The administration of federated and democratic nations can imitate the
separation of powers. To prevent one branch from interfering with the operations
of the other two branches, the state is separated into three distinct branches:
the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each has distinct independent powers
and responsibilities. In essence, it is the guideline that each state government
must adhere to in order to properly create, carry out, and apply the legislation
to a given scenario.
If this rule is ignored, there will be increased opportunities for corruption
and the abuse of power. There will be less likelihood of passing a dictatorial
law if this philosophy is adhered to since they will know that it will be
reviewed by another branch. It attempts to provide exclusivity to the operation
of each organ and strives for a clear division of authority. In India, powers
and functions are not reversed but rather separated.
In contrast to the US, India does not adequately implement the concept of the
separation of powers. Thanks to a system of checks and balances that has been
established, the court has the jurisdiction to invalidate any unconstitutional
legislation that the legislature approves.
The majority of constitutional systems in use today do not, in the conventional
sense, contain a strict division of powers among the several organs because it
is impracticable. Although the Constitution does not specifically recognise the
doctrine of the separation of powers in its complete form, it does include
provisions for a just distribution of responsibilities and power among the three
institutions of government.
The term "separation of powers" is defined by several sources. However, the
three characteristics that define separation of powers can be broadly
categorized as a person who makes up a portion of one organ shouldn't make up a
portion of another, the operation of one organ shouldn't affect how the other
organs work and an organ shouldn't perform an activity that belongs to another
organ.
Three-tier machinery of state government
- Legislative
Enacting laws is the legislature's primary duty. A law's passage represents
the State's will and serves as a check on its independence. It is the
cornerstone of how the executive and judicial branches operate. It is given
the first slot among the three organs since it is only after the legislation
has been framed that its implementation and application can take place. The
court serves as an advisory body, therefore it can make recommendations to
the legislature about the creation of new laws and the change of existing
laws, but it cannot carry out those recommendations.
- Executive
The organs are in charge of carrying out or enforcing the state's will as
stated explicitly by the legislature and the constituent assembly. The
executive is the leader of the government's administrative branch. It is
referred to as the government's mainspring because if the executive breaks
down, the government will exhaust itself as it becomes unbalanced. In a
narrow sense, the term "executive" refers to the minister's head as well as
his counselors, departmental heads, and ministers.
- Judiciary
It refers to those public officials whose duty it is to implement the
legislation created by the legislature to particular instances while taking
the idea of natural justice, or fairness, into account.
There are no limitations on the Parliament's ability to enact laws, provided
they comply with the Constitution's requirements. The Constitution's own
Articles 62 to 72 outline the president's authority and duties. The
judiciary is independent in its work, and neither the legislature nor the
executive are able to hinder it from carrying out its duties. Any law
approved by the legislature may be deemed invalid by the court if it is
inconsistent with Fundamental Rights (Article 13), and the High Court is
granted the authority of judicial review by Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136. The
Constitution makes the separate constitutional entities—namely, the Union
territories, the Union, and the
State--actual in the case of
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab.
Additionally, it has three important tools: the legislative, executive branch,
and judiciary. It precisely delineates their boundaries and calls for them to
carry out their duties without interfering with those of others. They should
operate within their authority.
We can see from the constitutional provisions that India does not adhere
strictly to the notion of the separation of powers. Along with the functional
overlap, there is also a personnel overlap. If a statute is unconstitutional
under the terms of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to
declare it void.
Although there is a clear statement in the constitution, similar to the one in
the United States, that the executive power belongs to the president under
Article 53(1) and the governor under Article 154(1), there is no mention of the
vesting of legislative or judicial power in any organ. We can infer that there
isn't a strict division of powers.
As the judiciary is independent and neither the president nor the legislative
interferes, it initially looks that our Constitution is founded on this notion.
Additionally, the court forbids discussion of judicial administration in
parliament. The Supreme Court has the authority to judicially evaluate laws and
declare them to be invalid. The separation of the executive and judicial
branches of government is described in Article 50 of the Indian Constitution as
a Directive Principle of State Policy, although it is not enforceable. Under
Article 105, the Member of Parliament is granted a number of privileges, powers,
and immunities. Because of this clause, the legislature is autonomous. The
President and Governor are given executive authority, and they are shielded from
legal and criminal consequences.
However, it is evident that doctrine is not embraced in a strict sense. The
executive is a part of the legislative, and the legislature holds the executive
responsible for its actions and grants it authority. Although it is not
enforceable, Article 50 of the Indian Constitution refers to the separation of
the executive and judicial arms of government as a Directive Principle of State
Policy. The Member of Parliament is given a number of rights, powers, and
immunities under Article 105. This provision gives the legislature autonomy.
Executive powers are granted to the President and Governor, who are also immune
from civil and criminal liability.
