Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers, a cornerstone of liberal democracy, aims to prevent tyranny by distributing governmental power among distinct branches – the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Rooted in Montesquieu's "The Spirit of the Laws" (1748), it posits that concentrating power in a single entity inevitably leads to abuse. Historically, the US Constitution is a prime example of a system attempting a rigid separation. However, its applicability is complex, particularly within parliamentary democracies like India, where a fusion of legislative and executive powers is inherent. This response will explore the doctrine's meaning, its limitations in a parliamentary context, and relevant Indian judicial precedents.
Understanding the Doctrine of Separation of Powers
The core principle behind the Doctrine of Separation of Powers is that each branch of government should have distinct functions and powers, acting as a check on the others. Ideally, the legislature makes laws, the executive enforces them, and the judiciary interprets them. This prevents any single branch from becoming overly powerful.
Historical Context and Different Models
While not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, the doctrine is considered a basic structure of the Constitution. Its origins can be traced to:
- Montesquieu’s Theory: Advocated for a separation to prevent arbitrary power.
- US Model: Strict separation with clearly defined powers.
- British Model (Parliamentary System): Fusion of legislative and executive functions.
Challenges to Strict Adherence in a Parliamentary System
India operates under a parliamentary system, modeled after the British system. This inherently poses challenges to a strict separation of powers. The key characteristics that blur the lines are:
- Fusion of Legislative and Executive Branches: The executive (Council of Ministers) is drawn from and accountable to the legislature (Parliament). The executive is collectively responsible to the legislature.
- Legislative Supremacy: Parliament is supreme, and its laws are binding.
- Executive’s Role in Legislation: The executive initiates most legislation and can influence its passage through Parliament.
Therefore, a rigid separation, as seen in the US, is simply not feasible or desirable in a parliamentary system.
Indian Judicial Perspective: Evolving Interpretation
The Indian judiciary has adopted a pragmatic approach, recognizing the inherent fusion while safeguarding the spirit of separation of powers.
Early Interpretations: Dwarka Prasad vs. U.P. (1969)
This case initially suggested a strict separation of powers. Justice J.C. Shah emphasized that the judiciary has the power to strike down laws enacted by the legislature if they infringe upon judicial independence. However, this view was subsequently diluted.
Later Interpretations: Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (1975) & Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
The Golaknath case, initially interpreted as granting the judiciary excessive power to strike down laws, led to the 42nd Amendment Act. Kesavananda Bharati, however, introduced the 'basic structure' doctrine, limiting the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. This implicitly acknowledged the need for judicial review to safeguard the separation of powers.
Recent Developments: S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) & Nilabati Bhattacharjee vs. State of Assam (1995)
S.R. Bommai established the judiciary's power to review the imposition of President's Rule (Article 356) to prevent executive overreach. Nilabati Bhattacharjee further emphasized the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring the separation of powers. These cases reinforced the judiciary’s role as a watchdog, even within a parliamentary framework.
Table: Comparison of Separation of Powers Models
| Feature | US Model (Presidential) | Indian Model (Parliamentary) |
|---|---|---|
| Separation | Strict | Functional, not absolute |
| Executive | Independent of Legislature | Accountable to Legislature |
| Legislature | Makes laws | Makes laws, executive initiates |
| Judiciary | Interprets laws, judicial review | Interprets laws, judicial review, safeguards basic structure |
Case Study: Imposition of President’s Rule (Article 356)
The frequent instances of the central government invoking Article 356 (imposition of President's Rule) in states have often been challenged in court. The S.R. Bommai case (1994) marked a significant shift. The Supreme Court held that the judiciary could review the constitutional validity of the President's Rule, preventing arbitrary use of executive power and upholding the separation of powers. This established a crucial check on the executive's power to suspend state governments.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers is not a rigid structure in India’s parliamentary system. While a strict separation, as envisioned in the US model, is not possible, the judiciary plays a vital role in safeguarding the principles underlying the doctrine. Through judicial review and interpretations like the 'basic structure' doctrine, the courts ensure that the legislature and executive do not encroach upon judicial independence and fundamental rights. The evolving jurisprudence on separation of powers demonstrates a move towards a functional separation – a balance between the inherent fusion of powers and the need to prevent arbitrary governance.
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.