Introduction: What is the Separation of Powers?
The doctrine of 'Separation of Powers' (SoP), propounded by the French philosopher Montesquieu, advocates for the division of a state's governmental responsibilities into distinct branches to prevent the concentration of power in any single entity. For UPSC Civil Services aspirants, understanding this concept is fundamental, as it forms the bedrock of the Indian democratic framework and is a recurring theme in the GS Paper 2 syllabus.
The doctrine is based on three core principles:
- Each organ of the government—the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary—should have a separate set of functions.
- Each organ should be composed of separate individuals; no person should be a member of more than one organ.
- The functions and powers of one organ should not interfere with the functions and powers of another.
The Three Organs of Government
The Indian governmental structure is divided into three main organs:
- The Legislature (Parliament and State Legislatures): Its primary function is to make laws, amend the Constitution, and hold the executive accountable.
- The Executive (President, Prime Minister, Council of Ministers): Its primary function is to implement and enforce the laws enacted by the Legislature.
- The Judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts, and Subordinate Courts): Its role is to interpret the laws, settle disputes, and administer justice. It also acts as the guardian of the Constitution.
Separation of Powers in the Indian Context: A System of Checks and Balances
Unlike the rigid separation seen in the American Constitution, India has adopted a parliamentary form of government where the executive is a part of the legislature. Therefore, the Indian Constitution does not adhere to a strict, watertight separation of powers. Instead, it follows a more nuanced principle of 'checks and balances', ensuring that no single organ becomes all-powerful.
This functional separation is a 'Basic Feature' of the Indian Constitution. Let's see how it works:
- The Judiciary can strike down laws passed by the Legislature and actions taken by the Executive if they are unconstitutional (Judicial Review).
- The Legislature exercises control over the Executive through mechanisms like no-confidence motions, question hour, and adjournment motions. It also has the power to impeach the President and remove judges.
- The Executive, headed by the President, appoints the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The President also has veto powers over certain bills passed by the Parliament and can promulgate ordinances when the Parliament is not in session.
Key Constitutional Provisions
Several articles in the Indian Constitution explicitly or implicitly provide for the separation of powers:
- Article 50: A Directive Principle of State Policy which directs the state to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
- Articles 121 & 211: Prohibit the Parliament and State Legislatures from discussing the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court in the discharge of their duties.
- Articles 122 & 212: State that the courts cannot inquire into the proceedings of the Parliament or State Legislatures.
- Article 361: Grants immunity to the President and Governors from any court proceedings for the exercise and performance of their official powers and duties.
Landmark Supreme Court Judgements
The judiciary has played a pivotal role in defining and upholding the doctrine of separation of powers. For your answers, quoting these cases is crucial:
- Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955): The Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution has not indeed recognized the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government have been sufficiently differentiated.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark case established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', and the Supreme Court held that the 'separation of powers' is a part of this basic structure and cannot be amended by the Parliament.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The court re-emphasized the importance of separation of powers as a basic feature, striking down a constitutional amendment that sought to curb the judiciary's power of judicial review.
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The Court ruled that any law placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) would be open to challenge if it violated the basic structure, which includes the separation of powers.
Conclusion: The Way Forward
The doctrine of separation of powers, in its Indian avatar of 'checks and balances', is not merely a theoretical concept but a dynamic and practical framework that underpins our democracy. While friction between the organs is inevitable—be it over judicial appointments (NJAC case) or judicial activism—the constitutional design ensures a balance. For a healthy democracy, it is imperative that each organ respects the domain of the others while remaining vigilant. The goal is not a rigid separation, but a collaborative and harmonious functioning that ultimately serves the people and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution.