Comaparative Study of Seperation of Powe: USA, UK & India
Comparative Study of Separation of Powers: USA, UK & India
What is Separation of Powers?
Separation of Powers is a constitutional doctrine that divides government powers among three branches:
Legislative (makes laws)
Executive (implements laws)
Judiciary (interprets laws)
This division aims to prevent concentration of power and ensure checks and balances.
1. Separation of Powers in the USA
Strict and Clear-cut separation.
The Constitution explicitly divides powers among:
Congress (Legislature)
President (Executive)
Supreme Court (Judiciary)
Each branch acts independently but with powers to check others (veto, judicial review).
Key US Case Laws
a) Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Established judicial review, where courts can declare laws unconstitutional.
Reinforced judiciary’s independence and role in checking legislative/executive acts.
b) Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)
Limited executive power; President couldn’t seize steel mills during strike without Congress’s authorization.
Emphasized executive branch must act within constitutional powers.
c) INS v. Chadha (1983)
Legislative veto by Congress over executive actions declared unconstitutional.
Reinforced the separate roles of legislature and executive.
d) Myers v. United States (1926)
Affirmed President’s exclusive power to remove executive officers.
Strengthened executive autonomy.
2. Separation of Powers in the UK
Flexible and overlapping separation.
No written constitution; based on conventions, statutes, and judicial decisions.
Parliament is sovereign (combines legislative and executive functions).
The executive (Prime Minister & Cabinet) is drawn from the legislature.
Judiciary is independent but has limited power over Parliament.
Key UK Case Laws
a) R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Confirmed parliamentary supremacy and limits on executive power regarding Brexit notification.
Demonstrated balance between Parliament and Executive.
b) Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ case) (1985)
Established that executive actions are subject to judicial review.
However, recognizes some executive prerogative powers remain outside judicial scrutiny.
c) R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
Held government must act according to statute, even when exercising executive discretion.
Reinforced limits on executive within parliamentary framework.
d) R v Chaytor (2010)
Confirmed parliamentary privilege and separation between judicial oversight and parliamentary proceedings.
3. Separation of Powers in India
Constitutionally entrenched but not absolute.
Inspired by USA but modified to fit parliamentary system like UK.
Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary are separate but with checks and balances.
Executive is responsible to legislature (like UK).
Judiciary is independent with power of judicial review (like USA).
Key Indian Case Laws
a) Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973)
Affirmed basic structure doctrine, including separation of powers as part of basic structure.
Parliament cannot alter this separation fundamentally.
b) State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977)
Emphasized constitutional separation between legislature and executive.
Reinforced executive’s accountability to legislature.
c) R. v. Union of India, AIR 1950 (First Judicial Review case)
Established judiciary’s power of judicial review over legislative and executive acts.
d) L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997)
Held that all administrative tribunals’ decisions are subject to judicial review.
Strengthened judicial oversight over executive actions.
Comparative Summary Table
| Aspect | USA | UK | India |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of Separation | Strict, clear, codified in Constitution | Flexible, overlapping, based on conventions | Constitutional but flexible, mix of USA and UK |
| Executive-Legislature Relationship | Separate and independent | Executive drawn from Legislature | Executive responsible to Legislature |
| Judicial Review | Established and strong (Marbury v Madison) | Limited, respects Parliamentary sovereignty | Strong and entrenched (Kesavananda Bharati) |
| Parliamentary Sovereignty | Limited by Constitution | Supreme (no written constitution) | Limited by Constitution |
| Notable Checks | Veto, judicial review, impeachment | Judicial review, parliamentary supremacy | Judicial review, basic structure doctrine |
Recap of Cases and Their Impact
| Case | Country | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison | USA | Established judicial review |
| Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. | USA | Limited executive power |
| R (Miller) v Brexit Secretary | UK | Parliamentary sovereignty over executive |
| GCHQ case | UK | Executive actions subject to judicial review |
| Kesavananda Bharati | India | Basic structure doctrine includes separation of powers |
| L. Chandra Kumar | India | Judicial review over tribunals |
Conclusion
The USA follows a rigid, clear-cut separation with strong checks.
The UK has a flexible system based on parliamentary sovereignty with overlapping powers.
India blends both systems, having a constitutional separation but with parliamentary features and strong judicial oversight.
RELATED Blog
0 comments