System of check and balance in India
System of Checks and Balances in India
Introduction
The system of checks and balances is a fundamental principle in constitutional governance that ensures no single organ of the state (Legislature, Executive, Judiciary) exercises absolute power. Each organ has certain powers to check and balance the other organs, preserving democracy, preventing misuse of power, and protecting citizens’ rights.
Constitutional Foundation of Checks and Balances in India
India follows the Separation of Powers Doctrine inspired by the U.S. Constitution but adapted with flexibility.
The Constitution provides a functional separation rather than a rigid one.
Checks and balances are embedded through distribution of powers, judicial review, legislative oversight, executive accountability, and independent institutions.
Components of Checks and Balances in India
1. Legislature over Executive
Legislature controls the Executive through financial powers, legislative oversight, impeachment, and vote of no-confidence.
Parliament can pass motions of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers, compelling resignation.
The legislature controls the budget and financial allocations, crucial for executive functioning.
Case:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Highlighted parliamentary sovereignty but within constitutional limits.
2. Executive over Legislature
Executive, led by the President and Council of Ministers, can recommend dissolution of Lok Sabha under certain conditions.
President’s power to give assent, withhold assent, or return bills acts as a check.
Executive also ensures enforcement of laws passed by legislature.
Case:
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
President’s rule imposition reviewed to check misuse of executive power over state legislature.
3. Judiciary over Legislature
The Judiciary has the power of judicial review to strike down unconstitutional laws.
The Supreme Court and High Courts safeguard fundamental rights and ensure legislature acts within constitutional limits.
Case:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending powers.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Reinforced judiciary’s role in maintaining constitutional balance.
4. Judiciary over Executive
Courts ensure the executive acts lawfully, fairly, and constitutionally.
Writ jurisdiction (Article 32, 226) empowers courts to check arbitrary or illegal executive actions.
Courts can declare executive orders or actions void if unconstitutional.
Case:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Expanded judicial scrutiny over executive actions infringing personal liberty.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Judicial review of executive and legislative acts even in sensitive political matters.
5. Executive over Judiciary
Executive controls the appointment, transfer, and removal of judges (with checks).
Parliament (with executive consent) can initiate impeachment proceedings against judges for misconduct.
The executive enforces judicial decisions.
Case:
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) (Second Judges Case)
Struck a balance on judicial appointments involving executive and judiciary.
6. Legislature over Judiciary
Parliament can amend the Constitution (within limits) affecting judiciary’s powers.
Parliament enacts laws regarding the jurisdiction and functioning of courts.
Impeachment of judges is a legislative check.
Case:
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982)
Highlighted legislative influence on judiciary appointments and functioning.
Additional Checks and Balances
Independent institutions like Election Commission, Comptroller & Auditor General, and Central Vigilance Commission act as checks on all three organs.
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles guide the balance between organs.
Media and civil society also play informal roles in checking governmental power.
Important Case Laws Summarized
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Issue: Extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Held: Parliament can amend the Constitution but not the basic structure.
Significance: Judicial check on legislative supremacy.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Issue: Fair procedure for deprivation of personal liberty by executive.
Held: Executive actions subject to fundamental rights and judicial review.
Significance: Strengthened judiciary’s role over executive.
3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Issue: Use and abuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule).
Held: Executive action dissolving state assemblies subject to judicial review.
Significance: Check on executive over legislature in states.
4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Issue: Constitutionality of amendment curtailing fundamental rights.
Held: Balanced judicial review protecting constitutional harmony.
Significance: Ensured checks on legislative and executive powers.
5. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993)
Issue: Appointment of judges and role of executive vs. judiciary.
Held: Affirmed primacy of judiciary in judicial appointments (collegium system).
Significance: Balanced executive and judiciary relations.
Conclusion
The Indian Constitution provides a dynamic system of checks and balances aimed at preventing concentration of power.
Judiciary acts as the final arbiter safeguarding constitutionalism.
Legislature controls the executive through laws and accountability.
Executive ensures governance but remains accountable.
The system is not rigid but flexible, adapting to political and social realities while protecting democratic values.
RELATED Blog
0 comments