Separation of powers in Indian Constitution
Separation of Powers in the Indian Constitution
What is Separation of Powers?
Separation of powers is a constitutional doctrine that divides the functions of government into three branches:
Legislative (making laws)
Executive (implementing laws)
Judiciary (interpreting laws)
The aim is to prevent the concentration of power in one organ and to ensure checks and balances among the branches.
Separation of Powers in Indian Context
Unlike some countries (e.g., the United States), the Indian Constitution does not explicitly provide for a strict separation of powers. Instead, it follows a system of checks and balances where functions sometimes overlap, but the powers are distributed to maintain harmony and prevent abuse.
Key Features:
Legislature: Parliament and State Legislatures enact laws.
Executive: President, Prime Minister, Council of Ministers implement laws.
Judiciary: Supreme Court and High Courts interpret laws and ensure constitutional compliance.
Overlapping Powers:
The executive is responsible to the legislature (Parliament).
Judiciary can review laws and executive actions (Judicial Review).
Legislature can amend the Constitution (within limits).
Thus, the Indian model is often called a "partial separation of powers" or "checks and balances" rather than an absolute separation.
Important Case Laws on Separation of Powers in India
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts:
The case challenged constitutional amendments that limited judicial review.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held the basic structure doctrine, which protects fundamental features of the Constitution including the separation of powers.
Explanation:
The Court emphasized that judicial review is part of the basic structure.
Parliament cannot take away the judiciary’s power to review legislation.
Separation of powers is essential to maintain the Constitution's supremacy.
2. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts:
The dismissal of state governments was challenged on grounds of misuse of Article 356.
Holding:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the limits on executive power and the importance of legislative and judicial oversight.
Explanation:
The Court emphasized that executive actions are subject to judicial review.
The legislature cannot grant unlimited power to the executive.
The case reinforced checks and balances among the branches.
3. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Facts:
The election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was challenged.
Holding:
The Court struck down a constitutional amendment that tried to exempt election disputes from judicial review.
Explanation:
Affirmed the role of the judiciary in checking legislative and executive actions.
Judicial review is essential to maintain democratic governance and separation of powers.
The Court reinforced that no branch is above the Constitution.
4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Facts:
The case challenged amendments that sought to limit judicial review and increase Parliament’s powers.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that judicial review and separation of powers are part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Explanation:
Any amendment that destroys balance among legislature, executive, and judiciary is unconstitutional.
The judgment reaffirmed the principle of limited power and mutual checks.
5. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
Facts:
Challenged the validity of an amendment curtailing judicial review in electoral matters.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that judicial review cannot be ousted by any legislative action.
Explanation:
Reinforced the judiciary’s role as a check on legislative and executive excess.
The decision reflects the vital role of separation of powers in protecting fundamental rights.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati v. Kerala | 1973 | Basic structure doctrine includes separation of powers |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | 1994 | Executive subject to legislative and judicial control |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Judicial review essential to maintain separation |
| Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India | 1980 | Balance between legislature, executive, judiciary is basic structure |
| Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India | 2006 | Judicial review cannot be excluded |
Conclusion
The Indian Constitution does not provide absolute separation of powers, but ensures checks and balances.
Judiciary plays a vital role in maintaining the balance and protecting fundamental rights.
The doctrine of basic structure ensures that none of the three organs can destroy the constitutional equilibrium.
Judicial review acts as a safeguard to keep the legislature and executive within constitutional limits.
The principle ensures accountability, prevents abuse, and upholds democracy in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments