Separation Of Powers

By- Gauri Gupta, UILS, Panjab University, Chandigarh

Abstract:

The doctrine of separation of powers is an underlying principle in democratic governance, dividing governmental authority into three branches: legislature, executive, and judiciary. Originating from ancient philosophical ideas and famously articulated by Montesquieu, this doctrine guarantees each branch functions independently to prevent tyranny and promote accountability. In India, the constitution specifies the roles and interactions of these branches, establishing checks and balances through legislative supervision, executive appointments, and judicial review. Judicial interpretations, showcased by landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati, highlight the doctrine’s constitutional significance. Despite its non-enforceable status under Directive Principles, the principle of separation of powers remains integral in maintaining democratic integrity and ensuring the rule of law. This article underscores the doctrine’s role in promoting efficiency, preventing autocracy, and developing specialized governance, which is important for maintaining balanced governance and protecting citizens’ rights.

Introduction:

The doctrine of separation of powers stands as a foundation of democratic governance, securing that governmental authority is divided among distinct branches i.e.,  legislature, executive, and judiciary each tasked with specific functions and responsibilities. It was considered essential for the system of checks and balances. Enshrined in the Indian Constitution, this doctrine prevents the accumulation of authority and promotes accountability through a system of checks and balances. Originating from early philosophical foundations and markedly enunciated by Montesquieu, it emphasizes that no single branch should go beyond its authority or transgress the functions of others.

In India, the constitutional framework outlines the roles of Parliament, the President, and the judiciary, describing their interactions and establishing safeguards against abuse of power. It is further explained by various judicial explanations and landmark cases as well as some mention in the constitution implicitly. The principle of separation of powers is sustained through legal precedents and constitutional principles that direct the functioning of India’s democratic institutions. This article explores the historical evolution, constitutional provisions, practical implications, and judicial interpretations of the said doctrine within India’s governance framework.

Meaning and Explanation:

Separation of powers is an important concept for governance in any country. It states that the power of the government is divided into three organs i.e., legislature. executive and judiciary. Each unit works independently and cannot interfere with other functions. The Indian Constitution specifies the framework and mentions the roles and responsibilities of each state organ, setting standards for their interactions and establishing a system of checks and balances. The doctrine further states that no organ should breach its jurisdiction and not overreach its authority and exercise excessive control over the other organ.

History:

This idea was initially introduced by Aristotle in the 4th century BCE, where he outlined the three branches of government- the General Assembly, Public Officials, and the Judiciary. A similar model was also followed further in Rome. However, the doctrine was most famously articulated by the French philosopher Montesquieu in his significant work “The Spirit of the Laws” (1748). Montesquieu asserted that liberty could be safeguarded only if governmental powers were separated among different bodies, each with distinct functions and responsibilities. John Locke further elaborated on the said model.

Instruments of Checks and Balances:

1. Legislative control:

•   On Judiciary:  It lays down procedures for impeaching and removing judges, as well as to have the authority to amend laws deemed ultra vires by the Court and revalidate them.
•   On Executive: through a non-confidence motion, the executive has the power to terminate the government. Additionally, the actions of the government can be examined during the zero-hour and question-hour sessions. 

2. Executive Control:

•  On Legislature: it has the authority to establish rules for governing their procedures and business affairs, consistent with the provisions of the Indian Constitution.
• On Judiciary: its task is to designate the Chief Justice and other judges to their required offices. 

3. Judicial Control:

• On Legislature: it keeps a check that the constitution cannot be amended in a way that alters its basic structure, as established by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati Case of 1973.
• On Executive: it has the authority to do judicial review. It refers to the power to assess executive actions to establish their adherence to the Constitution.

Purpose and Importance of the Doctrine:

• System of checks and balances: Each branch of government is vested with distinct powers that allow it to keep an eye on the actions of the other branches. This arrangement of mutual supervision ensures that no branch can work without some level of oversight or influence from others. Hence, each branch works efficiently due to the fear of checks from another branch.
• Prevention of Tyranny: As the governmental powers are divided among independent branches, the doctrine focuses on preventing any entity from acquiring unchecked authority, thus reducing the threat of autocracy and dictatorship. It ensures that welfare of the people is maintained and no personal benefit is given importance.

