Comparison of Separation of Powers in USA, UK and India
1. Introduction
Separation of Powers is a doctrine aimed at preventing the concentration of power in one organ of the government. Traditionally, powers are divided among:
Legislature – Makes laws
Executive – Implements laws
Judiciary – Interprets laws
The degree and strictness of separation vary among countries.
2. USA – Strict Separation
Nature: The USA follows a strict doctrine of separation of powers.
Constitutional Basis: Articles I, II, III of the U.S. Constitution clearly demarcate the powers of Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
Features:
Each organ is independent.
Checks and balances exist to prevent abuse.
The President (Executive) cannot sit in Congress (Legislature).
Judiciary is independent and can strike down laws (judicial review – Marbury v. Madison, 1803).
Case Law Example:
Marbury v. Madison (1803) – Established judicial review, empowering courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – Executive cannot take legislative functions; limits presidential power.
Observation: Separation is rigid; power overlap is minimal.
3. UK – Fusion Model
Nature: UK follows a fused or flexible system, often called “fusion of powers.”
Features:
Executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet) is drawn from Legislature (Parliament).
Legislature and Executive are interlinked; Judiciary is independent but historically limited in reviewing Parliament’s acts (due to Parliamentary sovereignty).
No written Constitution; separation is based on conventions.
Case Law Example:
R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) – Court reaffirmed that the Executive cannot bypass Parliament; demonstrates judicial checks on executive, despite fused powers.
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) – Judicial review of executive action exists even under parliamentary supremacy.
Observation: Separation is not strict; executive and legislature are closely linked, judiciary has limited but growing power.
4. India – Partial / Modified Separation
Nature: India follows a modified separation of powers.
Constitutional Basis: The Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention “separation of powers,” but Articles 50, 122, 212, and 141 reflect its spirit.
Features:
Legislature: Parliament and State Legislatures
Executive: President, PM, Council of Ministers
Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts
Powers are not absolutely separate; some overlap exists:
President can dissolve Lok Sabha (executive-legislative overlap)
Judges are appointed by the executive
The judiciary acts as a check through judicial review (Articles 13, 32, 226).
Case Law Examples:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Basic Structure Doctrine; judicial review protects separation of powers.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Court upheld judicial review even against executive-legislative actions.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – Court checked misuse of Article 356, protecting federal and executive powers.
Observation: India has a flexible or partial separation, balancing efficiency with accountability. Judiciary ensures the organs do not exceed their powers.
5. Comparative Table
| Feature | USA | UK | India |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Strict / Rigid | Fused / Flexible | Partial / Modified |
| Constitution | Written | Unwritten | Written |
| Executive-Legislature | Separate, President not in Congress | Interlinked, PM & Cabinet from Parliament | Interlinked, PM & Council of Ministers from Legislature |
| Judiciary | Independent, can strike down laws | Independent, limited review (Parliamentary sovereignty) | Independent, extensive judicial review (basic structure) |
| Judicial Review | Strong, established (Marbury v. Madison) | Limited, developed (Miller case) | Strong, developed (Kesavananda Bharati) |
| Key Principle | Checks and balances | Parliamentary supremacy | Balance between efficiency & accountability |
6. Conclusion
USA: Strict separation ensures independence but may slow decision-making.
UK: Flexible fusion promotes efficiency but risks concentration of power; judiciary is increasingly assertive.
India: Modified separation combines flexibility with judicial oversight; ensures democracy, accountability, and protection of fundamental rights.
Key Takeaway: India follows a middle path—executive and legislature overlap to maintain parliamentary efficiency, while judiciary ensures no organ exceeds its powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments