Doctrine of Checks and Balances: A Comparative Study of the USA, UK, and India

Abstract

A major principle of constitutional governance is the doctrine of checks and balances which makes sure that power does not reside in one hand of the state. It enables each branch—legislature, executive, and judiciary—to restrain the others hence ensuring accountability and safeguarding individual rights. This doctrine advances the rule of law, avoiding the abuse of power and imposing democratic values through the establishment of a regime of checks and balances.

In the United States, the checks and balances are entrenched in the written Constitution, which provides a high degree of separation of powers. The United Kingdom, in its turn, is convention-based and guided by parliaments, which makes the system more flexible. India, being a country influenced by each of the two systems, embraces the balanced approach and uses its written Constitution, which provides both the separation of functions and the coordination of organs.

This paper explores the operation of the doctrine in these three countries under consideration of its structure, constitutional protection, and their practice. It also examines how effective each system is with regard to containing power abuse as well as delivering effective governance. The comparative analysis seeks to demonstrate that checks and balances, though employed differently, are vital towards maintaining democratic order and constitutional stability in all countries.

Introduction

One of the principles underlying modern constitutionalism is the doctrine of checks and balances. It provides that power is shared between various government organs and no one is allowed to hold unchecked power. The concept underlying this doctrine is a theory of separation of powers put forward by the French political philosopher Montesquieu in his masterpiece The Spirit of Laws (1748).^[1]

According to Montesquieu, if the separation of these three powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—were lost, it would lead to tyranny. He believed that these powers should be separated to safeguard individual freedom and serve as checkpoints on each other. The checks and balances doctrine is not only about the division of power but also about the balance and accountability of state organs.^[2]

Each branch operates independently within its level, yet remains under the watch of the others. This interdependence helps ensure that no organ exceeds its constitutional boundaries. For example:

• Laws are enacted by the legislature, and the courts can question their validity.
• The decisions of the executive are subject to control by the legislature.
• The executive cannot act arbitrarily without oversight.

Therefore, all branches serve as checks and balances to one another.

Partial Separation and Modern Application

Absolute separation of powers is neither essential nor feasible in contemporary democracies. Modern governments have multifaceted social and economic roles that demand collaboration between branches. Thus, rather than strict division, most democratic constitutions introduce a system of partial separation with checks and balances.^[3]

This system introduces both independence and interdependence, ensuring that no branch subjugates another while enabling smooth government functioning. The doctrine has several key functions:

• Guarding the rule of law: Ensuring that public powers remain within constitutional limits.
• Ensuring accountability: Power exercised by one organ is checked by another.
• Protecting liberty and democracy: Preventing the concentration of power.

Through mutual restraint and cooperation, the Constitution ensures good governance. However, this doctrine varies in practice across countries.

The United States Doctrine

Checks and balances form a key component of the constitutional system in the United States. The 1787 Constitution separates governmental powers into three tiers:

All branches are autonomous in their domains but possess powers to check or restrict the activities of the others.

Legislative Branch

The Congress, or legislative wing of the United States, plays a crucial role in ensuring checks and balances. Congress keeps the President and the executive accountable to the people and the law. Its powers include:

• Impeachment Power: Under Article II, Section 4, Congress can remove the President, Vice President, or federal officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours.^[5]
• Senate Approval: The Senate can approve or reject presidential nominations and treaties.^[6]
• Power of the Purse: Congress controls federal expenditure and taxation.^[7]
• Veto Override: Congress can override a presidential veto by a two-thirds majority in both houses.^[8]

These powers make Congress a critical checkpoint on executive authority, as envisaged by the framers of the Constitution.

Executive Branch

The President, as head of the executive, has several powers to counterbalance the legislature and judiciary:

• Veto Power: The President can veto bills passed by Congress, although Congress may override it by a two-thirds majority.^[9]
• Legislative Influence: The President can propose legislative changes and influence national policy priorities.^[10]
• Special Sessions: The President may call special sessions of Congress during emergencies.
• Judicial Appointments: The President appoints federal judges and Supreme Court Justices, with Senate approval.^[11]
• Pardon Power: The President can issue pardons and reprieves for federal offences.^[12]

Together, these powers enable the executive to maintain a constitutional balance and prevent domination by other branches.

