INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of separation of powers, a cornerstone in the architecture of constitutional governance, serves as a critical mechanism to safeguard against the abuse and concentration of authority within a democratic framework. Although not explicitly articulated in the text of the Indian Constitution, the essence of this doctrine permeates its provisions, delineating distinct spheres of influence for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The underlying principle is rooted in the philosophy that vesting unchecked power in a single entity risks jeopardizing individual liberties and fostering authoritarian tendencies. In the Indian context, the separation of powers is an implicit but integral component of the constitutional framework.

MEANING OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

The triaspolitica principle serves as the foundation for the separation of powers. All international constitutions are derived from this doctrine of power, which dates back to the time of the “Magna Carta.” When Montesquieu discovered that this theory was originally presented in America, his belief that it was formed in accordance with the British constitution was disproved.
Recognising that governments have historically been the main violators of people’s rights, the concept of separation of powers is intended to safeguard those rights. The theory underlying the separation of powers is that a single entity with significant power has the potential to turn against its constituents[1].

EVOLUTION OF THE DOCTRINE

• Constitutional Framing (1947-1950):- As India gained independence in 1947, the Constituent Assembly diligently crafted the Constitution. Drawing inspiration from various constitutional models, the framers aimed to establish a system that prevents the abuse of power. The distribution of powers among the three branches, though not rigidly compartmentalized, reflected the core principles of separation.
• Early Judicial Interpretations (1950s-1960s):- In the initial years post-Independence, the judiciary played a vital role in interpreting and shaping the separation of powers doctrine. The Supreme Court, in cases like A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), started to delineate the boundaries between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. However, it was the landmark case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) that marked a turning point by emphasizing the supremacy of fundamental rights and the limitations on amending them.
• Emergence of the Basic Structure Doctrine (1970s):- The 1970s witnessed a paradigm shift with the introduction of the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[2]. This doctrine asserted that while Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic structure. This implied a judicial check on legislative powers, reinforcing the separation of powers by safeguarding fundamental constitutional principles.
• Post-Emergency Reassertion (1970s-1980s):- The period following the Emergency (1975-1977) saw a reaffirmation of the separation of powers. The judiciary, through cases like Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[3], demonstrated its commitment to preventing the abuse of executive power. This period underscored the importance of an independent judiciary as a guardian of the Constitution.
• Contemporary Challenges and Amendments (1990s-Onward):- In more recent years, the separation of powers in India faces challenges such as frequent use of ordinances, concerns over the judiciary’s overreach, and debates on the collegium system for judicial appointments. Constitutional amendments, like the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act (2014), aimed to alter the process of judicial appointments but were struck down by the Supreme Court, highlighting the continuing struggle to strike the right balance.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

The Indian Constitution, the guiding document of the nation, intricately weaves the principles of separation of powers into its fabric, even though the term itself may not be expressly mentioned. To unravel the distribution of powers among the key branches — the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary — one must navigate through the various articles that delineate their respective roles and responsibilities.

• Legislative Branch (Parliament):- The power vested in the legislative branch, represented by the Parliament, is enshrined in Articles 245 to 255. Article 245 establishes the authority of Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India. Concurrently, Article 246 enumerates the subject matters on which Parliament has exclusive power, those on which the state legislatures have exclusive power, and areas where both can legislate concurrently. This demarcation aims to prevent conflicts and ensure a harmonious exercise of legislative authority.
• Executive branch (President and Council of Ministers):- The President of India is vested with executive authority pursuant to Article 53, which he is to exercise in conformity with the Constitution. Despite being the nominal head, the President follows the Prime Minister’s advice in the Council of Ministers, as stated in Article 74. The President’s authority, the idea of collective responsibility, and the process by which executive decisions are made are all explained in Articles 53, 74, and 75.
• Judicial Branch (Supreme Court and High Courts):– The judicial powers in India, vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts, are detailed in Articles 124 to 147. Article 124 outlines the composition of the Supreme Court, while Article 141 emphasizes the binding nature of its judgments. The distribution of powers between the Supreme Court and High Courts is explicated in Articles 131 to 136, ensuring the hierarchical structure of the judiciary[4].

