that violate citizens' fundamental rights. The Constitution creates checks and balances so that no single institution becomes too powerful.

No, Parliament should not have unlimited power to make any law it wants. In a democratic republic, the Constitution places limits on lawmaking power to protect citizens' fundamental rights. Laws that violate freedom of speech, religion, or equality before the law cannot be passed. This is how republics like India defend against the 'dominance of the majority' and protect smaller groups from unfair treatment.

If lawmaking has no limits, it could lead to unfair and unjust laws that discriminate against certain groups. The majority could pass laws that harm minorities or take away basic freedoms. Powerful groups could use laws to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Without constitutional limits, laws could become tools of oppression rather than protection. The chapter illustrates this with the concept of 'Matsya nyāya' — the big fish eating the smaller ones in the absence of law and order.

Neither institution is absolutely more powerful than the other — they have different but equally important roles. Parliament makes laws representing the people's will. The Supreme Court interprets laws, protects fundamental rights, and can declare laws unconstitutional through judicial review. This creates a system of checks and balances where each institution limits the other's power. The Parliament represents democratic will, while the Supreme Court protects constitutional principles and rights.