INTRODUCTION

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers divides governmental authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This framework prevents power concentration and ensures checks and balances within a democratic system.

MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers entails distributing governmental functions among three distinct branches:

• Legislature: Responsible for enacting laws.
• Executive: Tasked with implementing and enforcing laws.
• Judiciary: Interprets laws and adjudicates disputes.

This separation ensures that no single entity wields absolute power, thereby safeguarding individual liberties and promoting a balanced governance structure.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

The concept traces back to ancient Greece, where Aristotle identified three governmental functions: deliberative, magisterial, and judicial. In the 17th century, John Locke advocated for separating legislative and executive powers to prevent tyranny. Later, Montesquieu’s seminal work, “The Spirit of the Laws” (1748), emphasized dividing powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches to preserve political liberty.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

• United States: The U.S. Constitution explicitly delineates powers among the three branches, embodying a rigid separation with a system of checks and balances.
• United Kingdom: Lacks a written constitution; the separation is more flexible, with overlaps, especially between the executive and legislature.
• India: While the Indian Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention the doctrine, it implies a functional separation with provisions ensuring checks and balances among the branches.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

In India, several constitutional provisions reflect the separation of powers:

• Article 50: Directs the state to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services.
• Articles 121 and 211: Prohibit legislative discussion on the conduct of judges, ensuring judicial independence.
• Articles 122 and 212: Restrict judicial intervention in parliamentary proceedings, preserving legislative autonomy.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

1. Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549: The Supreme Court observed that while the Indian Constitution doesn’t explicitly adhere to the doctrine, it delineates functions among branches, preventing one from encroaching upon another’s domain.

2. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299: The Court emphasized that the separation of powers is a fundamental feature of the Constitution, integral to its basic structure.

3. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461: This landmark judgment reinforced that the separation of powers forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure, which cannot be altered by parliamentary amendments.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

• Checks and Balances: This principle ensures that each branch can monitor and limit the functions of the others, preventing any single branch from becoming supreme.
• Judicial Review: Empowers the judiciary to assess the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, acting as a check on potential overreach.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES

• “Delegatus non potest delegare”: A delegate cannot further delegate; this principle restricts the transfer of delegated powers, maintaining clear functional boundaries.

AMENDMENTS / ADDITIONS / REPEALING

The 42nd Amendment (1976) attempted to curtail judicial review powers, disrupting the balance among branches. However, the Supreme Court, in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789, invalidated these changes, reaffirming the doctrine’s significance in maintaining constitutional equilibrium.

CRITICISM / APPRECIATION

• Criticism: Rigid separation can lead to inefficiencies and governmental paralysis, especially in emergencies requiring coordinated action.
• Appreciation: The doctrine prevents authoritarianism, promotes accountability, and protects individual freedoms by ensuring no single branch monopolizes power.

FLOWCHART: SEPARATION OF POWERS IN INDIA

+------------------+  
|                  |  
|   Constitution   |  
|                  |  
+---------+--------+  
          |  
          v  
+---------+--------+  
|                  |  
|   Legislature    |  
|                  |  
+---------+--------+  
          |  
          v  
+---------+--------+  
|                  |  
|    Executive     |  
|                  |  
+---------+--------+  
          |  
          v  
+---------+--------+  
|                  |  
|    Judiciary     |  
|                  |  
+------------------+  

TABLE: COMPARISON OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

CONCLUSION

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers is vital in India’s constitutional framework, ensuring a balanced distribution of authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Through judicial interpretations and constitutional provisions, this doctrine upholds democratic principles, prevents power concentration, and safeguards individual liberties.

REFERENCES

1. Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.
2. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
3. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.