comparison of separation of powers in UK in India
Comparison of Separation of Powers in UK and India
1. Introduction to Separation of Powers
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers divides state functions into three distinct branches to avoid concentration of power:
Legislature: Makes laws.
Executive: Implements laws.
Judiciary: Interprets laws.
The doctrine ensures checks and balances among the branches, safeguarding democracy and liberty.
2. Separation of Powers in the UK
The UK has an unwritten constitution based on statutes, conventions, and judicial decisions.
Traditionally, the separation of powers in the UK is flexible and overlapping.
There is fusion of powers especially between the executive and legislature; e.g., the Prime Minister and Cabinet are members of Parliament.
The judiciary is independent, but Parliamentary sovereignty means courts cannot override Parliament’s legislation.
The UK relies more on checks and balances through political conventions rather than rigid separation.
3. Separation of Powers in India
India follows a written constitution (1950) that explicitly provides for separation of powers.
It provides clear demarcation but also recognizes a degree of functional overlap to ensure effective governance.
The Indian judiciary is independent and powerful, with the authority of judicial review to check legislature and executive.
The doctrine is balanced with checks and balances, but the courts have a strong role in enforcing constitutional limits.
4. Comparison Table
| Aspect | UK | India |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution | Unwritten, flexible | Written, detailed |
| Executive-Legislature Relation | Fusion of powers (executive from legislature) | Separate, but executive responsible to legislature |
| Judiciary | Independent, but Parliament sovereign | Independent, with power of judicial review |
| Legislative Supremacy | Parliament sovereign (no override by courts) | Constitution supreme (courts can invalidate laws) |
| Degree of Separation | Moderate/flexible | Strict but with functional overlaps |
5. Key UK Cases on Separation of Powers
(A) R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Facts:
Whether the government could trigger Article 50 (Brexit) without Parliament's approval.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled that the government could not bypass Parliament, reaffirming Parliamentary sovereignty and checks on executive power.
Significance:
Emphasized Parliament’s legislative supremacy.
Showed executive is accountable to Parliament, illustrating the fusion yet accountability.
(B) Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985)
Facts:
Whether the executive's prerogative powers are subject to judicial review.
Held:
The House of Lords held that executive decisions can be reviewed by courts for legality.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial control over executive powers, reinforcing the separation between judiciary and executive.
Confirmed limits to executive discretion.
6. Key Indian Cases on Separation of Powers
(A) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
Facts:
The validity of constitutional amendments was challenged.
Held:
Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament cannot alter the constitution’s basic structure, thus limiting legislative supremacy.
Significance:
Affirmed judiciary’s power to check legislature, emphasizing separation of powers.
Judiciary acts as guardian of constitution.
(B) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
Facts:
Judicial appointments challenged as executive interference.
Held:
Established the collegium system to protect judicial independence from executive influence.
Significance:
Reinforced judicial independence.
Balanced power between judiciary and executive.
(C) Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
Facts:
Validity of the 39th Constitutional Amendment which placed the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
Held:
Supreme Court struck down this provision as violating the Basic Structure, preserving judicial review.
Significance:
Confirmed judiciary’s role as check on legislative and executive excesses.
Emphasized separation of powers.
(D) Ramakrishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538
Facts:
Conflict between judiciary and executive over contempt proceedings.
Held:
Court upheld its power of contempt of court and judicial independence against executive encroachment.
Significance:
Asserted judiciary’s autonomy in enforcing law.
Strengthened separation of judiciary from executive.
7. Analysis of Differences
| Feature | UK | India |
|---|---|---|
| Parliamentary Sovereignty | Supreme over all | Limited by Constitution and judicial review |
| Executive Accountability | Executive drawn from and accountable to legislature | Executive separate but accountable to legislature |
| Judicial Review | Limited to reviewing executive, not Parliament | Extensive, can invalidate laws and executive acts |
| Constitutional Rigidity | Flexible, no written constitution | Rigid written constitution with Basic Structure Doctrine |
8. Conclusion
The UK follows a flexible and political separation of powers, where the executive is part of the legislature, and courts respect parliamentary supremacy.
India adopts a more rigid and constitutionalized separation, with the judiciary playing a stronger role in safeguarding constitutionalism and checking both executive and legislature.
Both systems aim to maintain a balance but differ in the degree of judicial intervention and constitutional supremacy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments