Open Access Research Article
SEPARATION OF POWERS IN A DEMOCRACY: THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
Published Paper
Article Details
SEPARATION OF POWERS IN A DEMOCRACY: THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
Authored By - Shubhangi Gupta, 3rd
year (B.A. LLB)
Co-Author - Prakriti Mishra, 3rd
year (B.A. LLB)
1.
INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of separation of powers
was originally initiated in the writings of Montesquieu in the spirit of laws,
where Montesquieu refers to the division of government. responsibilities into
three separate branches of government to ensure that none of the branches
encroach on another's domain. The real purpose of introducing the policy was to
prevent the concentration of power and ensure checks and balances. Separation
of Powers is practiced in India but not so strictly. The three main areas of
government perform the tasks of others in one way or another. Presently, the
research paper evaluates the separation of powers as envisioned by the
constitution of India and the difficulties faced in practice by the three wings
of government in the implementation of constitutional provisions in letter and spirit.
However, each wing of the government must keep an internal check to ensure they
do not end up violating the rights of the people. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has recognized that the Separation of Powers is a part of the basic
structure of the Indian Constitution. In this context, the author felt the need
to examine the ‘Constitutional Plan and Practice concerning Separation of
Powers in India’.
The doctrine of separation of powers
contemplates the idea that government functions must be a tripartite division
of legislative, executive, and judicial power. Three organs should be
independent, distinct, and sovereign in their sphere so that one does not cross
the territory of the other. Aristotle who was the first to perceive and see
that specialization exists function in each constitution developed this
doctrine. Later theorists such as Montesquieu, John Locke, and James Harrington
described these functions as legislative, executive, and judicial. All the
theories that were handed down by these political thinkers about the doctrine
of separation of powers were on the basic premise that people's liberties
should be protected from tyrannical rulers when all powers are vested and
exercised by the same persons.
The framers of the Indian constitution
did not recognize its doctrine of separation of powers in a rigid sense. Unlike
U.S. Constitution, this doctrine was not strictly enforced in the Constitution
of India. It can't be seen clearly but can be witnessed in the differentiation
made at discharge functions of various branches of government v the Constitution.
This doctrine is not entirely foreign to us Constitution. As it is reviewed,
important ideal law like Ram Jawaya v. Condition of Punjab plainly illustrates
this rule. Justice Mukherjee in the moment case said: “It can in all likelihood be said that Constitution does not consider
supposition, by one organ or a piece of the State, of capacities that fit in
with another. The official for sure can practice the forces of departmental or
subordinate enactment when such powers are designated to it by the governing
body. It can likewise when so enabled, exercise legal capacities in a
restricted manner”[1]
The Constitution of India has been
founded upon the fundamental principle of Rule of law. It must be remembered
that the quality of excellence of governance is evaluated on the touchstone of
efficacy and the strength of the Judicial mechanism.
2.
ESSENCE OF DEMOCRACY
An integral part is the doctrine of
separation of powers in the development of democracy. Democracy dictates the
system in which every citizen can breathe without fear of retribution, express
themselves, and promote their interests. It allows him to live the life of his
choice to the extent that he does not interfere with other people's rights. In
this context, it can be assumed that a system of checks and balances exists
among the three organs of government to ensure a strong nurtured democratic system.
The legislature, the judiciary, and the executive are the pillars of democracy.
No democracy contemplates the granting of absolute power to any single body.
The brake and counterbalance system
is one of them the most salient features of our constitutional system. Tree
organs practically cannot be separated into three waterproof bins because their
interdependence ensures effective management. They must work in harmony and in
harmony to achieve meaningful nutrition and purposeful progress for citizens.
Although, minimal interventions are always desirable. As has been observed by
the Hon’ble Chief Justice Balakrishnan, “the Constitution lays down the
structure and defines the limits and demarcates the role and function of every
organ of the State including the judiciary, and establishes norms for the
interrelationships, checks, and balances.”
Thus, all three bodies are expected
to work in harmony instead prefers only one of the organs. Providing absolute power
is the bane of democracy. The goal itself was supposed to protect and support
the historical struggle for freedom and democratic rights of the people.
The conscience of our Constitution
speaks through its Preamble and the dynamics of its goal are spelled-out, out in
its various provisions. The people's will finds its best expression in the very
words inscribed in the Preamble “We the People of India” and “do hereby Adopt,
Enact and Give ourselves this Constitution”. Thus, the people who are sovereign
exercise this sovereign power in choosing their representatives to the
Parliament.[2]
3.
