Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doctrine of Separation of Powers in India
Doctrine of Separation of Powers in India
Submitted by:
Prashant Kumar Singh,
LL.M. 1st yr.
Roll No. 35,
SLS, Pune
1 | Page
Abstract:
The Supreme Court applies the structural provisions of the Constitution by relying on an
Overarching framework of separation of powers. In Indian Constitution, there are mentioned
provisions in relation to separation of power but there is functional overlapping.
These theories rely on a freestanding separation of powers principle derived from the structure of
the document as a whole, both contradict the idea that the Indian Constitution is a bundle of
compromises that interpreters must respect if they are to show fidelity to the Constitution
making process. The historical record reveals that the founding generation had no single baseline
against which to measure what the separation of powers would have required in the abstract.
2 | Page
Legislative
Executive
Judiciary.
Importance:
According to the theory of Separation of Powers, these three departments of the Government
must in a free democracy, always be kept separate by three separate department of the
Government. The function of the legislature is to make laws while the function of the executive
is to execute them and that of the judiciary is to enforce and interpret them. None of these three
departments should interfere with exercise of the functions of the other departments. One
department should not exercise the functions of another department.
3 | Page
principle implies that each organ should be independent of the other and that no organ should
perform functions that belong to the other.
The doctrine of separation of powers has become an important part of the governmental
structure. But, the practical application of the doctrine differs from structural provision. In
theory, the doctrine of separation of powers is supposed to have a classification of functions and
corresponding organs. But because of the complex nature of a modern state, where the process of
law making, administration and adjudication cannot be clearly assigned to separate institutions,
the application of this doctrine in strict sense is very difficult thats why there is functional and
personal overlapping exist in our system.
We know that the government is form for the protection of our rights, but governments have
historically been the major violators of these rights. The concept of Separation of Powers is one
such concept. The basic concept behind this is that when a single person or group has a large
amount of power, they can become dangerous to society and citizens. The Separation of power is
a way of removing the amount of power in any groups hands, making it more difficult to use.
to the people directly. However, in case of any unjust or partisan decisions taken by the
government, the remedy would still lie with the Judiciary. As is the case in India, all the judges
of the Supreme Court are entitled to take their own separate views on the intent of the
Constitution and vote accordingly.
Constitutional position:
The Constitution of India shows the idea of separation of powers in an implied manner. By
looking into various provisions of the Constitution, it is evident that the Constitution intends that
the powers of legislation shall be exercised exclusively by the executive and judiciary. Similarly,
the judicial powers can be said to vest with the judiciary. The judiciary is independent and there
can be no interference with its jurisdiction either by the Executive or by the Legislature. The
executive powers of the Union and the State are vested in the President and the Governor
respectively.
The constitution of India lays down functional separation of the organs in the following
manner:
According to Indian Constitution State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the
executive. This is for the purpose of ensuring the independence of judiciary.5 Constitutional
provision provides validity of proceedings in Parliament and the Legislatures cannot be called
into question in any Court within the territory of India. 6 Judicial conduct of a judge of the
Supreme Court and the High Courts cannot be discussed in the Parliament and the State
Legislature, according to the Constitution.7 The executive power of the Union and the State shall
be vested with the President and the Governor and according to Article 361 they enjoy immunity
from civil and criminal liability.8
5 Article 50.
6 Article 122 and 212.
7 Article 121 and 211.
8 Article 53 and 154.
6 | Page
Our legislature has law making powers and judicial powers in cases of breach of its privilege,
impeachment of the President and the removal of the judges. The executive may affect the
functioning of the judiciary by making appointments to the office of Chief Justice and other
judges. Legislature exercising judicial powers in the case of amending a law declared ultra vires
or unconstitutional by the Court. While discharging the function of disqualifying its members
and impeachment of the judges, the legislature discharges the functions of the judiciary. In
certain cases legislature can impose punishment for exceeding freedom of speech in the
Parliament; this comes under the powers and privileges of the parliament.
Applying the doctrines of constitutional provision in the Indian scenario, a system is created
where none of the department can usurp the functions or powers which are vested into another
organ by express. Further, the Constitution of India expressly provides for a system of checks
and balances in order to prevent the arbitrary use of power. It is essential in order to enable the
just and equitable functioning of such a constitutional system. By giving such powers, a
mechanism for the control over the exercise of constitutional powers by the respective organs is
mentioned.
