SEPARATION OF POWERS

Introduction
The doctrine of separation of powers is a cornerstone of democratic governance,
essential for maintaining liberty and preventing the concentration of authority.
Montesquieu, in his seminal work The Spirit of Laws, emphasized that "there is no
liberty if the powers of judging are not separated from the legislative and executive."
This principle underpins modern constitutional frameworks by dividing power among
the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Each branch operates independently,
ensuring accountability and mitigating the risks of corruption, tyranny, and misuse of
authority. While countries like the United States adopt a rigid interpretation of this
doctrine, India takes a pragmatic approach, emphasizing the separation of functions
over strict compartmentalization. This flexible application enables efficient
governance while preserving the democratic ethos.
Core Principles of Separation of Powers
The principle of separation of powers is rooted in the concept of trias politica, which
envisions a tripartite system where distinct roles and responsibilities are assigned to
three organs of the state. The doctrine ensures functional independence and clarity in
governance. Key principles include:
1. Non-Overlapping Duties: Each branch must perform its designated functions
and avoid encroaching upon the roles of the others.
2. Independence in Functioning: No branch should interfere with the decision-
making or operations of the others.
3. Exclusive Roles for Individuals: Individuals should not simultaneously hold
positions in multiple branches to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure
impartiality.
By adhering to these principles, the separation of powers safeguards against arbitrary
actions and ensures a balanced governance structure.
Historical Evolution of the Doctrine
The idea of separation of powers has evolved over centuries, influenced by prominent
thinkers and historical systems:
 • Aristotle: In his works Politics and Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle introduced
the idea of balanced governance as a means to promote virtuous living. He
analyzed different forms of government, advocating for a distribution of
power to ensure fairness and prevent tyranny.
• Polybius: The Greek historian Polybius studied the Roman Constitution and
praised its system of checks and balances. Although he did not explicitly use
the term "separation of powers," his observations underscored the importance
of preventing the concentration of authority.
• John Calvin: Calvin proposed a governance model comprising three
components: the magistrate, the laws, and the people. He rejected
totalitarianism and monarchy, favoring a blend of democracy and aristocracy,
which influenced modern constitutional frameworks.
Application in India
The Indian Constitution incorporates the doctrine of separation of powers, albeit with
flexibility to suit the country’s parliamentary system. Article 50, a Directive Principle
of State Policy, advocates for the separation of the judiciary from the executive to
ensure impartial justice. However, this provision is not legally enforceable, reflecting
India’s pragmatic approach. Instead of rigid demarcation, India emphasizes a balance
of power with overlapping functions, fostering collaboration among the three
branches:
1. Legislature: Responsible for lawmaking at both central and state levels.
2. Executive: Implements laws and administers governance, drawing authority
from the legislature.
3. Judiciary: Interprets laws, resolves disputes, and upholds constitutional
principles.
This interconnected system ensures that the branches work collaboratively while
maintaining functional independence.
Role of the Legislature
The legislature is the primary lawmaking body, representing the will of the people. At
the central level, Parliament, comprising the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, enacts
laws, while state legislatures perform this role regionally. The legislative process is
subject to constitutional checks, ensuring that laws align with democratic principles.
Notable functions include:
• Amendments: Under Article 368, the legislature can amend the Constitution,
subject to procedural safeguards.
• Ordinances: During emergencies, the President (Article 123) or Governors
(state level) can issue ordinances to address urgent legislative needs.
• Oversight: The legislature oversees the executive through debates,
questioning, and no-confidence motions, ensuring accountability.
Role of the Executive
The executive enforces laws and manages administration. In India, the President is
the constitutional head, while real authority lies with the Prime Minister and the
Council of Ministers. Key features of the executive include:
• Central and State Levels: At the central level, executive power is vested in
the President (Article 53). At the state level, it is vested in the Governor
(Article 154).
• Impeachment and Accountability: The President can be impeached for
constitutional violations (Article 61). Similarly, the Vice President, who serves
as the Rajya Sabha’s Chairman, can be removed by a simple majority (Article
67).
• Collaborative Governance: The executive derives authority from the
legislature and remains accountable to it, exemplifying the principle of
collective responsibility.
Role of the Judiciary
The judiciary serves as the guardian of the Constitution, interpreting laws and
resolving disputes. It operates independently to ensure justice and uphold democratic
values. The judiciary’s hierarchical structure, from subordinate courts to the Supreme
Court, facilitates the resolution of civil, criminal, and constitutional matters.
Mechanisms ensuring judicial independence include:
 • Judicial Review: The judiciary reviews legislative and executive actions to
ensure compliance with constitutional provisions.
• Writ Jurisdiction: Articles 32 and 226 empower courts to issue writs,
safeguarding fundamental rights.
• Administrative Autonomy: The judiciary regulates its own procedures and
supervises subordinate courts.
While maintaining independence, the judiciary interacts with other branches through
checks and balances, ensuring harmonious governance.
Overlaps and Functional Interdependence
In practice, the separation of powers in India is not absolute. Overlaps exist to
address legislative gaps and administrative inefficiencies. Examples include:
• Judicial Lawmaking: Courts create new legal principles to address emerging
issues, such as the guidelines for workplace harassment in Vishakha v. State of
Rajasthan.
• Tribunals: Established under Articles 323A and 323B, tribunals perform
quasi-judicial functions, raising concerns about executive dominance in
judicial domains.
• Legislative Privileges: Parliament and state assemblies exercise judicial
functions in matters of privilege, ensuring legislative integrity.
Checks and Balances
The system of checks and balances ensures that no branch dominates the others. This
interplay is evident in:
• Judicial Oversight: Courts review the validity of laws and executive actions.
• Legislative Accountability: The executive is accountable to the legislature,
which can question its policies and actions.
• Executive Appointments: The judiciary’s composition, determined by the
executive, exemplifies interdependence.
Landmark Judicial Pronouncements
1. Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955)
This case is one of the earliest judicial observations on the application of the
separation of powers in India. The Supreme Court held that while the Indian
Constitution does not adopt the doctrine in its absolute rigidity, the functions of the
three branches—legislature, executive, and judiciary—are adequately differentiated.
Justice Mukherjee observed that the Constitution does not allow any branch to
overstep its designated sphere of action.
Significance: This case clarified that the doctrine is not strictly applied in India, but
the principles are embedded to ensure that no organ encroaches upon the domain of
another. It also highlighted the collaborative nature of governance in a parliamentary
system.

2. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court emphasized the independent and distinct
nature of the three branches of governance. The Court ruled that Parliament does not
have the authority to amend fundamental rights, asserting the judiciary’s role in
safeguarding constitutional provisions.
Significance: The case reinforced the judiciary’s role as the protector of the
Constitution and emphasized the boundaries between the legislature and judiciary,
aligning with the doctrine of separation of powers.

3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

This case introduced the concept of the basic structure doctrine, which prevents
Parliament from altering the fundamental framework of the Constitution. The Court
ruled that the amending power under Article 368 is subject to the basic structure,
which includes the separation of powers. Justice Beg explicitly stated that the
separation of powers is a part of the Constitution's basic structure.
Significance: The ruling affirmed the separation of powers as an inviolable feature of
Indian governance, ensuring that no branch can compromise the democratic
foundation of the Constitution.

4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

In this case, the Court examined the legislature's attempt to exercise judicial powers
by validating an election through a constitutional amendment. The Court held that
when the legislature performs judicial functions, it must meet two conditions: the
power must be explicitly provided by the Constitution, and the due process of law
must be followed.
Significance: This case underlined that legislative encroachments into judicial
functions are permissible only within constitutional bounds, reinforcing the
separation of powers and safeguarding the judiciary’s independence.

5. Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Although not directly about separation of powers, this case demonstrated judicial
lawmaking. The Supreme Court issued guidelines on workplace sexual harassment,
filling a legislative gap until Parliament enacted specific laws.
Significance: The judgment illustrated how the judiciary steps in to perform quasi-
legislative functions in exceptional circumstances, ensuring justice when legislative
action is lacking. This highlights the flexibility within the doctrine in India.

6. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)

This case is notable for introducing the doctrine of absolute liability for industries
engaging in hazardous activities. The judiciary established this principle to address
evolving societal challenges, extending its role beyond traditional adjudication.
Significance: The judgment showed the judiciary's proactive approach in lawmaking,
balancing the separation of powers by addressing legislative deficiencies without
undermining governance.

7. Roger Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019)

This case examined the functioning of tribunals and criticized the dominance of the
executive in tribunal appointments, which often involved cases where the executive
was a litigant. The Court stressed the importance of judicial independence and the
need for fair tribunal functioning.
Significance: The judgment addressed the growing concern of executive
encroachment on the judiciary’s domain through tribunals, reaffirming the importance
of maintaining distinct roles for each branch of government.

8. Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2007)

In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that judges must not engage in lawmaking.
While courts can interpret and enforce laws, they cannot assume the role of the
legislature by creating laws.
Significance: The judgment emphasized the boundaries of judicial authority, aligning
with the principle that no organ of government should encroach upon the functions of
another.

Conclusion
The doctrine of separation of powers remains integral to India’s constitutional
framework, balancing independence and interdependence among the legislature,
executive, and judiciary. While overlaps exist, they are designed to address practical
challenges, ensuring efficient governance. This principle safeguards against the
concentration of power, preserving democratic values, accountability, and the rule of
law. A continued commitment to this balance is essential for upholding citizens’
rights and strengthening India’s democratic ethos.