MEANING OF SEPARATION OF POWERS: TRUE
ASPECT
Theory, to put it euphemistically, is
universal in nature, it can be understood as expressly committed to achieving
political freedom, an essential part of which is the limitation of government
power, and this is best accomplished by the formation of divisions. In this
way, however, it must be recognized that it recognizes the need for government
action to provide a suitable climate for individual growth is complementary to it
does not conflict with the view that strongly reiterates that government is
being limited they are an essential part of the theory. One of the main
problems with access to literature on the concept of separation of powers is
that several authors describe exactly what he means, what his essential
delicacies are, and how applies to other concepts. One such attempt; is
nevertheless made in his book Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers by
Professor Vile. Division government into three branches or divisions,
legislative, executive, and judiciary is essential to the establishment and
preservation of democratic freedom. There is a corresponding recognizable role
for each of these branches governmental, legislative, administrative, or
judicial. Every government branch must be limited to fulfilling its role and
must not be allowed to do so to interfere with the functions of other branches.
In addition, individuals who constitute these three government agencies must be
separated and distinct and no entity should be allowed to be a member of more
than one branch simultaneously. Accordingly, branches will be a check for
others and no single group of people will be able to control the machinery of
the state.
3.1 LEGISLATURE
The Legislature has been
accorded high respectability in the country’s Constitution of India. It is
mainly about the enactment of general legal rules that apply to all aspects of
dealing with its citizens and institutions. The Parliament is the Union. The
Legislature of India consists of two bodies, namely the Lok Sabha and the Rajya
Sabha. Makes laws, imposes taxes, approves borrowings and prepares and fulfills
the budget, has an exclusive can declare war, can open investigations,
especially against executive power, appoints the head of the executive branch, and
sometimes appoints a judge as well as he has power ratify treaties. How he
anchors for the will of the people by securing true and intact democracy, it
can be said that it is not possible all by the legislature itself. It is an
immediate threat to democracy if absolute power is given to the holder of the
nation's purse. According to make the executive responsible to the people's
house, The Constitution provides for a proper mechanism of checks and balances
to the doctrine of separation of powers. The whole system has other aspects
that can help achieve the same. Hence this questions the role of the other two
pillars: the judiciary and executive.
3.2 JUDICIARY
The framers of our
Constitution wrote it so carefully that it ensures an independent and impartial
judiciary interpreter of the Constitution and guardian of the rights of citizens
through judicial review. This he orders judicial power to interpret laws but
not to make them. They are not set general standards of behavior for the government.
This brings us to the recent debate as to whether this is the case the behavior
of the judiciary can be characterized as judicial review or judicial activism. The
higher Judiciary in India esp. the honorable Supreme Court, the most powerful
judiciary in the world, became the epicenter of disputes about its role in fun and
decisive public petitions, deciding these petitions, the judiciary issues many
directions to the government, which includes making laws in many areas. The
point is that the judiciary is overstepping its bounds and overstepping its
bounds in the field of executive or legislative. And if it is, it is in the
event, then, what is the legitimacy of the exercise of these powers? The role
of the judiciary should be limited to control only the constitutionality of the
legislation and not the proceedings of the government to pass the law. The
scope of judicial review is not beyond the scope of the inquiry whether it is
attacked law or executive action that falls within the competence of legislative
or executive authority or is by fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution or its other mandatory provisions.
“It is a commonplace that
while the Legislature enacts the law the Executive implements it and the Court interprets
it and, in doing so, adjudicates on the validity of executive action and, under
our Constitution, even judges the validity of the legislation itself. And yet
it is well recognized that in a certain sphere, the Legislature is possessed of
judicial power, the executive possesses a measure of both legislative and
judicial functions, and the Court, in its duty of interpreting the law,
accomplishes in its perfect action in a marginal degree of legislative
exercise. Nonetheless, a fine and delicate balance is envisaged under our
Constitution between these primary institutions of the State”[3]
3.3
EXECUTIVE
The executive branch can
veto laws, command the military, issue decrees o declarations (for example,
declares a state emergency) and promulgate legal regulations and executive
orders, may refuse to spend money allocated for certain purposes, can appoint
judges, and has the power to grant pardons convicted criminals. As well as the
other two pillars of democracy Equally, the executive is expected to be
non-disruptive Other two. It is always said that the executive is independent
of two, but the mismatch persists. It is a completely eroded practice. The
reason is that the executive is questioned every time for their actions by the
Judiciary and the Legislature. This will dilute it maximum independence of the
executive. That's not it the question of liability arises only in the event
executive. Judiciary and legislature are equally responsible but in their cases,
the built-in system would be from within available to perform these functions.