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[5]

In this historic case, the Supreme Court introduced the doctrine of the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. While not explicitly about separation of powers, it emphasized that certain essential features, including the balance between different branches, cannot be altered even through constitutional amendments. This laid a foundation for the judiciary to safeguard the core principles of the Constitution, acting as a check on excessive legislative or executive powers.

• R. Bommai v. Union of India [6]

This ruling examined the delicate dynamics that exist between the legislative and executive branches, especially when states are enforcing President’s Rule. The Court emphasised the need for a fair distribution of powers and discouraged the abuse of executive authority by emphasising that the authority to dissolve a state government should be used carefully and not arbitrarily.

• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[7]

While primarily dealing with election disputes, this case underscored the significance of judicial review as a tool to examine executive actions. The judiciary, through this judgment, asserted its role in scrutinizing the actions of the executive, thereby ensuring accountability and upholding the principle of separation of powers.

LEGISLATION AND EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

In the governance in India, the enactment of laws and executive actions plays a crucial role in defining the boundaries of power among the different branches—legislative, executive, and judicial. Let’s unravel how these legislative and executive moves either align with or, at times, challenge the bedrock principles of separation of powers.

• Legislative Actions

The Parliament, as the legislative branch, has the power to make laws. However, the challenge lies in ensuring that these laws do not tilt the balance of power excessively toward one branch. Laws must be clear, consistent with the Constitution, and not encroach upon areas reserved for other branches. Instances where Parliament makes laws that substantially interfere with judicial functions or executive discretion may raise concerns about the separation of powers. Judicial review, a power vested in the courts, acts as a check to ensure that legislative actions adhere to constitutional principles.

• Executive Actions

The executive, led by the President and the Council of Ministers, is responsible for implementing laws and policies. Executive actions must align with the laws passed by the legislature and stay within the constitutional bounds. Issues arise when executive actions exceed their mandate or influence the legislative process. For instance, the promulgation of ordinances, which are temporary laws issued by the President in urgent situations, should not become a tool to bypass the legislative process excessively. The courts play a pivotal role in examining executive actions to ensure they remain within the confines of the law and do not infringe on the functions of other branches.

• Checks and Balance

The constitutional framework incorporates checks and balances to prevent an undue concentration of power. Judicial review acts as a crucial mechanism, allowing the judiciary to assess the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. The concept of ‘due process of law’ ensures fairness in the application of laws, protecting individual rights from arbitrary executive actions. While legislation and executive actions are vital for the functioning of the state, a delicate equilibrium must be maintained to uphold the principles of separation of powers. It is through a careful examination of laws and executive decisions, coupled with the vigilance of the judiciary, that the system maintains its integrity and ensures a harmonious coexistence of the three branches.

CONCLUSION

In Conclusion, the separation of powers is like the backbone of our country’s rulebook, even though it’s not loudly spoken about in our Constitution. It’s a big deal because it stops too much power from piling up in one place, which could be risky for our freedoms and might lean toward being too bossy. The Constitution-makers did a smart job in the late 1940s, making sure no one branch gets too powerful. The judges in our courts, especially in big cases, made sure that everyone in the government plays fair and doesn’t step over their limits. Parliament, the group that makes laws, needs to be careful not to grab too much power. The President and the folks running the country have to follow the rules and not act like they’re the only ones making decisions. And, of course, our judges step in to make sure everyone is playing by the book. So, this separation of powers thing is like a system of checks and balances. It helps keep our country running smoothly, making sure no one becomes too powerful, and that everyone is doing their job the right way. This way, our country can keep standing tall, built on the principles of fairness and freedom.

[1] “Doctrine of Separation of Powers,” Drishti IAS Daily Updates, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/doctrine-of-separation-of-powers-1 (last visited Feb. 15, 2024)

[2] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970

[3] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975 AIR 1590

[4] Richa Goel, “Understanding the Doctrine of Separation of Powers,” IPLeaders Blog, https://blog.ipleaders.in/separation-of-powers/ (last visited Feb. 25, 2024)

[5] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970

[6] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1918

[7] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975 AIR 1590