Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The doctrine of separation of powers, popularized by Montesquieu, advocates for distinct branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – each with specific functions and operating independently. While seemingly ideal for preventing tyranny, a ‘strict’ separation is rarely found in practice. The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, doesn’t adhere to this strict model. Instead, it establishes a system of ‘checks and balances’, where each organ of the state influences and limits the powers of the others, fostering a dynamic equilibrium and preventing absolute power concentration. This nuanced approach is crucial for a functioning democracy like India.
The Concept of Separation of Powers
The theory of separation of powers aims to prevent arbitrary rule by dividing governmental authority. A strict separation implies absolute independence, with minimal overlap. However, such a system can lead to rigidity and inefficiency.
Constitutional Provisions & Inter-Organ Dependency
The Indian Constitution, while recognizing the three organs of the state (Article 1, Article 152), doesn’t explicitly enshrine a strict separation of powers. Instead, it establishes a framework of functional interdependence.
- Legislature (Parliament): Article 74 & 75 make the Executive (Council of Ministers) collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. Parliament can impeach the President (Article 61) and judges (through a complex process).
- Executive (President, Prime Minister & Council of Ministers): The President assents to Bills passed by Parliament (Article 111). The Executive implements laws made by the Legislature.
- Judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts): Article 136 grants the Supreme Court revisional jurisdiction. The Judiciary exercises the power of judicial review (Article 32 & 226), striking down laws or executive actions that violate fundamental rights.
Checks and Balances in Action
The Indian system is characterized by a complex web of checks and balances:
Judicial Review
The power of judicial review allows the judiciary to scrutinize legislative and executive actions. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case established the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power. This demonstrates the judiciary’s power to check legislative overreach.
Parliamentary Oversight of the Executive
Parliament exercises control over the Executive through mechanisms like Question Hour, debates, and committees (e.g., Public Accounts Committee). Financial control through the budget is a significant check. The Zero Hour allows MPs to raise urgent issues.
Executive Influence on the Judiciary
The Executive appoints judges (Article 124), although with the involvement of the Collegium system. While this has been criticized, it demonstrates executive influence. The Executive also implements judicial orders.
Illustrative Examples
| Organ | Check on Other Organ | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Judiciary | Legislature | Striking down of the NJAC Act (2015) by the Supreme Court. |
| Legislature | Executive | Impeachment proceedings against a President (though never successfully completed). |
| Executive | Judiciary | Appointment of Judges (Collegium System). |
The Constitution also provides for specific instances of overlap, such as the President being the head of the Executive, a member of the Legislature, and having judicial powers (e.g., granting pardons - Article 72).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Indian Constitution deliberately avoids a rigid separation of powers. It adopts a system of checks and balances, recognizing the inherent need for cooperation and interdependence between the three organs of the state. This framework, while not without its challenges, has proven remarkably resilient in safeguarding democratic principles and preventing the concentration of power, making it a pragmatic and effective model for a diverse and complex nation like India.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.