This clearly indicates that the Indian Constitution in its function does not provide for a strict
separation of powers in India. Instead, it creates a system consisting of the three departments of
Government and confers upon them both exclusive and overlapping powers and functions. Thus,
there is no absolute separation of functions between the three departments of Government.
7 | Page
making power and also the judicial powers.9 The council of Ministers is selected from the
legislature and is responsible to the legislature.
In case of Pratibha v State of Karnataka,10 the court has observed that since the executive power
of the state executive is co-extensive with that of the state legislature, it follows that the state
executive may make rule regarding any matter within the legislative competence of the state
legislature, without prior legislative authority, except where a law is required because the rule so
framed would violate any provision of the constitution which requires legislation, e.g., Articles
265 and 302/162.
The Supreme Court in case of Shri Sitaram Sugar co. ltd. V Union of India,11 has observed that
In general, the court, would not exercise its power of judicial review to interfere with a policy
made by the government in exercise of its power under Article 162, particularly where it involves
technical, scientific or economic expertise. Proper functioning of state administration should not
be jeopardized owing to ego clashes between high officers. Such officers should be aware that
power should be exercised for public good, and not for personal benefit.
The Supreme Court in case of Harish Uppal v Union of India,12 has observed that the Supreme
Court power to frame rules including rules regarding condition on which a person (including an
advocate) can practice in the Supreme Court. Such a rule would be valid and binding on all. Such
a rule if framed would not have anything to do with the disciplinary jurisdiction of Bar
Councils.13
Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain,14 it held that separation of powers is a feature of the basic structure
of the Indian constitution. None of the three separate departments of the republic can take over
the functions assigned to the other. This constitutional scheme cannot be changed even by
resorting to amending process under Article 368 of the Indian constitution.
Where any Act made by the legislature is invalidated by the courts on the ground of legislative
incompetence, the legislature cannot enact a law declaring that the judgment of the court shall
not operate, it cannot overrule the decision of the court. This is what is meant by check and
balance inherent in a system of government incorporating separation of powers.
The logic behind this doctrine is still valid and relevant. Therefore, mutual restraint in the
exercise of power by the three departments of the State is the soul of the doctrine of separation of
powers. Hence the doctrine can be better appreciated as a doctrine of check and balance and in
this sense administrative process is not an antithesis of the doctrine of separation of powers.
The debate about the doctrine of separation of powers in regard to Indian governance is as old as
the Constitution itself. Apart from the directive principles laid down in Part-IV of the
constitution which provides for separation of judiciary from the executive, the constitutional
provision does not provide any formalistic division of powers. It appeared in various judgments
by the Supreme Court after the Constitution was adopted. It is through these judicial decisions,
passed from time to time, that the boundaries of application of the doctrine have been
determined.
To the same effect is the observation of Justice Das in Ram Krishna Dalmia v Justice Tendolkar 16
that the constitution does not express the existence of separation of powers, and it is true that
division of powers of the government into legislative, executive and judiciary is implicit in the
constitution but the doctrine does not form an essential basis of foundation-stone of the
constitutional framework as it does in U.S.A.
Again in Udai Ram Sharma v Union of India,17 the court categorically stated that the doctrine has
not been accepted by our constitution. The court expressed its opinion that the American doctrine
of separation of powers has no application in India.
The doctrine of separation of powers was expressly recognized to be a part of the Constitution in
the case of Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab,18 where the Court observed that the doctrine of
separation of powers is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution but it stands to be violated
when the functions of one department of Government are performed by another.
The supreme court in the case of Asif Hamid v. State of Jammu & Kashmir,19 has observed that
Legislature, executive and judiciary have to function within their own sphere as mentioned under
the constitution. The functioning of the democracy depends upon the strength and independence
of each of its departments. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional
exercise of power by the legislature and executive. Judicial review is like social and economic
justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint,
the only check on our own exercise of power is the self-imposed discipline of judicial restraint.
16 1959 SCR 229: see also Jayanti Lal v S.M. Ram, AIR 1964 SC 649.
17 AIR 1968 SC 1138.
18 AIR 1955 SC 549 at 556.
19 AIR 1989 SC 1899.
10 | P a g e
It was after the landmark case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 20 that the place of this
doctrine in the Indian context was made clear. It was observed by the Supreme Court that in the
Indian Constitution, there is separation of powers in its provision only. A rigid separation of
powers as under the American Constitution or under the Australian Constitution does not apply
to India. Chandrachud J. also observed that the political usefulness of the doctrine of Separation
of Power is not widely recognized. No Constitution can survive without a conscious provision to
its fine check and balance.
