The constitution of a republic is presumed to be a nucleus within legal mainframes of that territory. In case of constitutional supremacy, the constitution is supreme over the parliament and the parliament can exercise its functions being only within the bounds of the constitution. The entire legislative, executive and judicial activities of the state are guided and regulated within the limit of the constitution. Constitutional Supremacy generally arises only where the constitution is written and rigid. Constitutional Supremacy mandates its superiority under all circumstances where no actions-legislative, executive, or judicial shall be valid unless it conforms to the constitution literally and spiritually.
It is pertinent to mention that the American Constitution is pioneer in designating constitutional supremacy as a supreme law of the land under article-(iv) as it had a painful experience that even a representative body might be tyrannical and there should be a law superior to the legislature. However, constitutional supremacy embolden judiciary in scrutinizing the constitutionality of any legislation made by the parliament and can declare law void on the grounds of inconsistency with the constitution.
The Supreme Court of America openly and clearly invalidated an act of congress as unconstitutional for the first time in Marbury v Madison case [1 Crunch 137;2L. Ed.60(1803)]. It was held in this case that “………the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitution, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instruments.”  It was also held in Marbury V Madison case that “……certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution is void.”  Later on, in Eakin v Raub case[12 Sergent and Rawle (Pennsylvania Supreme Court)330(1825)] , it was stated that “…the power of the supreme court to declare acts of congress unconstitutional has so long been an integral part of our constitutional system, and Marshall's reasoning in the case of Marbury v Madison is so impressive.” So American constitution propagated the idea of constitutional supremacy and empowered judiciary in scrutinizing the consistency of legislation with constitution.
However, judiciary plays an important role in constitutional supremacy continuity by declaring any act invalid inconsistent with constitutional provisions as an act of Congress was invalidated by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott case [19 How.393, decided in 1857].
The idea of constitutional supremacy was rooted in American Constitution and matured subsequently in different written constitutions of the world. The Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh mandates its supremacy under article-7. As per article-7(2) of our constitution, it is clearly stated that “this  Constitution is, as the solemn expression of the will of the people, the supreme law of the Republic, and if any other law is inconsistent with this constitution that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”  The spirit of constitutional supremacy enshrined under this article intends to erase interventions by any unconstitutional act to ensure its continuity.
We already have experienced the violation of our constitutional supremacy by military intervention, martial law and bringing amendments inconsistent with the constitutional mainframes. But, judiciary played an adamant role by invalidating those unconstitutional acts in that milieu.
Ordinarily, the approaches of judges in revolutionary situation are in two broad ways: by applying the kelsen doctrine of revolutionary legality and by applying the doctrine of necessity. The first application of kelsen's doctrine of efficacy was made in the State v Dosso[PLD 1958 (SC) 533] case in Pakistan. In this case, the Chief Justice Munir observed that “…..where a constitution and the national legal order under its disrupted by an abrupt political change not within the contemplation of the constitution, then such a change is a revolution and its legal effect is not only the destruction of the constitution but also the validity of the national legal order irrespective of how or by whom such a change is brought about”.
The other approach made by the Judges to meet revolutionary situations is the application of the doctrine of state necessity. This doctrine was followed in Begum Nusrat Bhuto v chief of Army staff and the Federation of Pakistan [PLD 1977 (SC) 657]. The upshot of this doctrine is to bridge the gap between the law and the facts of political life and to avoid the possibility that state and the people should be allowed to perish for the sake of its constitution and to accommodate an action which was undoubtedly an extra-constitutional step.
However, the kelsen theory of revolutionary legality or the doctrine of state necessity was neither directly mooted nor re-evaluated by way of any explicit or implicit challenge to the imposition of martial law in Bangladesh. Here some fringe question came up for justification, but in considering the same the appellate Division pronounced itself on the constitution and martial law the broad sweep of which has a far reaching significance and which will reverberate the corridor of constitutional debate of years.  In Halima Khatun case [30 DLR (SC) 207] Justice Fazle Munim decided it on favor of the spirit of supremacy of the constitution enshrined in Art 7(2) of the constitution. Again, Justice Ruhul Islam said that though the constitution is not abrogated, the position of it is reduced to subordinate to the proclamation and the supremacy of the constitution is violated [Haji Joynal Abedin case, 32DLR (AD) 110]. However, judiciary also played a dominant role in constitutional supremacy continuity in Bangladesh by declaring 5th and 7th amendment of our constitution void and unconstitutional.
Bangladesh has a written and rigid constitution with constitutional supremacy, but we experienced that the spirit of its supremacy is ignored, suspended or amended several times with parlous motives by usurpers. No doubt, it is a herculean task for judiciary to uphold constitutional supremacy continuity in Bangladesh. It is relevant to note the Maxim Quad initio no valet, fraction temprise no vated means 'what is void in the beginning does not become valid by passage of time'. So, it should be a zealotry role of judiciary to scrutinize the validity of any legislation inconsistent with the constitution to uphold its supremacy.

The writer is a Research Assistant for Law at Bangladesh Institution of Law and International Affairs (BILIA).