Doctrine of Separation of Powers and its relevance in Contemporary Times

Historical Development of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The concept of the separation of powers has ancient roots, dating back to Aristotle in ancient Greece. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the idea was further developed by French philosopher John Bodin and British politician John Locke, who both discussed the division of powers in government. However, it was Montesquieu who gave the doctrine its most systematic and detailed form in his book "Esprit des Lois" (The Spirit of the Laws) in 1748.

The separation of powers is a framework used in democratic states to organize government. This model was first developed in ancient Greece and later adopted by the Roman Republic as part of its uncodified Constitution. According to this model, the State is divided into three branches, each with distinct and independent powers and responsibilities, ensuring that no single branch becomes too powerful. The three branches are:

• Executive - Responsible for enforcing laws.
• Legislature - Responsible for making laws.
• Judiciary - Responsible for interpreting laws.

This division helps maintain a balance of power within the government, preventing any one branch from dominating the others.

Separation of Powers in the Indian Context

After India gained independence, the Constituent Assembly was established to create the Indian Constitution. This Constitution drew elements from various other countries' constitutions but did not adopt a strict separation of powers among the three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judiciary. Instead, it emphasizes functional separation while allowing some overlap in responsibilities.

The Indian Constitution assigns executive powers to the President and the Governors of the states, as stated in Articles 53(1) and 154(1). The President, who acts as the Chief Executive of the Indian Union, exercises these powers with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, as outlined in Article 74(1).

India's Constitution adopts a balanced approach to the separation of powers. While it does not grant absolute legislative powers to the Parliament or state legislatures, it also ensures that the judiciary operates independently. Article 50, for instance, directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive, reinforcing the rule of law.

Moreover, the Constitution allows the President to issue ordinances, exercising legislative powers on matters within Parliament's jurisdiction, especially when Parliament is not in session, as per Article 123. The President also holds certain judicial responsibilities, such as resolving disputes about the age of High Court and Supreme Court judges, which are critical to their retirement. In these matters, the President must consult the Chief Justice and act independently, rather than following ministerial advice, reflecting a blend of executive and judicial functions.

Article 60 binds the President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and under Article 61, the President can be impeached for violating constitutional provisions. In such cases, one House of Parliament acts as the prosecutor, while the other investigates the charges.

The Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, the House of the People. This principle of collective responsibility ensures accountability to the legislative body, which stands in contrast to a strict separation of powers by creating a system of shared responsibility between the executive and legislative branches. This arrangement underscores the unique balance the Indian Constitution strikes in maintaining a functional and accountable government while ensuring the separation of powers.

Development on Separation of Powers

Justice Das, in the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, noted that while the Indian Constitution does imply a division of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, it does not explicitly state the doctrine of separation of powers as a foundational principle.

In Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., the Court acknowledged that although the Indian Constitution does not strictly follow the doctrine of separation of powers, it ensures an independent judiciary. This is evident from the establishment of High Courts in each state with specific provisions for the service of its judges and broad jurisdiction to issue writs to maintain checks on all courts, including the government when necessary.

Similarly, in Udai Ram Sharma v. Union of India, the Court firmly stated that the Indian Constitution does not embrace the American doctrine of separation of powers.

A significant ruling came in Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, where the Court declared that the doctrine of separation of powers was not fully adopted in India. Justice Mukherjee explained that while the Indian Constitution does not rigidly adhere to this doctrine, it sufficiently distinguishes the functions of the government branches. This means that the Constitution does not envision one organ of the state taking over the functions of another.

Later, in I.G. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, Chief Justice Subba Rao expressed that the Constitution establishes separate entities like the Union, States, and Union Territories, and clearly defines the roles of the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Each must exercise its powers within its designated sphere without overstepping its boundaries.

The Court's stance on the doctrine evolved over time. In the landmark case of Keshvananda Bharti v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that the amending power of the Constitution is subject to the "basic structure" doctrine. Any amendment that threatens these essential features would be deemed unconstitutional.

In Indira Gandhi Nehru v. Raj Narain, the Supreme Court reinforced this view by stating that adjudicating specific disputes is a judicial function that Parliament cannot assume, even with its constitutional amending powers. This ensures that each branch of government operates within its jurisdiction, preventing overlap and maintaining order in the governance structure.