In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab,21 Supreme Court took the help of doctrine of basic
structure as propounded in Kesvananda Bharati case22 and said that 9th Schedule is violative of
this doctrine and hence the 9th Schedule was made amenable to judicial review which also forms
part of the basic structure. The Constitution brings into existence different constitutional entities,
namely, the Union, the States and the Union lists. It creates three major instruments of power,
namely, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. It demarcates their jurisdiction minutely
and expects them to exercise their respective powers without overstepping their limits. They
should function within the spheres given to them.
But in I.R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs v State of Tamil Nadu,23 the Supreme Court observed that the
constitution is living document. The constitutional provisions have to be construed having regard
to the march of time and the development of law. The principle of constitutionalism is now a
legal principle which requires control over the exercise of governmental power to ensure that it
does not destroy the democratic principles including the protection of fundamental rights. The
principle of constitutionalism advocates a check and balance model of separation of powers. It
requires a diffusion of powers, necessitating different independent centers of decisions-making.
The legislature can restrict fundamental rights but it is impossible for law protecting fundamental
20 (1975) supp SCC 1, 260.
21 (1975) supp SCC 1: AIR 1975 SC 2299.
22(1973) 4 SCC 225: AIR 1973 SC 1461.
23 AIR 2007 SC 861.
11 | P a g e
right to be impliedly repealed by future statutes. The protection of fundamental rights through the
common law is main feature of common law constitutionalism.
Conclusion
The doctrine of separation of powers has come a long way from its theoretical form. The mere
separation of powers between the three departments is not sufficient for the elimination of the
dangers of arbitrary government. Therefore, a system of checks and balances is a practical
necessity in order to achieve the successful end of the doctrine of separation of powers. Such a
system like separation of power is necessary in order to strengthen its actual usage. It is evident
that governments in their actual operation do not opt for the strict separation of powers because it
is impracticable, however, application of this concept can be seen in almost all the countries in its
mixed form. India relies heavily upon the doctrine in order to regulate, check and control the
exercise of power by the three departments of Government. Whether it is in theory or in practical
aspect, the Doctrine of Separation of Powers is essential for the effective functioning of a
democracy. Therefore, the Doctrine of separation of Powers in todays context of
Liberalization, privatization and globalization cannot be interpreted to mean either separation of
powers or check and balance or principle of restraint but community of powers exercised in
the spirit of cooperation by various departments of the State in the best interest of the people.
It is to be noted that the doctrine of separation of powers should not be taken to mean that the
executive and the legislature cannot be directed by the judiciary to discharge their functions if
they are found inactive in discharging of the function assigned to them by the constitution. The
Supreme Court has been made the guardian and protector of the constitution and therefore it can
direct the legislature and executive to discharge their function properly. The judiciary in India, in
addition to the judicial function, has been assigned the functioning to see that the constitution is
not violated by any authority including the executive and the legislature. For the maintenance of
rule of law in the country it is necessary that each department of the government perform its
functions properly.
12 | P a g e
Bibliography:
Books referred:
1. Administrative Law by Prof. U.P.D. Kesari (Page 19-25),
2. Administrative Law by Kailash Rai (Page 43),
3. The Indian Administrative Law by M.C. Jain Kagzi (Page 15-20),
4. Administrative Law by I.P. Massey (Page 33),
5. Administrative Law by Durga Das Basu,
6. Introduction To Administrative Law by Prof. Neil Hawke and Neil Papworth,
7. Principles of Administrative Law by M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain (Page 31-37),
8. Administrative Law by S.P. Sathe (Page 20-23),
9. Administrative Law by D.D. Basu (Page 23-28),
10. Administrative Law by Wade (Page 251),
11. Developments in India Administrative Law by Upendra Baxi (Page 136),
12. Indian constitutional Law by M.P. Jain (Page 115-119),
13. Changing face of Administrative Law by M.P. Jain (Page 80-98),
14. Lectures on Administrative Law by C.K. Takwani,
15. The constitution of India by P.M. Bakshi.
13 | P a g e
Websites:
1. http://airwebworld.com/articles/index.php?article=1531
2. http://www.legalquest.in/index.php/students/law-study-materials/45-administrative3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
law/407-doctrine-of-separation-of-powers.html
http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2006/seperation-of-powers.html
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1274763/
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/342033/
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/748977/
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/748977/
Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers
Arbitrary Government Described and the Government of the Massachusetts Vindicated
14 | P a g e