Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Separation of Powers
Separation of Powers
Department of
For MASTER IN
Submitted to:
Dr. Chanchal Kumar
Sharma
Dept. of Political
Science
Introduction
SEPAR
ATION
OF
POWE
RS
and
THE
INDIAN
CONST
ITUTIO
N
Submitted to the
Political Science
ARTS
Submitted by:
Bintu (6238)
M.A. Political Science, 3rd
Sem
Today
all
the
Constitutional systems
in the world might not
be opting for the strict
separation of powers
because
that
is
undesirable
and
impracticable
but
implications
of
this
concept can be seen in
almost all the countries
in its diluted form. It is
widely accepted that
for a political system to
be stable, the holders
of power need to be
balanced off against
each
other.
The
principle of separation
of powers deals with
the mutual relations
among
the
three
organs
of
the
government,
namely
legislature,
executive
and
judiciary.
This
doctrine tries to bring exclusiveness in the functioning of the three organs
and hence a strict demarcation of power is the aim sought to be achieved
by this principle. This doctrine signifies the fact that one person or body of
persons should not exercise all the three powers of the government.
Montesquieu, a French scholar, found that concentration of power in one
person or a group of persons results in tyranny. And therefore for
decentralization of power to check arbitrariness, he felt the need for
vesting the governmental power in three different organs, the legislature,
the executives, and the judiciary. The principle implies that each organ
should be independent of the other and that no organ should perform
work of those who saw themselves as its most bitter critics. This per se is
recognition of the fact that the very idea of division of power and
separation of functions, has always prevailed persistently in the past so as
to give effect to a just system of governance and avoid any concentration
of power in a single body of men.
the legislative
the Executive, and
the Judicial.
At the same time, there are three main organs of the Government in
State i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary. According to the theory of
separation of powers, these three powers and functions of the
Government must, in a free democracy, always be kept separate and
exercised by separate organs of the Government. Thus, the legislature
cannot exercise executive or judicial power; the executive cannot exercise
legislative or judicial power of the Government.
As the concept of Separation of Powers explained by Wade and Philips, it
means three different things :i.
ii.
iii.
That the same persons should not form part of more than one of
the three organs of Government, e.g. the Ministers should not sit
in Parliament;
That one organ of the Government should not control or interfere
with the exercise of its function by another organ, e.g. the
Judiciary should be independent of the Executive or that Ministers
should not be responsible to Parliament; and
That one organ of the Government should not exercise the
functions of another, e.g. the Ministers should not have
legislative powers.
However, the need for the independence of the judiciary from the
hands of the king and his other servants was a long felt demand since
early times which was further influenced by the writings of Fortescue, a
political thinker of that time. On similar lines, Chief Justice Coke in 1607
went a step further and said that judicial matters were not to be decided
by natural reason but by the artificial reason and judgment of law, which
law is an act which requires long study and experience before that a man
can attain cognizance of it. Nonetheless, it was much clear in the minds
of people that the only part that the king played in administration of
justice was that of the appointment of judges.
Having felt that judiciary should be separate and independent from
the clutches of the King, another theory that aimed at the separation of
legislative and executive (including judicial) functions grew autonomously
by the influence of the writings of several other political writers of that
time. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, English writers
endeavoured to expound one theory of separation in the absence of the
other. It was not until Baron-de-Montesquieu that a really influential
synthesis of the duo appeared.
for the judge would then be the legislator. Where it joined with the
executive power, the judge might behave with violence and
oppression. There would be an end of everything, where the same
man or the same body, whether of the nobles or the people, to
exercise those three powers, that of enacting the laws, that of
executing the public resolutions, and of trying the cases of
individuals.
To discover the constitutional principles which best promoted
political liberty, Montesquieu looked to the English Constitution which in
his belief, the only one was having liberty as its chief object. Though the
English Constitution classified political power primarily in terms of
legislative and executive functions and further subdivided the latter to
take into account Lock distinction between executive and federative
functions, he decided to call the conduct of foreign affairs as executive
power and the execution of domestic law as judicial power.
Based on this broad classification, he divided the governmental
power into legislative, executive and judicial functions. He apprehended
legislative power as an activity of declaring the general will of the state,
of informing the people through general rules of their obligations toward
one another and opined that such power should reside in the body of
people, for in a free state, he believed, every man who is supposed to be
a free agent ought to be governed by himself. Further, he understood
executive power as that of executing the public resolutions embodying
the general will of State and judicial power as the power of deciding civil
and criminal cases. Of the trio, he considered judicial power as the most
frightening power since in his opinion executive could not harm a subjects
life, liberty, or property until after a judicial decision.
Though Montesquieu deserves accreditation for such a theorization,
and is indeed given so in some quarters, however his conception is not
free from criticisms for some. As Professor Ullman says that he looked
across the foggy England from his sunny vineyard in Paris and completely
misconstrued what he saw. This is however evident from the fact that in
U.K., the principle of separation of powers has neither been accorded a
constitutional status, nor even has it been theoretically enshrined.
Montesquieu Stated the Doctrine of Separation of Powers in the Following
WordsThey would be an end of everything, were the same man or same
body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three
powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and
of trying the causes of individuals.
Through his doctrine Montesquieu tried to explain that the union of
the executive and the legislative power would lead to the despotism of the
executive for it could get whatever laws it wanted to have, whenever it
wanted them. Similarly the union of the legislative power and the judiciary
would provide no defence for the individual against the state. The
importance of the doctrine lies in the fact that it seeks to preserve the
human liberty by avoiding concentration of powers in one person or body
of persons.
The same was expounded by James Madison of U.S.A. asThe accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial,
in the same hands whether of one, a few, or many and whether
hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very
definition of tyranny.
Therefore, separation of powers doctrine acts as a check against
tyrannical rule. The purpose underlying the separation doctrine is to
diffuse governmental authority so as to prevent absolutism and guard
against arbitrary and tyrannical powers of the state, and to allocate each
function to the institution best suited to discharge it.
way each of the branches will be a check to the others and no single
group of people will be able to control the machinery of the State.
From an analysis of this ideal type or benchmark definition put
forth by Professor Vile, one can imply that the first element of the pure
doctrine is the assertion of a division of the agencies of the government
into three categories: The Legislature, The Executive, and The Judiciary. In
contrast with the earlier versions, it can be said that though they were in
fact based on a twofold division of governmental powers, however, since
the mid 18the century the three fold division has generally been accepted
as the basic necessity for a constitutional government.
The second element of the doctrine suggests that there are three
specific functions of the government. Unlike the first element which
recommends that there should be three branches of government, this
element of the doctrine suggests a sociological truth that there are, in all
governmental situations, three necessary functions to be performed,
whether or not they are in fact all performed by one person or group, or
whether there is a division of these functions among two or more agencies
of government.
The third element in the doctrine and the one which sets the
separation of powers wide apart from those who subscribe to the general
themes set out above, is what, for the want of better phrase, can be
referred to as the separation of persons. This is the recommendation that
the three branches of government should be composed of quite separate
and distinct groups of people with no overlapping membership.
On the touchstone of this ideal type conception, it is worth to recall
the sayings of scholars and eminent jurists who have commented, from
time to time, on the utility and desirability of having the doctrine in its
rigid or flexible form thereby giving effect to it in its true letter and spirit.
According to Friedman, Strict separation is a theoretical absurdity and a
practical impossibility. However there is no liberty if the judicial power be
not separated from the legislative and executive. For Jaffe and Nathan,
Separation of Power is undesirable in strict sense nevertheless; its value
lies in the emphasis on those checks and balances which are necessary to
prevent an abuse of enormous power of the executive. The object of the
doctrine is to have a government of law rather than of official will or
whim.
Having examined the doctrine from its history and origin to its
ideal precept along with the conceptions of Montesquieu and his
contemporary counterparts on the subject, our discussion grows matured
enough to test the doctrine as it stands imbibed in the Constitution of
India since it takes the form of a primary objection in governance and the
role of judges whenever Judicial Activism is brooded about.
1. Legislative Power
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under
the non delegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking
responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held
in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not
delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by which he was empowered
to selectively nullify certain provisions of a bill before signing it. The
Constitution Article I, Section 8; says to give all the power to Congress.
Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, to make laws and in
addition to the enumerated powers it has all other powers vested in the
government by the Constitution. Where Congress does not make great
and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been
less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of nondelegation was Wayman v. Southard (1825). Congress had delegated to
the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that
Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with
legislative powers.
2. Executive Power
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the
president by Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution. By law the president
becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several
states when called into service, has power to make treaties and
appointments to office -- "...with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"-receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "...take care that the laws
be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution
does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather,
officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The
Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of
the laws made by Congress. Congress may itself terminate such
appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. The
president's responsibility is to execute whatever instructions he is given
by the Congress. Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive
officials to the performance of their duties, as authorized by the laws
Congress passes. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a)
The prescription for legislative action in Article I, Section 1requiring all
legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a
House of Representativesand Section 7requiring every bill passed by
the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the
president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the
Senate and Houserepresents the Framers' decision that the legislative
power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single,
finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is
an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers.
Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together
cannot override Executive vetos without a 2/3 majority. Legislation may
always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
3. Judicial power
Judicial power the power to decide cases and controversies is
vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress.