The language makes it clear that doctrine is not embraced strictly,
nevertheless. The legislature, which includes the executive, bestows authority
onto and holds the administration accountable for its deeds. Given that India
has a parliamentary system of government, there should be some sort of
connection. Normally, only the legislature has full legislative authority, but
under specific conditions, the president may be given that authority. For
instance, while the parliament is not in session, the president may enact an
ordinance in accordance with Article 123 to establish the laws in times of
emergency. The president occasionally has the ability to use the judiciary. Both
houses actively participate in the impeachment process and finalize the
allegations.
In addition to exercising legislative authority by establishing rules governing
their own procedure, the judiciary also carries out administrative tasks while
drafting regulations and providing direction for the lower courts.
Impact of the doctrine of separation of powers on democracy
The idea of separation of powers aims to prevent the concentration of power in
one or a small number of hands, which can have devastating results as history
has repeatedly shown. By putting this idea into practice, the government becomes
liable, accountable, and responsible to the people for what it does, supporting
the advancement and defense of human rights. This eliminates one of the biggest
flaws in other systems of government, such monarchy or dictatorship, where the
king is not answerable to his subjects. When put into practise, the principle
produces a balance of power within the government in which the operations of
each body of the government are kept in check by the others while staying
separate from one another.
Merits of separation of power
In its most extreme form, the principle of separation of powers is regarded as
undesirable and untenable. It is therefore not fully recognized in any country
on earth. Its significance, however, is in highlighting the checks and balances
necessary to prevent abuse of the extensive presidential powers.
Creating a system of checks and balances
Checks and balances are a component of the doctrine of separation of powers.
This trait gives each organ, in addition to its own power, some additional
advantages over the other two organs. Throughout the process, a system of checks
and balances controls the inter-organ connections. In theory, the separation of
powers argument made sense. However, when it was put to use in real-world
situations, a number of faults were discovered.
An individual's freedoms and rights are safeguarded by the idea of the
separation of powers, and they are insulated against many forms of tyranny and
persecution. Government agencies gain in-depth knowledge about the problems they
are in charge of and become more efficient as authority is distributed among
them. Sometimes, one arm of government cannot handle all of the responsibilities
involved in governance. Therefore, the separation of powers helps to reduce the
pressure on each branch of government.
The three branches of the government are each given a specific set of duties. If
the idea were to be strictly followed, each person would have to contribute only
what they could. This ensures that the state is managed in a systematic way.
A great defense against the misuse and arrogance of authority is the separation
of powers. A dictatorship cannot take hold because different ministries are
granted diverse levels of power. The concept is sound because it can prevent
tyranny on the part of individuals in positions of power. The concept ensures
that too much power is not concentrated in a single branch of government. This
helps to prevent the impulse to abuse power.
According to the concept of judicial independence, the judiciary should be
independent of the other branches of the government. Almost all constitutions
provide the court the power to resolve all constitutional disputes and to
declare the actions of the other arms of government void and unenforceable. The
concept of the separation of powers helps to support the judiciary's
independence in discharging its responsibilities.
Overlapping legislative authority
The Judiciary has the power to revalidate and change laws that the Court had
ruled were unconstitutional as well as to impeach and remove justices. It is
empowered to punish the guilty party if its privilege is infringed.
Members of the legislature oversee each governmental ministry along with the
executive. A no-confidence vote has the power to overthrow the government. The
President and Governor act on the recommendation of the council of ministers,
which is composed of members of the legislature.
Overlapping Executive Authority
Regarding the judiciary choosing potential applicants for the Chief Justice and
other judicial offices.
the power to pardon or commute the sentences of criminal defendants who have
been found guilty of a crime. The executive's tribunals and other quasi-judicial
institutions also perform judicial functions.
Utilizing the Legislative the ability to pass an ordinance with the same legal
force as one that was approved by a state legislature or a parliament.
They have the authority to adopt regulations that govern their unique procedure
and mode of operation, within the confines of this Constitution.
Overlapping judicial authority
Utilizing the Legislative
In accordance with Article 142, the Supreme Court acts as an Executive to
guarantee complete justice. With the ability to assess executive action to
determine whether the Constitution is being broken, or with the Executive Legal
assess. The Constitution's fundamental framework cannot be altered.
Conclusion
All three branches of the government must cooperate and work together for the
government to run smoothly. This idea cannot be used as a guiding principle for
government operations, according to Professor Garner. The precise division of
each organ's tasks is challenging.
Although the harmony of the three pillars of government is crucial to liberty,
growing concerns about welfare and security have led to a shift of more power to
the executive. In a perfect society, the individual's liberty, wellbeing, and
state security should all be prioritized on an equal basis. This would
undoubtedly require a powerful government, but it would also require a system of
checks and balances, as well as the division of powers.
References:
- https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-separation-of-powe rs/
-
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1617/Separation-of-Powersand-Its-Development-with-Special-Reference-to-India.html
- https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/what-separation-pow
ers-means-constitutional-government
Please Drop Your Comments