Judicial Branch

The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring that both the legislature and the executive act within constitutional boundaries. The landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the doctrine of judicial review, granting the Supreme Court authority to assess the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.^[13]

Key judicial powers include:

• Declaring unconstitutional laws or acts that infringe the Constitution.
• Protecting individual rights and upholding the rule of law through judicial review.^[14]
• Invalidating legislation that exceeds congressional power or violates fundamental rights.^[15]
• Restricting executive actions that exceed lawful authority.
• Interpreting the Constitution to guide the other branches.

Thus, the judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution and defender of citizens’ freedoms in the American system of government.

Impact Of Checks And Balances

The American system of checks and balances has played out as a formidable measure to ensure that power is not misused. It is also designed to make sure that no arm of government is superior and accountability is upheld. Another one is the Watergate scandal (1974), which resulted in the resignation of President Nixon due to judicial and congressional investigations that revealed a misuse of executive power.^[16] This reflected the effectiveness of the system in the maintenance of rule of law. But in recent years there has been increased partisanization and politicizational tendencies which in a few cases have diminished institutional independence which was the balance desired by the framers of the Constitution.

The United Kingdom Doctrine

The UK has an unwritten constitution, which is founded on statutes, judicial rulings, and conventions of the constitution. The UK does not have a strict separation of powers like the United States, but rather it is based on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, i.e. Parliament is the supreme body of law making.^[17] This enables the Parliament to create or repeal any law and its decisions cannot be overruled by any other body. Nevertheless, in a bid to avoid the concentration of powers, the UK has a fluid set of separation of powers in the form of customs, conventions, and political accountability.

Overlap Of Powers

In the United Kingdom, the distinction between the legislative and executive branches is rather vague owing to the parliamentary government principle. Parliamentary members of the majority party in the House of Commons are the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers. They are held in common to Parliament, and this implies that they have to keep Parliament in their confidence to stay in power. In the event that the government is defeated in a vote of no confidence, it has to resign or call a general election.^[18] This is because this system makes the executive answerable to the legislature on their policies and decisions.

The formal head of state, the monarch, still has constitutional powers including:

• Appointment of the Prime Minister
• Dissolution of Parliament
• Royal assent to bills

These powers, however, are very ceremonial and are used under recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and according to the conventions of the Constitution.^[19] The executive in turn is answerable to Parliament, which enforces its control over it by means of:

• Debates
• Question hours
• Committees
• No confidence votes

Such an amalgamation and overlapping of powers guarantee co-ordination among the branches and also democratic accountability and avoidance of unchecked power.

Parliamentary Control

In the constitution of the United Kingdom, accountability by the executive is facilitated by Parliament. It checks the government by a number of well-developed systems which facilitate transparency and accountable governance. The questioning of ministers in Parliament is one of the best methods as the members are able to seek explanations on the policies and decisions made by the government.

Frequent discussions on matters of national concern also give a chance to question executive acts and hold the ministers liable. The use of select committees has turned into a significant means of thorough scrutiny of government departments, policies, and expenditure, in the sense that they have the ability to:

• Summon witnesses
• Compile evidence
• Issue reports that may impact the opinion of the population and policy-making^[20]

Parliament also has a great control of finance on the executive by its ability to either approve or deny supply. It is also important that the government is not able to use public finances or impose any taxes without the approval of Parliament, meaning that the financial decision-making process is controlled by the legislature.^[21]

Besides that, the legislature has the final check on the executive—the authority to dismiss a government by the vote of no confidence by the House of Commons.^[22] In case such a motion is passed, the Prime Minister and Cabinet should step down or seek a general election. In such a way, Parliament makes the executive responsible and acting within constitutional boundaries.

Judicial Oversight

Judicial review in the United Kingdom is important in the maintenance of the rule of law as well as making sure that the government works within the limits of the law. The concept of judicial independence has evolved significantly through the years particularly following the Constitutional Reform Act, 2005, which established the UK Supreme Court in 2009, therefore, decoupling the judiciary, the legislature and the executive.[23] This amendment abolished the judicial role of House of Lords and enhanced the trust of people on the independence of the courts. Though the principle of parliamentary sovereignty prohibits courts to invalidate the Acts of Parliament, they still have the substantial judge judicial capacity to assess the administrative and executive processes.[24] Such judicial check-ups guarantee that judgments that are made by agencies of authority do not violate the legislation, but are sound, and through the relevant procedures.