This is the real state of things that exist in practice. Though the Indian
Constitution allocates executive powers to the President and Governors (Article
53 (1) and Article 154 (1), they are empowered with certain legislative powers
(Articles 123, 213, and 356) and certain judicial powers (Articles 103 and
192). Similarly, the legislature exercises certain judicial functions (Articles
105 and 194) and the judiciary exercises few legislative and executive
functions (Articles 145, 146, 227, and 229). However, the judiciary is made
separate from the executive in the public services of the State (Article 50).
4.
THE EXECUTIVE AND THE LEGISLATURE IN
THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
In the early years of the Republic,
the Supreme Court had already recognized that the Indian Legislature had a
distinctly superior position vis-à-vis the other organs of the State. The
observation made by Justice S.R. Das is a testimony to this in the famous case
of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [1950 SCR 88]: “Although our Constitution
has imposed some limitations… [It] has left our Parliament and the State
Legislature supreme in their respective fields. In the main, subject to
limitations…our Constitution has preferred the supremacy of the Legislature to
that of the Judiciary…and the Court has no authority to question the wisdom or
policy of the law duly made by the appropriate Legislature…and this is a basic
fact which the Court must not overlook.”[4]
Executive powers- All executive activities of the
Union government are taken on his behalf. Appoints officials The Union
Government, the Prime Minister, and the Council of Ministers at recommendations
of the Prime Minister, the President of the Supreme Court, and judges Supreme
Court and High Court on the advice of the Chief Justice India. Appoints
Chairman UPSC, Controller and Auditor General of India, Attorney General of
India, Chief election commissioner and other election commissioners, The
Governor of the States, the members of the Finance Commission, and ambassadors.
Judicial powers- The President appoints the Chief
Justice Supreme Court and other judges on the advice of the Chief Justice. The
President enjoys legal immunity. He can grant pardon, forgiveness, respite, or
remit punishment. President a judge may be dismissed by a two-thirds majority of
its members present in two houses. If they are considering a question of law or
a matter of public importance that has arisen may apply the advisory opinion of
the Supreme Court. However, they can or may not accept this view.
Legislative powers- The President convenes both
chambers of parliament and adjourns the meeting of both chambers and can
dissolve Lok Sabha but uses these powers according to the recommendation of the
Council of Ministers headed by the Minister. He delivers the inaugural address of
Parliament at the beginning of the first session every year, where he outlines new
government policies. A bill that Parliament has approved can become law only
after the president gives them agree with it. He can return the bill to
Parliament for revaluation, but this is not the case with a cash account. But
just in case Parliament is sending it back for the second time, the president
is obliged to sign it. The President can promulgate regulations when parliament
is not in session but must ratify it within six weeks. Moreover, this is the
case only in the case of the Union and Concurrent list.
However, it cannot be said that the
principle would separation of powers does not apply to the relationship between
the executive and the legislature. Despite such express powers Executive, certain
gray areas cry out for better application of the principle. It is important to
maintain the division of power between the executive and the legislature where
legislators exercise executive power. Legislators exercise their control over
the executive many times their power to lead executive boards and agencies of
various descriptions, ability to participate in executive committees which
award contracts or select beneficiaries of various welfare schemes. Second,
allocating the annual fund to legislators they are given the executive to carry
out activities in their constituency disguised powers that lead to corruption
over some time. However, the President appoints the Council of Ministers in consultation
with the Prime Minister generally involves assistance and recommendations of
the Council of Ministers. This shows that the area within which he enjoys independence
is very limited and nominal. Article 74(1) clarifies that the executive
director has to act with the assistance and advice given by the Cabinet. Some
constitutional provisions also provide powers, Privileges, immunities of
deputies, immunity from court vetting for house proceedings, etc. Such
provisions thereby, in a way, make the legislation independent.
5. THE EXECUTIVE
AND JUDICIARY IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
One should think of that
everything is not written even in a written Constitution. Many things may
develop as a part of constitutional development. India can learn from the
naming of judges in other nations. The Judicial Appointments Commission, an
autonomous organization in the United Kingdom, is in charge of selecting judges
for courts and tribunals. Three of its 15 associates come from the community of
judges, while the remaining members, including the chairman, are chosen through
an open enlisting process. In the United States, the President appoints judges
to the government courts with the Senate’s advice and consent.
