Distinction between judicial, executive, and legislative functions
I. Introduction
In constitutional law and administrative law, it is fundamental to understand the separation of powers among the three branches of government:
Legislative Function: Making laws
Executive Function: Implementing and enforcing laws
Judicial Function: Interpreting laws and resolving disputes
This distinction is crucial to prevent the concentration of power and to ensure checks and balances within governance.
II. Detailed Explanation of Each Function
| Function | Role/Description | Typical Bodies |
|---|---|---|
| Legislative | Enacts laws, creates legal frameworks | Parliament, Legislatures |
| Executive | Executes and administers laws | Government, Ministries, Police |
| Judicial | Adjudicates disputes, interprets laws | Courts, Tribunals |
III. Why the Distinction Matters
Avoids concentration of power
Ensures accountability
Protects rights of citizens
Maintains rule of law and prevents arbitrariness
IV. Case Law Illustrating the Distinction
1. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, AIR 1982 SC 149
✅ Facts:
The issue arose whether a Commission of Inquiry constituted by the government was exercising judicial powers.
✅ Held:
The Supreme Court held that judicial functions cannot be exercised by executive authorities.
The Court observed that a commission with judicial powers must maintain independence, fairness, and adherence to natural justice.
Where executive bodies perform judicial functions, it can violate the principle of separation of powers.
✅ Significance:
Reinforces that judicial functions are distinct and require independence.
Executive bodies cannot usurp judicial roles without safeguards.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 129
✅ Facts:
The case concerned members of a selection committee (executive body) who were also acting as quasi-judicial decision-makers.
✅ Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that when executive authorities perform judicial/quasi-judicial functions, they must observe principles of natural justice.
The distinction blurs in quasi-judicial functions, but the core judicial principles apply.
Separation of powers does not mean total separation but checks and safeguards must be present.
✅ Significance:
Clarifies that executive can perform judicial functions, but with due process protections.
3. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416
✅ Facts:
The case discussed whether delegated legislation by the executive is valid, which is a legislative function performed by the executive.
✅ Held:
The Supreme Court held that legislative power can be delegated to the executive, but only under strict guidelines.
The executive cannot make laws arbitrarily; must act within the limits set by the legislature.
✅ Significance:
Highlights distinction but practical overlap where executive implements legislative decisions.
Legislative function primarily belongs to Parliament, but delegation is allowed for efficiency.
4. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 149 (The Judges Transfer Case)
✅ Facts:
The case involved the question of whether the transfer and posting of judges was an executive function or required judicial independence.
✅ Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that judicial independence must be preserved; executive should not interfere with judicial appointments or transfers arbitrarily.
The judiciary is a separate branch and must be free from executive control in such matters.
✅ Significance:
Ensures clear boundaries between executive and judicial functions.
Protects judiciary's independence to uphold rule of law.
5. R. v. Electricity Commissioners, [1924] 1 KB 171 (UK case)
✅ Facts:
The question was whether an administrative body (executive) could exercise judicial functions.
✅ Held:
The Court held that some administrative bodies have quasi-judicial powers, but these powers must be exercised with judicial fairness.
Distinction is that judicial power involves decision on rights and liabilities, with due process.
✅ Significance:
Introduced the concept of quasi-judicial functions blending executive and judicial roles.
Established the need for natural justice even outside courts.
V. Summary Table
| Case Name | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| State of West Bengal v. CPDR | Executive cannot usurp judicial functions |
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India | Quasi-judicial functions by executive require fairness |
| Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel | Delegation of legislative power to executive allowed with limits |
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India | Judiciary’s independence from executive preserved |
| R. v. Electricity Commissioners (UK) | Quasi-judicial powers must adhere to natural justice |
VI. Conclusion
The judicial function is primarily the adjudication of rights and disputes, requiring independence and adherence to natural justice.
The executive function involves policy implementation and administration, but when it performs judicial functions, safeguards apply.
The legislative function is law-making and can be delegated but must not be arbitrary.
Though separation is clear in theory, quasi-judicial roles show some overlap, demanding strict procedural fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments