The Constitution of a country defines the inter-relationship among the three organs of government:
- The legislature (which makes laws)
- The executive (which implements laws)
- The judiciary (which interprets laws and administers justice)
This system also regulates their relationship with the people. This division of responsibilities is known as the doctrine of separation of powers.
THE ORIGIN:
The doctrine is most commonly associated with the French political thinker Charles de Montesquieu, who derived this idea from the British Constitution. The primary aim of the doctrine is to prevent tyranny by ensuring liberty and dispersing power. Montesquieu believed that the concentration of power in one person or organ would threaten liberty. Thus, for fair and reasonable governance, different powers should be exercised by distinct entities or individuals.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE:
After gaining independence, India adopted a Parliamentary form of government modeled after the British system. Therefore, the strict doctrine of separation of powers is not applicable in India. The Constitution of India does not provide for an absolute or rigid division of functions among the three branches of government. This principle was established in landmark cases such as Re: Delhi Laws Act and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, where the Supreme Court emphasized that while there is a functional differentiation between the organs, it is not absolute.
In the Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr. 2008 case, the Supreme Court held:
“Under the Constitution, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation. Ordinarily, it is not proper for any of these three organs of the state to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, leading to undesirable consequences. Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like emperors.”
Moreover, if the legislature or executive fails in their duties, it is ultimately up to the people to correct these failures by voting wisely in subsequent elections.
In conclusion, the doctrine of separation of powers is not applied in its strictest sense in India. Instead, it operates on a system of checks and balances. The legislative body controls both the executive and the judiciary to a significant extent. While the executive and the legislature are responsible for managing public affairs, they are accountable to the people of India. If any of the three branches fail to perform their constitutional duties, it reflects poorly on the legislative process. For the public to maintain faith in their government, it is essential that all three organs work in harmony, ensuring that they meet the expectations of the people.
Source- Supreme Court of India
Also Read- DOCTRINE OF TERRITORIAL NEXUS
Written By- Palak Bhuwalka
Edited By- Vishakha Khatri