The argument keeps originating
from time to time that in the procedure of selecting judges in the Supreme
Court and High Courts, there is assert nepotism, which is called ‘Uncle
Culture’ in the Judiciary — people having close social relations are likely to
be appointed as judges. There are more people whose known are already in high
positions in the judiciary. In such a situation, it is essential to understand
what the collegium system is, how it works, what the government’s resistances
are regarding it, what kind of system the government wants instead, and what
could be the system’s disadvantages preferred by the government. The collegium
of the Supreme Court is made up of five senior-most judges including the Chief
Justice of India (CJI). They regard the appointment of judges in the Supreme
Court or the raising of judges of the High Court to the Supreme Court and the raising
of judges of High Courts as Chief Justices. In case of a deviation of opinion,
the majority view is considered.
Since the Constitution
mentions that consultation with the CJI is necessary for appointing the
Judiciary, the collegium model germinated. Judges in the High Courts are also
appointed on the proposal of the Collegium, which includes the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, the CJ of the High Court, and the Governor of the State.
The Collegium is kind of a new system and three decisions of the Supreme Court are responsible for its existence, which are known as Judges Case.
The Collegium is kind of a new system and three decisions of the Supreme Court are responsible for its existence, which are known as Judges Case.
The S.P.
Gupta case[5] is the first
case, which is also known as the Judges Transfer Case. In this case, the
Supreme Court said that the Chief Justice should not have full control over the
appointment of judges and said that the government should also have a role in
the formation of the Collegium. The Court meant referring with the most senior
judges is required.
In the second case, a petition was
filed by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCARA) in 1993. In
this case, the previous judgment of the supreme court overruled the previous judgment.
A nine-judge bench said that in the appointment of judges, the opinion of the
Chief Justice should be considered over the opinion of others. And then in the
third case in 1998, the presidential reference to the Supreme Court was sent to
question, the meaning of the consultation in Articles 124, 217, and 222 of the
Constitution. The SC said that the CJI will not be the only one as a part of
the consultation process. Thus the supreme court made the size of the collegium
bigger consisting of five judges. The separation of powers between the
government and the judiciary is visible in the Constitution. The job of the
Supreme Court is to safeguard the Constitution and the fundamental rights of the
people. For this, it can also reconsider the decisions of the legislature
which according to it are not by the doctrine of basic structure.
Another
question comes into the picture when the judges are appointed by the
governments, then to what degree justice can be foreseen in the cases of public
interest challenging the government, and how much can be expected if the
elected person of the government wrongs the decision of the government’s
permission? The Constitution is such a document that it should keep growing
with time. The Supreme Court has a huge responsibility on itself to be
transparent in the selection process of judges.
The Collegium
is the right way, but it could not do its work over some time. It did not meet
with the expectation of its formation. Ever since the Collegium was formed, no
step has been taken to bring transparency in appointments and this system.
Legal solidarity has been raising the bar for bringing transparency in the
functionality of the judiciary on a timely basis. After the government hindered
the Judiciary during the Emergency, the Supreme Court judicially understood the
Constitution and brought the collegium system. In any case, the judges shall
not involve in politics. The loyalty of judges should be to the Constitution
and not to any respective person. If the Executive has the final say in the
appointments of judges, it can be dangerous for democracy.
When the NJAC
was struck down by the Supreme Court, a bench of judges at that time did admit
that there were inconsistencies in the existing collegium system and that it
needed to be reformulated. Former Chief Justice JS Verma, who in 1993 wrote the
judgment that created the collegium system, later said he had “changed his mind
and veered round to the view that a National Judicial Commission which gives a
role to the Executive in the appointment of judges is a better
alternative.”
In light of
major reservations about the powerfulness of the current system, former Chief
Justice, AM Ahmadi, who had opposed the collegium system by filing a dissenting
opinion, supported a return to the pre-collegium procedure.
The question
arises here, what initiatives have the Judiciary, taken in the last so many
years to reform itself:
- When the name of a relative, friend, or acquaintance of the person
whose name is being discussed in the collegium, the concerned person
should not be a part of it because it is a conflict of interest.
- There should be a secretariat of the collegium where a record should
be kept of what is being discussed in the meetings and on what basis the
appointments were made, all these should be known.
In 2016, the
High Court requested that the Law Service correct the Notice of Strategy (MOP),
a significant piece of the collegium framework, which is a sort of
understanding between the legal executive and the public authority on the
arrangement of judges. The High Court requested that the Law Service alter the
MOP and present it under the steady gaze of the High Court. Be that as it may,
there has been no revision in the MOP. The SC said, "Once the collegium in
its insight or as you would suspect in the absence of it had worked out the MOP
there is no unpredictable that is to happen."
The three
mainstays of a republic — the Leader, the Lawmaking body, and the Legal
executive — cooperate freely. A majority rules government endures when
conflict. A fundamental mental comprehension of decency is important for the
legal framework. Establishment becomes powerless if a foundation doesn't hold
an Aristotelian origination of the state's liability regarding the benefit of
everyone.
The important
tenet that every organ endeavors for the greatest good of humankind were the
basis for Montesquieu’s doctrine of the separation of powers. Thus, the
judiciary’s function is distinct from that of the Executive.
The collegium
should have a proper, lasting staff that gathers information like judges’ judgments
and case records, examines them, and makes psycho-social determinations. The
oppositions between the Executive and Judiciary are not good for democracy and
rule of law, it further hazards the smooth and independent functioning of the
judiciary. An Independent judiciary is a claimant for the sound functioning of
judicial administration.
On the other
hand, the judiciary must avoid vaulting its jurisdiction and ponder to make
itself more accountable and transparent. It is the need of the hour that both
the government and the Apex Court should do something special to make this
process transparent, fair, and robust. The system must select the best possible
people on merit who uphold the constitution and democratic traditions with
letter and spirit. Regrettably, both only want to increase or maintain their
respective influence and create an ineffective system that ensures things
beyond doubt.
6.
THE JUDICIARY AND LEGISLATIVE UNDER THE
INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
The tenet of the detachment of abilities suggests that every
mainstay of a vote-based system - the chief, lawmaking body, and the legal
executive - carries out isolated roles and goes about as independent
substances. The chief is vested with the ability to settle on approach choices
and carry out regulations. The lawmaking body is engaged to give institutions.
The legal executive is liable for arbitrating questions. The convention is a
piece of the fundamental construction of the Indian Constitution[6]
even though it isn't explicitly referenced in its text. Consequently, no
regulation might be passed and no alteration might be made to the Constitution
going amiss from the precept. Various organizations force balanced governance
upon one another yet may not violate upon one another's capabilities. Hence,
the legal executive activities legal audit over the leader and authoritative
activity, and the governing body surveys the working of the chief. There have
been a few situations where the courts have given regulations and strategy-related
orders through their decisions. These incorporate the Vishakha situation where
rules on lewd behavior were given by the High Court, the request for the Court
guiding the Middle to disperse food grains (2010), and the arrangement of the
Exceptional Examination Group to supplant the General Board of Trustees laid
out by the Middle for researching dark cash stores in Swiss Banks. In 1983 when
Equity Bhagwati presented a public interest suit in India, Equity Pathak in a
similar judgment cautioned against the "enticement of crossing into an
area which appropriately relates to the Council or the Leader Government"[7]
Equity Katju in 2007 noticed that, "Courts can't make privileges where
none exist nor could they at any point continue making orders which are
unequipped for requirement or violative of different regulations or settled
lawful standards. To see that legal activism doesn't become legal adventurism
the courts should act with alert and legitimate limitation. It should be
recalled that courts can't run the public authority. The legal executive ought
to act just as an alert; it ought to guarantee that the leader has become alive
to play out its obligations." [8]
While there has been some conversation on the issue of activism by the legal
executive, it should be noticed that there are likewise occasions of the
council utilizing its regulation-making powers to turn around the result of
certain decisions. (M.J. Antony has alluded to a couple of them in his article
in the Business Standard here.) We examine beneath a few late occurrences of
the governing body upsetting legal professions by passing regulations with
review impact. On September 7, 2011 the Parliament passed the Traditions Change
and Approval Bill, 2011 which reflectively approves all obligations forced and
moves made by specific traditions authorities who were not approved under the
Traditions Act to do the expressed demonstrations. A portion of the obligations
forced was truth be told tested under the steady gaze of the High Court in
Chief of Customs versus Sayed Ali in 2011[9].
