Separation of powers in India
🔷 Separation of Powers in India
🔹 What Is Separation of Powers
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers means that the powers and functions of the three organs of the state — Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary — should be separate and independent from one another to prevent abuse of power and protect liberty.
🔹 Origin of the Doctrine
The concept was famously articulated by Montesquieu in “The Spirit of Laws” (1748).
It emphasizes checks and balances among the branches of government.
🔹 Separation of Powers under the Indian Constitution
Unlike the U.S., India does not follow a strict separation of powers. The Constitution provides for a functional or flexible separation, meaning:
There is overlapping of functions among the three organs.
However, each organ is expected to not encroach upon the domain of the other.
Relevant Constitutional Provisions:
Article 50 (Directive Principle): The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive.
Articles 121 and 211: Bar legislative discussion on judicial conduct (except in impeachment).
Articles 122 and 212: Bar judicial review of legislative procedures.
Articles 72 and 161: Executive's clemency powers, not subject to judicial review (with exceptions).
🔷 Landmark Cases on Separation of Powers in India
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
Facts:
A challenge to the Constitution (29th Amendment) raised issues regarding the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that separation of powers is part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
Parliament cannot alter the basic structure, which includes the separation of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Significance:
Established that no organ can take over the functions of another.
Set limits on Parliament's amending power.
2. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Citation: AIR 1975 SC 2299
Facts:
The case involved the Election Laws Amendment Act, 1975, which attempted to validate the Prime Minister’s election retrospectively.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down the amendment as unconstitutional.
It violated the principle of separation of powers by allowing Parliament to perform a judicial function.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that Parliament cannot interfere with judicial adjudication.
Emphasized that separation of powers is integral to the rule of law.
3. Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007)
Citation: (2007) 3 SCC 184
Facts:
The case arose from the expulsion of MPs involved in a “cash-for-query” scam.
It challenged the power of Parliament to expel members under Article 105(3).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that judicial review is available even over the actions of the Legislature if they violate constitutional limits.
However, the procedures of Parliament are immune from judicial review under Article 122 unless there is illegality or unconstitutionality.
Significance:
Balanced the autonomy of Parliament with the judiciary’s role as a constitutional watchdog.
Clarified limits of legislative privilege.
4. P. Kannadasan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)
Citation: (1996) 5 SCC 670
Facts:
The Tamil Nadu government passed a law nullifying a judicial decision concerning reservation.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature cannot directly overrule a judicial decision.
However, it can change the law and apply it prospectively, not retrospectively to undo a judgment.
Significance:
Reinforced that judicial decisions cannot be annulled by legislative action.
Legislature must respect judicial authority.
5. State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah (2000)
Citation: AIR 2000 SC 1296
Facts:
Concerns arose over judicial directions interfering in administrative functions.
Judgment:
The Court held that judiciary should not overstep into executive functions.
Judicial review is limited to checking the legality, not the wisdom of executive decisions.
Significance:
Cautioned the judiciary against judicial overreach.
Upheld the balance of powers between the organs of the state.
6. Asif Hameed v. State of J&K (1989)
Citation: AIR 1989 SC 1899
Facts:
The High Court had directed the State Government to fill certain posts in a university.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that while courts can review administrative actions, they cannot direct policy decisions or usurp executive powers.
Significance:
Strong restatement of the principle that judiciary must not perform executive functions.
Delineated the boundary between judicial review and executive policymaking.
7. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
Citation: AIR 1961 SC 112
Facts:
After Nanavati was convicted, the Governor of Bombay issued a pardon, creating tension between executive clemency and judicial conviction.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the President and Governors can grant pardon, but these powers are subject to judicial review if exercised arbitrarily.
Significance:
Demonstrated the interplay between executive and judicial powers.
Highlighted the need for accountability even in areas where powers appear discretionary.
🔷 Summary Table: Separation of Powers through Case Law
| Case Name | Year | Key Organ Involved | Legal Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati | 1973 | All three | Separation of powers is part of basic structure |
| Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Legislature, Judiciary | Parliament cannot perform judicial functions |
| Raja Ram Pal | 2007 | Legislature, Judiciary | Legislative privileges are subject to judicial review |
| P. Kannadasan | 1996 | Legislature, Judiciary | Legislature can change law, not overrule judgments |
| State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund | 2000 | Judiciary, Executive | Judiciary should not overstep into administration |
| Asif Hameed | 1989 | Judiciary, Executive | Courts must not direct executive policy decisions |
| K.M. Nanavati | 1961 | Executive, Judiciary | Executive clemency is subject to limited judicial review |
🔷 Conclusion
India follows a functional rather than strict separation of powers. While overlap exists, the courts have consistently emphasized:
Mutual respect between the organs.
Constitutional boundaries that cannot be crossed.
Checks and balances to prevent concentration or abuse of power.
The doctrine of separation of powers in India ensures that no organ dominates and that the constitutional framework is maintained, with the judiciary playing a guardian role in preserving this balance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments