To do that, Parliament must be prorogued and a new session started.
But, it is widely perceived as a calculated move by the government to conclude the Brexit process with minimal parliamentary scrutiny.
There is a view that the suspension was far longer than necessary.
Notably, the Boris Johnson-led government had promised to make Britain leave the European Union by October 31 2019, even if that meant an exit without a deal.
The PM, who has faced calls to resign, said he "profoundly disagreed" with the Supreme Court ruling but would "respect" it.
There is also an opinion that the action by the court had amounted to a "constitutional coup".
What is the judiciary’s rationale?
The verdict had the effect of quashing the Queen’s order to prorogue Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister.
U.K.’s Supreme Court found that the actions of Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament were unlawful.
Judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to the Brexit deadline.
It had the effect of preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
Why is it a significant ruling?
The prorogation triggered a legal challenge culminating with the Scottish Court of Session finding that the PM had misled the Queen.
Simultaneously, the matter was heard by the High Court of England and Wales, which ruled that the prerogative powers of the government were non-justiciable.
These conflicting decisions and the appeals emanating from these two courts were heard by the Supreme Court.
The matter had come to be heard before a panel of 11 Justices, the permitted maximum quota of serving Justices, of the Supreme Court.
The entire judicial approach, in dealing with a matter concerning the “fundamentals of democracy”, underlines the effectiveness of the judicial review process when conducted in a timely manner.
The Court’s ruling is an exemplar on how the judiciary views executive actions.
By doing so, the U.K. Supreme Court asserted its majesty in the constitutional framework.
Following this, other countries, that follow the Westminster system of government, should make increased introspection of executive actions and provide a boost to due parliamentary processes.
What does this hold for India?
There have been at least two key executive actions this year that have undermined parliamentary processes:
Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
the Bills passed around Jammu and Kashmir (J&K)
The Constitution 103rd Amendment Act 2019 on reservation for EWS was brought for Parliament’s consideration in less than 48 hours from Centre’s decision to do so.
By doing so, the government ensured that there was insufficient time for Parliament scrutiny.
The Bills around J&K also suffered from a similar defect.
The conventional practice is that legislative documents are provided at least a few days before they are tabled.
This is done for the MPs to understand the contents of the legislation, seek views and formulate their positions better.
But, the J&K Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019 was suddenly introduced to the ‘Parliamentary List of Business’.
Copies of the Bill and the Resolution were provided to MPs only after tabling it.
Concerns - Clearly, the above legislations were introduced in Parliament in direct violation of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.
In Rajya Sabha, specifically, Rule 69 talks about ‘Motions after Introduction of Bills’ and ‘Scope of Debate’.
According to Rule 69, there is discretion given to the Chairman in exceptional situations.
But, there has been no detailed explanation given by the presiding officers as to why the government has been allowed to breach parliamentary rules and convention on more than one occasion.
Way forward - It is now for the Indian courts to assess whether executive actions have undermined parliamentary processes.
This would largely determine the majesty of the judicial review process in India.
