In the Parliamentary system, though there is no separation between the legislature and the executive in terms of personnel, there is separation of functions between the two. Explain in the light of relevant judicial decisions.

Understanding the Parliamentary System and Separation of Functions

The Parliamentary system, as envisioned by the Indian Constitution, embodies the principle of responsible government. It's characterized by executive accountability to the legislature, a deviation from the separation of powers doctrine prevalent in the US system. However, the absence of strict separation of personnel doesn't imply a complete absence of functional differentiation. This distinction is vital for maintaining checks and balances.

Separation of Powers vs. Separation of Functions

While the Constitution doesn’t explicitly endorse a rigid separation of powers, it does implicitly recognize a functional separation. The judiciary, legislature, and executive each have distinct roles, although their interactions are intertwined. The concept of separation of functions, as clarified by the Supreme Court, emphasizes the distinct roles and responsibilities of each organ of the state, even within a Parliamentary system.

Functions of the Legislature

• Lawmaking: Parliament’s primary function is to enact laws, scrutinize government actions, and represent the people's interests. Article 245 grants legislative power to Parliament.
• Financial Control: The legislature controls the state's finances through the budgetary process (Article 112-117). The power to impose taxes and control expenditure lies with the legislature.
• Representation: Parliament serves as a forum for representing diverse interests and concerns of the country.

Functions of the Executive

• Policy Formulation & Implementation: The executive, led by the Prime Minister, formulates and implements policies, manages the administration, and conducts foreign relations.
• Administration: The executive oversees the civil services and ensures the smooth functioning of government departments.
• Enforcement of Laws: The executive is responsible for enforcing laws passed by the legislature.

The Fusion and the Functional Separation

Despite the shared personnel, the legislature retains crucial oversight functions. Ministers are also Members of Parliament (MPs), but they are simultaneously accountable to the Parliament. This accountability is enforced through:

• Question Hour: Allows MPs to question ministers about their actions and policies.
• Motions of Adjournment: Enable the legislature to discuss matters of urgent public importance and hold the executive accountable.
• No-Confidence Motion: A powerful tool to remove the government if it loses the legislature’s confidence (Article 75(3)).
• Committees: Parliamentary committees (e.g., Public Accounts Committee, Committee on Estimates) scrutinize government spending and policies.

Judicial Decisions Reinforcing Functional Separation

Several landmark judgments have underscored the importance of functional separation in the Parliamentary system:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): While primarily concerned with the basic structure doctrine, the judgment implicitly recognized the functional separation of powers as a core principle.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This case clarified that while the executive is drawn from the legislature, the judiciary has the power to review executive actions to ensure they are constitutionally valid. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial review in a Parliamentary democracy.
• P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State of Karnataka (1994): This case reaffirmed the judiciary’s power to examine actions of the executive even when they are based on legislative enactments.

Challenges to the Separation of Functions

Despite the constitutional framework and judicial pronouncements, challenges remain:

• Executive Dominance: The executive often wields considerable influence within the legislature, potentially undermining its oversight role.
• Party Discipline: Strict party discipline can limit MPs’ ability to critically scrutinize the government.
• Lack of Resources: Parliamentary committees often lack sufficient resources and expertise to effectively scrutinize complex policies.

Aspect	Separation of Powers (US Model)	Separation of Functions (Parliamentary Model)
Personnel	Distinct personnel in each branch	Overlap of personnel between legislature and executive
Functions	Clearly defined and separate functions	Functions are distinct but intertwined; legislature oversees executive
Accountability	Limited checks and balances	Executive accountable to legislature

The imposition of President's Rule (Article 356) is a prime example where the judiciary has intervened to review the executive's actions, highlighting the functional separation even within the Parliamentary framework. The S.R. Bommai case is a direct consequence of this. Q: Can the judiciary completely invalidate a law passed by Parliament? A: While the judiciary can strike down laws if they violate the Constitution, it exercises this power cautiously, respecting the legislature’s law-making role. The basic structure doctrine limits the judiciary's power to invalidate laws. Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005 promotes transparency and accountability by enabling citizens to access information held by public authorities, thereby enhancing legislative oversight of the executive. Title: Coal Allocation Scam (2012) Description: The scandal involved the allocation of coal blocks by the government, leading to allegations of corruption and irregularities. Outcome: The scandal highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability in government processes, prompting reforms in the allocation of natural resources and strengthening parliamentary oversight. Basic Structure Doctrine: A principle established by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holding that the fundamental features of the Constitution are non-negotiable and cannot be altered by constitutional amendments. According to a 2021 report by PRS Legislative Research, the average number of starred questions (requiring oral answers) asked in Parliament has been declining, indicating a potential weakening of legislative scrutiny. In conclusion, the Parliamentary system in India embodies a unique balance between personnel fusion and functional separation. While the executive draws its legitimacy from the legislature, the legislature retains critical oversight powers. Landmark judicial decisions have reinforced this functional separation, acting as a crucial check on executive power. However, ongoing challenges necessitate continuous efforts to strengthen parliamentary oversight and ensure the executive remains accountable to the people’s representatives, preserving the integrity of the Indian democratic system.