Landmark Cases in the UK

The judiciary has proved itself by making historic decisions to operate as a constitutional check to the executive.

• R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017): The Supreme Court decided that the government could not initiate Brexit by its executive authority (royal prerogative) without Parliamentary approval. Since withdrawal from the EU would alter citizens’ rights and the legal framework established by Parliament, only Parliament could authorize such a change. This ruling upheld the principle of parliamentary sovereignty — that Parliament is the supreme law-making body and even the government is bound to act within its laws.[25]
• R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (2019): This case dealt with the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue (suspend) Parliament for five weeks during Brexit debates. The Supreme Court held that advising the Queen to suspend Parliament was unlawful as it frustrated the ability of Parliament to hold the government accountable. The Court emphasized that the executive cannot use its powers to undermine parliamentary sovereignty or democratic accountability.[26]

These cases established that even the actions of top executives could be reviewed by judges. Thus, in the UK, despite parliamentary supremacy, the judiciary ensures legality, fairness, and constitutional balance in governance.

The Doctrine in India

Separation of powers doctrine in India is not absolute, as it is aimed to accommodate the demands of a parliamentary democracy. The framers of the Constitution were inspired by both the American and the British systems of governance and came up with the system in which the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are autonomous in their respective spheres, yet can only work well together as a system.[27]

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 50: Directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services to ensure impartial justice.[28]
• Articles 121 & 211: Prohibit debates in Parliament or State Legislatures regarding the conduct of judges, protecting judicial independence.[29]
• Articles 122 & 212: Restrict the judiciary from interfering in the functioning of Parliament or State Legislatures.[30]
• Article 361: Grants immunity to the President and Governors, balancing executive responsibility and accountability.[31]

Judicial Review in India

Judicial review is a cornerstone of India’s system of checks and balances. Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to review legislative and executive actions for conformity with the Constitution.[32] In Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, meaning Parliament cannot alter it.[33] The judiciary, therefore, safeguards the Constitution and ensures that both the legislature and the executive operate within their limits.

Legislative Checks

The legislature in India has a critical role in restraining the executive and ensuring accountability to prevent misuse of power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.[34] This means the executive must maintain the confidence of the majority in Lok Sabha and can be removed by a no-confidence vote if it loses that support.

Parliamentary Oversight Tools

• Question Hour: Enables members to question government policies and actions.
• Adjournment Motions: Allow pressing issues to be raised and debated.[35]
• No-confidence Motions, Debates, and Discussions: Ensure public scrutiny of government policies.
• Parliamentary Committees: Committees like the Public Accounts Committee and Estimates Committee examine expenditures, implementation, and policy efficiency.[36]

Financial Control

• Government expenditure comes from the Consolidated Fund of India and must be approved by Parliament (Article 266).[37]
• The executive cannot levy taxes without Parliament’s consent (Article 265).
• Parliament can impeach the President and remove judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts for misconduct or incapacity (Articles 124(4) & 217).[38]

These measures ensure executive accountability and adherence to constitutional limits.

Executive Checks

The Indian executive also has constitutional powers to maintain balance among the branches of governance.

Checks on the Legislature

• Article 111: The President can withhold assent or return a bill for reconsideration, ensuring re-evaluation before enactment. However, the President cannot permanently veto a bill.[39]
• Article 85: Allows the executive to dissolve the Lok Sabha (on advice of the Council of Ministers), maintaining political stability and accountability.[40]

Checks on the Judiciary

• Article 72: Grants the President the power of pardon, reprieve, respite, or remission — a check on judicial punishment ensuring fairness and mercy.[41]
• Article 74: Requires the President to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, ensuring collective responsibility.[42]

Constitutional conventions, parliamentary scrutiny, and judicial review collectively ensure a balanced distribution of powers and prevent concentration of authority in any one branch.

Judicial Checks

In India, the Judiciary serves as an important system that regulates the balance of power and the protection of the Constitution. It serves as the protector of the Constitution and the most significant control over the legislature and the executive, by means of the judicial review. Articles 32 and 226 permit the Supreme Court and the High Courts to review the validity of legislative and executive acts and invalidate them when they are found to be unconstitutional. This guarantees that no law or action, popular as it is, or potent in its politics, can be above constitutional principles.