• Specialization and Efficiency: By delegating specific functions to each branch, the doctrine advances specialization and efficiency. The legislative branch is responsible for making laws, the executive for implementing them, and the judiciary for interpreting and applying them. If all the functions are assigned to a single entity, then due to the increase in workload, work gets completed haphazardly and efficiency is overlooked.
• Eliminates cons of other forms of government:  The separation of powers manages to eliminate the major flaws found in other forms of administration like monarchy or dictatorship, where the ruler is not accountable and answerable to its citizens.
•  Natural justice ensures a balanced separation of powers within the government, where each branch checks the functions of others independently. This system assures that laws are fair and abide by the principles of natural justice.

Constitutional Status of the doctrine:

As per the Indian constitution, the three organs of the government consist of:

•  Legislature: Parliament i.e. Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, and State legislative bodies
• Executive: At the central level- President; At the state level- Governor
•  Judiciary: Supreme Court, High Court, and all other subordinate courts.

Some articles of the Indian constitution are:

Article 50: It requires the State to maintain a distinction between the judiciary and the executive. However, being a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), it is not legally enforceable.

Articles 53, and 154: State that the executive power of the Union and the State remains with the President and the Governor respectively, providing them immunity from civil and criminal liability.

Articles 121 and 211: Stipulate that legislatures are barred from discussing the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court or High Court, except in cases of impeachment.

Article 123: Bestows the President, as the head of the executive, the power to declare ordinances, thereby exercising legislative powers under certain circumstances.

Article 361: Provides immunity to the President and Governors from court proceedings, ensuring they cannot be held accountable in any court for the exercise of their powers and duties.

Judicial interpretation of the doctrine:

Other than the directive principles (DPSPs) mentioned in Part IV of the constitution, which advocate for the separation of judiciary, legislature, and executive; the constitutional framework does not prescribe a proper division of powers. However, there are certain landmark case laws and judicial recognition in this regard.

 An important judgment came through Kesavananda Bharti’s case. Disagreements persisted over whether a state organ had surpassed its designated boundaries as prescribed by the Constitution or not. The court rejected this argument and ruled in favor of the appellant, upholding that the ‘doctrine of separation of powers’ is a part of the ‘doctrine of basic structure’. Therefore, the principle of “separation of powers” is considered a fundamental aspect of our Constitution’s significant features. It is also acknowledged that all three branches of the government namely Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive are obligated to comply with the Constitution’s provisions, which outline their powers, jurisdictions, responsibilities, and interactions with each other.

It was the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, that the role of this doctrine in the Indian context was further elucidated and made clearer.

In the case of Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, the doctrine of separation of powers was explicitly acknowledged as part of the Constitution. The Court ruled that while it is not expressly stated in the Constitution, the doctrine is disregarded when one branch of government performs the functions of another.

In the case of I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court relied on the basic structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case. It held that the Ninth Schedule infringes this doctrine, thereby subjecting it to judicial review, which is also considered integral to the basic structure theory.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the doctrine of separation of powers stands as an important safeguard within India’s democratic functioning, maintaining the balance and accountability of its governmental organs—the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Rooted in historical precedents and formulated through constitutional mandates, this doctrine prevents the consolidation of power, mitigates the risk of despotism, and promotes efficient governance through specialized roles and mutual oversight.

India’s constitutional provisions, though not explicitly detailing every aspect of the separation of powers, uphold its principles through mechanisms such as legislative oversight, executive accountability, and judicial review. Landmark judicial decisions, like Kesavananda Bharati, Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, and Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab have strengthened the doctrine as an essential component of India’s constitutional identity, asserting its role as part of the basic structure doctrine.

Moving forward, the continued adherence to and understanding of the separation of powers will remain crucial in preserving democratic integrity, protecting individual rights, and maintaining governmental effectiveness. As India explores evolving challenges and global complexities, the doctrine’s resilience and adaptability will ensure that its democratic institutions uphold the rule of law and serve the interests of its citizenry, thereby securing a strong basis for democratic governance in the future.