The High Court struck down the duty of obligations since these were forced by
unapproved authorities. Bypassing the Traditions Bill, 2011 the Parliament
avoided the judgment and revised the Demonstration to approve specific
authorities to exact obligations reflectively, even those that had been held to
be unlawful by the SC. One more case of the assembly superseding the choice of
the High Court was found in the Fundamental Items (Alteration) Statute, 2009
which was passed into a Demonstration. The High Court had decided that the cost
at which the Middle will purchase sugar from the plant will incorporate the
legal least value (SMP) and an extra measure of benefits that the factories
share with farmers.[10]
The Correction permitted the Middle to follow through on a fair and gainful
cost (FRP) rather than the SMP. It likewise got rid of the necessity to pay the
extra sum. The alteration applied to all exchanges for the acquisition of sugar
by the Middle beginning around 1974. Essentially, the change overruled the Court’s
choice. The leader attempted to avoid the Peak Court choice through the
Adversary Property (Revision and Approval) Mandate, 2010. The Court had given a
writ to the Overseer of Foe Property to return ownership of specific properties
to the legitimate beneficiary of the proprietor. In this way, the Chief gave a
Law under which all properties that were stripped from the Overseer for
legitimate beneficiaries by a Court request were returned to him. The Mandate
slipped by and a Bill was presented in the Parliament. The Bill is right now
being analyzed by the Parliamentary Standing Board of Trustees on Home
Undertakings. These models feature a few occasions where the lawmaking body has
acted to switch legal proclamations. The legal executive has additionally acted
in a few occurrences in hazy situations isolating its job from that of the
chief and the governing body. The principle of detachment of abilities isn't
arranged in the Indian constitution. To be sure, it could be challenging to
define a severe boundary outlining the partition. However, it may be
necessary for each pillar of the State to evolve a healthy convention that respects
the domain of the others.
7. NEED FOR HARMONY
There is a need for checks and balances in the
constitutional governance of the country and also in the political program.
Separation of power is a part of the Indian Constitution. It has almost become
a characteristic feature and the doctrine of separation of power is not
separable from the processes of evolution of democracy. The doctrine of
separation of power is an effective safeguard against different situations that
any of the arms of the State may move presently, tomorrow, or afterward. The vital
question is the way in which the Fathers of the Indian Constitution revived it,
the way in which the first Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru had a vision of it --
the three organs of the State must have a joint participation in it. No
unshared primacy has been given to any of the arms of the State. It is also
true that the popular will of the people finds a central place in the
understanding of those where the framers of the Constitution. The centrality of
the will of the people is expressed very disgustingly in the Preamble of the
Indian Constitution.
8. CONCLUSION
The hypothesis
of the detachment of abilities is an inescapable piece of a majority rules
government's development. None of the republic's three distinct organs can
assume control over the elements of the others. The chief, administrative, and
legal parts of government cooperate to overcome any barrier and make government
run as expected. The regulation of partition of abilities in the severe sense
is bothersome and eccentric and subsequently till now it has not been
completely acknowledged in any of the nations, yet this doesn't imply that the
precept has no importance in the realm of today. The rationale behind this
tenet is as yet substantial. The rationale behind the regulation is of the extremity
as opposed to the severe arrangement, meaning in this manner that the focal
point of power should be spread to keep away from absolutism. Consequently, the
convention can be better valued as a precept of 'check and equilibrium'. A voting-based
government and various individuals like India can't work under a constitution
with a severe partition of abilities. Be that as it may, the three mainstays of
government can collaborate fairly on account of conscious and moderate sacred
utilitarian covers. By overcoming any barrier between the administrative,
leader, and legal branches of government, shared cooperation like this works on
the productivity of government. A majority rules system can't work well without
complying with the convention of the division of abilities.
[1] Akash Trikha, Anwesha Tripathy, (Separation of Powers: Indian Perspective),
Palarch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 17(6). ISSN 1567-214
[2] Nidhi Singh, Anurag Vijay, (Separation of Powers: Constitutional Plan
and Practice), International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, ISSN 2250-3153, Volume 3, Issue 11, November 2013
[4] Nidhi Singh, Anurag Vijay, (Separation of Powers: Constitutional Plan
and Practice), International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, ISSN 2250-3153, Volume 3, Issue 11, November 2013
[5]
AIR 1982 SC149
[8] Aravali Golf Club vs. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 289
[9] Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed
Ali (2011) 3 SCC 537
Article Information
SEPARATION OF POWERS IN A DEMOCRACY: THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
Authors: Shubhangi Gupta, Prakriti Mishra
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/04/12
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.