The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and
consent of the Senate, hold office for life and receive compensations that
may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's
judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial
power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called
"constitutional courts." Congress may establish "legislative courts," which
do not take the form of judicial agencies or commissions, whose members
do not have the same security of tenure or compensation as the
constitutional court judges. Legislative courts may not exercise the judicial
power of the United States. In Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land &
Improvement Co.(1856), the Supreme Court held that a legislative court
may not decide "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty," as
such a suit is inherently judicial. Legislative courts may only adjudicate
"public rights. Even though of above all, Separation of Powers is not
accepted in America in its strict sense, only it has attracted the makers of
most modern Constitution, especially during 19th Century.
In a leading case: Marbury v. Madison, is a landmark case in United States
law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United
States under Article III of the Constitution. This case resulted from a
petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been
appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District
of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered.
Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James
Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as
Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the
statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was
unconstitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared
something "unconstitutional", and established the concept of judicial
review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the
actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped
define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.
Separation of powers has again become a current issue of some
controversy concerning debates about judicial independence and political
efforts to increase the accountability of judges for the quality of their
work, avoiding conflicts of interest, and charges that some judges
allegedly disregard procedural rules, statutes, and higher court
precedents.
It is said on one side of this debate that separation of powers means
that powers are shared among different branches; no one branch may act
unilaterally on issues, but must obtain some form of agreement across
branches. That is, it is argued that "checks and balances" apply to the
Judicial branch as well as to the other branches. It is said on the other side
of this debate that separation of powers means that the Judiciary is
independent and untouchable within the Judiciaries' sphere. In this view,
separation of powers means that the Judiciary alone holds all powers
relative to the Judicial function, and that the Legislative and Executive
branches may not interfere in any aspect of the judicial branch.
The doctrine of separation finds its home in U.S. It forms the basis of
the American constitutional structure. Article I vests the legislative power
in the Congress; Article II vests executive power in the President and
Article III vests judicial power in the Supreme Court. The framers of the
American constitution believed that the principle of separation of powers
would help to prevent the rise of tyrannical government by making it
impossible for a single group of persons to exercise too much power.
Accordingly they intended that the balance of power should be attained
by checks and balances between separate organs of the government. This
alternative system existing with the separation doctrine prevents any
organ to become supreme.
Despite of the express mention of this doctrine in the Constitution,
U.S. incorporates certain exceptions to the principle of separation with a
view to introduce system of checks and balances. For example, a bill
passed by the Congress may be vetoed by the President in the exercise of
his legislative power. Also treaty making power is with the President but
its not effective till approved by the Senate. It was the exercise of
executive power of the senate due to which U.S. couldnt become a
member to League of Nations. The Supreme Court has the power to
declare the acts passed by the congress as unconstitutional. There are
other functions of an organ also which are exercised by the other. India,
too, followed U.S. in adoption of the checks and balances which make sure
that the individual organs doesnt behold the powers absolutely.
This means that functioning of one organ is checked by the other to
an extent so that no organ may misuse the power. Therefore, the
constitution which gives a good mention of the doctrine in its provisions
also does not follow it in its rigidity and hence has opted for dilution of
powers just like India.
U.K.
Before we go to India, its important to know the constitutional setup
of the country to which India was a colony and ultimately owes the
existence of the form of government it has. U.K. follows a Parliamentary
form of government where the Crown is the nominal head and the real
legislative functions are performed by the Parliament. The existence of a
cabinet system refutes the doctrine of separation of powers completely. It
is the Cabinet which is the real head of the executive, instead of the
Crown. It initiates legislations, controls the legislature, it even holds the
power to dissolve the assembly. The resting of two powers in a single
body, therefore denies the fact that there is any kind of separation of
powers in England.
all matters that are within the legislative competence of the Parliament.
Such a power is co-extensive with the legislative power of the Parliament.
Apart from ordinance making, he is also vested with powers to frame rules
and regulations relating to the service matters. In the absence of
Parliamentary enactments, these rules and regulations hold the field and
regulate the entire course of public service under the Union and the
States. Promulgation of emergency in emergent situations is yet another
sphere of legislative power which the President is closed with. While
exercising the power after the promulgation of emergency, he can make
laws for a state after the dissolution of state legislature following the
declaration of emergency in a particular state, on failure of the
constitutional machinery.
Like the British Crown, the President of India is a part of the
legislature though he is not a member of any house of the Parliament. No
Bill for the formation of new states or alteration of boundaries etc. of the
existing states, or affecting taxation in which States are interested or
affecting the principles laid down for distributing money to the states or
imposing a surcharge for the purposes of the Union and no Money Bill or
Bill involving expenditure from the consolidated fund of India can be
introduced for legislation except on the recommendation of the President.
Besides this, he also has powers to grant pardons, reprieves respites or
remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute; the sentence
of any person convicted any offence which is of judicial nature. He also
performs similar judicial functions in deciding a dispute relating to the age
of the judges of the constitutional courts for the purpose of their
retirement from their judicial office.
In a similar manner, Parliament also exercises judicial functions.
While performing judicial functions, it can decide the question of breach of
its privilege and if proved, can punish the person concerned. While doing
so, the Parliament is the sole judge and Courts cannot generally question
the decision of the Houses on this point. Moreover, in case of
impeachment of the President, one House of the Parliament acts as a
prosecutor and the other House investigates the levelled charges and
decides whether they substantiate or not. There is, however, a
considerable institutional separation between the judiciary and other
organs of the government. The Constitution confers wide powers however;
a certain amount of executive control is vested in the higher judiciary with
respect to subordinate judiciary. At the same time, the power of
appointment of high courts and Supreme Court judges including the Chief
Justice of India, vests partially with the executive, that is to say, the
President of India who in turn exercises this power in consultation with the
Governors of the concerned states and the Chief Justice of the concerned
High Court in case of a high court judge and Chief justice of India in case
of a Supreme Court judge. Moreover, the judges of constitutional courts
cannot be removed except for proved misconduct or incapacity and unless
including that of finance. Judiciary has no power over sword or the purse.
Nonetheless it has power to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of
the state function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of
democracy.
The prime point of our concern here is whether the judicial organ of
the State is conferred with a constitutional mandate so as to overstep its
limits while discharging its main functions. That is to say whether the
judiciary can interfere and encroach in the executive or legislative domain
if justice demands so, or it cannot do so simply by virtue of the fact that
the concept of separation of powers puts fetters on it. To answer these
points, one needs to ascertain as to what status the judiciary has been
accorded in the Indian Constitution. Is it supreme as compared to the
other organs or is subordinate thereto? Judiciary under Indian Constitution
has been given an independent status. It has been assigned the role of an
independent umpire to guard the constitution and thereby ensure that
other branches may not exceed their powers and function within the
constitutional framework. Commenting and clarifying the concept of
independence of judiciary, Sir A.K. Aiyar, who was one of the framers of
the Constitution, had observed that
The doctrine of independence (of judiciary) is not to be raised to a
level of a dogma so as to enable the judiciary to function as a kind of
super-legislature or super-executive. The judiciary is there to interpret the
constitution or to adjudicate upon the rights between the parties
concerned.
It can thus very aptly be said that creation of judicial organ in India
was not at all meant to give to it a supreme status as compared to the
other co-ordinate organs. Rather, with powers and functions sufficiently
distinguished and demarcated, what is expected out of judiciary is to act
as a watchdog to oversee and prods to keep the other organs within the
constitutional bounds. The essence of the Constitution is that it produces
a system which is the result of amalgamation of the principle of
separation of powers with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in a
manner to give effect to both, yet without the rigidity of the two systems.
The Parliamentary democracy is cemented as the corner stone of
constitutional edifice in preference to the Presidential system of
governance.
SEPARATION
OF
POWERS
PRONOUNCEMENTS IN INDIA
AND
JUDCIAL
formal head. The executive, thus, is derived from the legislature and is
dependent on it, for its legitimacy, this was the observation made by the
Honble S.C. in Ram Jawaya v. Punjab.
On the question that where the amending power of the Parliament
does lies and whether Art.368 confers and unlimited amending power on
Parliament, the S.C. in Keshavanand Bharti held that amending power was
now subject to the basic features of the constitution. And hence, any
amendment tapering these essential features will be struck down as
unconstitutional. Beg. J. added that separation of powers is a part of the
basic structure of constitution. None of the three separate organs of the
republic can take over the functions assigned to the other. This scheme
cannot be changed even by resorting to Art.368 of the constitution. There
are attempts made to dilute the principle, to the level of usurpation of
judicial power by the legislature.
In a subsequent case law, S.C. had occasion to apply the
Keshavanand ruling regarding the non-amend ability of the basic features
of the Constitution and strict adherence to doctrine of separation of
powers can be seen. In Indira Nehri Gandhi v. Raj Narain, where the
dispute regarding P.M election was pending before the Supreme Court, it
was held that adjudication of a specific dispute is a judicial function which
parliament, even under constitutional amending power, cannot exercise.
So, the main ground on which the amendment was held ultravires was
that when the constituent body declared that the election of P.M wont be
void, it discharged a judicial function which according to the principle of
separation it shouldnt have done. The place of this doctrine in Indian
context was made a bit clearer after this judgment.
Though in India strict separation of powers like in American sense is
not followed but, the principle of checks and balances a part of this
basic structure doctrine so much so that, not even by amending the
constitution and if any such amendment is made, the court will strike it
down as unconstitutional.
References:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)