Landmark Cases on Judicial Review

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this case, it was determined that the basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be changed by Parliament, includes judicial review and the doctrine of separation of powers. This judgment empowered the court to act as the protector of basic rights and constitutional integrity.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court struck down an amendment that attempted to immunize the Prime Minister’s election from judicial scrutiny. This case demonstrated that even the supreme political power is subject to judicial control and that the judiciary can prevent misuse of legislative or executive authority.

By making such decisions, the courts ensure that the Constitution takes precedence and all arms of government act within their legal boundaries. Judicial review in India not only assures the rights of citizens but also upholds accountability, prevents arbitrary acts, and maintains a balance among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. In this way, the judiciary bolsters democracy and the rule of law.

Functional Overlap and Inter-Relationship

The legislature, executive, and judiciary in India do not have a strict separation of powers but instead work collaboratively with overlapping functions. This structure promotes synergy and good governance while maintaining constitutional limits.

Judiciary as Law-Maker

The judiciary plays a law-making role in certain situations, especially where there is no or inadequate legislation. For instance:

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court provided comprehensive directions to curb sexual harassment in the workplace, filling a legislative gap that was later addressed through formal legislation by Parliament.

Executive’s Delegated Legislative Powers

The executive possesses quasi-legislative powers under delegated legislation, empowered by Article 312, which authorizes it to enact rules and regulations required for implementing laws passed by Parliament. This delegation:

• Makes administration more efficient.
• Allows the government to act promptly in emerging matters.
• Ensures ultimate control of delegated powers remains with Parliament.

Conclusion

The concept of checks and balances is a cornerstone of constitutional governance, ensuring that no single branch of government becomes overly powerful. It preserves the balance among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, thereby protecting democracy, individual rights, and the rule of law. This doctrine manifests differently across nations, shaped by their historical, political, and constitutional contexts.

Comparative Perspective

Final Reflection

Ultimately, the success of the doctrine of checks and balances depends not merely on constitutional design but on the integrity of institutions, judicial independence, and governmental accountability. Even the most well-drafted provisions cannot achieve their purpose without a political culture that values restraint and responsibility. Thus, checks and balances remain a dynamic and evolving doctrine—vital to preserving democracy, preventing authoritarianism, and upholding the rule of law in any constitutional framework.

References

• Montesquieu. (1748). The Spirit of Laws.
• Wade, W., & Phillips, G. (2009). Constitutional Law (9th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Jain, M. P. (2018). Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed.). LexisNexis.
• The Constitution of the United States (1787).
• U.S. Const. art. II, § 4.
• U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
• U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.
• U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2.
• U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2.
• U.S. Const. art. II, § 3.
• U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
• U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1.
• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
• Hamilton, A. (1788). The Federalist No. 78.
• Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
• United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
• Dicey, A. V. (1885). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution.
• House of Commons. (2019). Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice (25th ed.).
• Bagehot, W. (1867). The English Constitution. Chapman and Hall.
• Russell, M., & Gover, D. (2017). Legislation at Westminster: Parliamentary Actors and Influence in the Making of British Law. Oxford University Press.
• UK Parliament. (2020). Financial Procedure and the Role of Parliament. UK Parliament.
• Fixed-term Parliaments Act (UK) (2011) (repealed 2022).
• Constitutional Reform Act, 2005 (UK).
• Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374.
• R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5.
• R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41.
• Jain, M. P. (2018). Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed.). LexisNexis.
• The Constitution of India, art. 50.
• The Constitution of India, arts. 121 & 211.
• The Constitution of India, arts. 122 & 212.
• The Constitution of India, art. 361.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
• The Constitution of India, Article 75(3).
• Jain, M. P. (2018). Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed.). LexisNexis.
• Basu, D. D. (2015). Commentary on the Constitution of India (9th ed.).
• The Constitution of India, Articles 265 and 266.
• The Constitution of India, Articles 61, 124(4), and 217.
• The Constitution of India, Article 111.
• The Constitution of India, Article 85.
• The Constitution of India, Article 72.
• The Constitution of India, Article 74.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) Supp SCC 1.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.
• The Constitution of India, Article 312.