Separation of Powers in Indian context
⚖️ Separation of Powers in the Indian Context
✅ 1. Introduction: What is Separation of Powers?
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers is a model of governance where the functions of the three main organs of the state—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—are divided and separated to prevent concentration of power and to establish a system of checks and balances.
➤ Origin:
Propounded by Montesquieu in his book “The Spirit of Laws” (1748).
He argued that liberty is best preserved if no single organ exercises the powers of the others.
✅ 2. Application in India: A Flexible Model
India does not follow a strict separation like the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the Indian Constitution provides for a functional overlap among the organs with checks and balances to prevent abuse of power.
📜 Constitutional Provisions Related to Separation:
| Organ | Primary Function | Key Articles |
|---|---|---|
| Legislature | Makes laws | Articles 79–122 (Parliament) |
| Executive | Implements laws | Articles 52–78 (President, PM) |
| Judiciary | Interprets laws | Articles 124–147 (Supreme Court) |
But overlapping powers exist, e.g.:
The President (Executive) gives assent to laws.
The Judiciary can strike down laws (Judicial Review).
Parliament can impeach judges.
✅ 3. Significance of Separation of Powers in India
Prevents abuse of power and promotes accountability.
Maintains independence of judiciary.
Provides checks and balances among the organs.
Ensures efficient governance while protecting constitutional rights.
✅ 4. Landmark Case Laws (Explained in Detail)
⚖️ Case 1: Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955 AIR 549)
Facts: Petitioners challenged the Punjab Government’s decision to take over the management of textbooks and publishing.
Issue: Was the executive encroaching on legislative powers?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution does not embody strict separation.
However, one organ should not interfere in the essential functions of another.
The Executive can act only within the powers conferred by law.
Significance:
First major case explaining that India follows a "functional" or "partial" separation of powers.
⚖️ Case 2: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973 AIR 1461)
Facts: This case challenged the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, especially fundamental rights.
Held:
The Supreme Court introduced the "Basic Structure Doctrine".
Separation of powers was held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Parliament cannot destroy or damage this principle through amendments.
Significance:
Recognized separation of powers as an essential feature of the Indian Constitution.
⚖️ Case 3: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 2299)
Facts: The election of PM Indira Gandhi was invalidated by the Allahabad High Court. Parliament passed a law to nullify this decision.
Issue: Could Parliament enact a law to override a judicial decision?
Held:
The Supreme Court struck down the law.
Held that Parliament cannot exercise judicial power.
Violation of separation of powers and breach of basic structure.
Significance:
Reinforced that legislative overreach into judicial functions is unconstitutional.
⚖️ Case 4: Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643)
Facts: Concerned with Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Held:
Court held that Parliament cannot curtail Fundamental Rights.
Though this was later modified by Kesavananda Bharati, the case was key in asserting judicial review.
Significance:
Asserted judiciary’s independence in interpreting the Constitution.
Laid foundation for further elaboration of checks and balances.
⚖️ Case 5: P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002 AIR SC 1856)
Facts: Whether judiciary can prescribe time limits for trials.
Held:
Court held that fixing time limits for trials is a legislative function, not judicial.
Courts cannot legislate in the name of judicial activism.
Significance:
Reinforced the idea that judiciary must not encroach upon legislative domain.
⚖️ Case 6: State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah (2000 AIR SC 1296)
Facts: The executive was taking actions affecting rights without proper legal backing.
Held:
Executive actions must have legislative sanction.
Executive cannot act on its own in areas reserved for legislature.
Significance:
Asserted the rule of law and legislative supremacy in governance.
⚖️ Case 7: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997 AIR SC 1125)
Facts: Constitutional validity of tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B.
Held:
Tribunals cannot oust the jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme Court.
Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution.
Significance:
Strengthened the role of judiciary and limited legislative power to alter the constitutional framework.
✅ 5. Summary of Key Principles
| Organ | Power | Limitations/Checks |
|---|---|---|
| Legislature | Makes laws | Subject to judicial review |
| Executive | Implements laws | Cannot override laws or fundamental rights |
| Judiciary | Interprets laws, ensures constitutional validity | Cannot legislate or interfere in policy decisions |
✅ 6. Functional Overlaps in Indian System
| Overlap Type | Example |
|---|---|
| Executive + Legislature | Ministers are part of Parliament (Westminster model) |
| Judiciary + Legislature | Courts interpret and sometimes invalidate laws |
| Judiciary + Executive | PILs lead to court-mandated executive actions; tribunals with judicial powers |
✅ 7. Contemporary Challenges
Judicial Activism vs Overreach: Courts are increasingly making decisions that resemble policy-making.
Ordinance Raj: Executive bypasses legislature via frequent ordinances.
Tribunalization: Executive influence on tribunals raises concerns about judicial independence.
Parliamentary Non-functioning: Delays and logjams in legislative process lead to governance via executive orders.
✅ 8. Conclusion
India follows a balanced and flexible model of separation of powers. It is not absolute, but based on mutual respect, checks and balances, and the idea that no organ should usurp the functions of another.
The judiciary has played a vital role in upholding this doctrine and preventing abuse of power by interpreting the Constitution to protect the basic structure. However, with increasing institutional conflicts and overlap, maintaining the delicate balance remains a constitutional necessity and a governance challenge.
RELATED Blog
0 comments