Talk about the Indian Constitution’s stipulations regarding the division of powers. Examine how the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are divided in terms of authority, as well as the checks and balances that control how they interact.
Model Answer Introduction The principle of separation of powers ensures a clear demarcation of responsibilities among the three branches of government—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. It includes checks and balances to prevent any branch from becoming overly powerful. While India, the USA, andRead more
Model Answer
Introduction
The principle of separation of powers ensures a clear demarcation of responsibilities among the three branches of government—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. It includes checks and balances to prevent any branch from becoming overly powerful. While India, the USA, and the UK adhere to this concept, their implementation reflects their unique constitutional frameworks and historical contexts.
Similarities
1. Existence of Three Organs
All three nations recognize the division of government into the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
2. Checks and Balances
Each country has mechanisms to maintain a balance of power:
- USA: The Constitution ensures rigorous checks and balances. For example, the President can veto laws passed by Congress, but Congress can override this veto with a two-thirds majority.
- India: The judiciary reviews laws for constitutional validity, while the President and Parliament oversee the Executive.
- UK: Parliamentary supremacy acts as a check on the Executive, supported by a bicameral legislature.
Differences
1. Codified vs. Uncodified Constitutions
- USA: Explicit separation of powers through Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution.
- India: The Constitution defines functions but does not explicitly mention separation of powers. The Kesavananda Bharati case affirmed it as part of the basic structure.
- UK: The absence of a written Constitution makes separation of powers implicit and flexible.
2. Degree of Separation
- USA: Strict separation—members of one branch cannot serve in another. E.g., legislators cannot hold executive positions.
- India: Overlap exists; e.g., the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers are part of the Legislature.
- UK: Fusion of powers—ministers, including the Prime Minister, are part of Parliament, and the judiciary cannot nullify parliamentary acts.
Conclusion
The separation of powers in India, the USA, and the UK reflects their distinct constitutional frameworks. While the USA maintains strict separation, India allows functional overlaps, and the UK’s system is more flexible due to its uncodified Constitution.
See less
Model Answer Introduction The doctrine of separation of powers, as envisaged in the Indian Constitution, promotes the division of governmental responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. Judicial legislation, also known as judicial aRead more
Model Answer
Introduction
The doctrine of separation of powers, as envisaged in the Indian Constitution, promotes the division of governmental responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. Judicial legislation, also known as judicial activism, occurs when the judiciary interprets the law or creates new legal principles, often encroaching upon the domain of the executive or legislature.
Need for Judicial Intervention
The Indian judicial system has witnessed a large number of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) as citizens seek to address pressing social issues, protect fundamental rights, and hold the executive accountable. In many cases, the executive and legislative branches have been unable or unwilling to tackle these issues effectively. As a result, the judiciary has stepped in to bridge the gap and protect the rights of citizens. A specific example of judicial intervention is the Supreme Court’s decision in the Vishaka case (1997), where the court laid down guidelines to address sexual harassment in the workplace.
Evolution of PIL in India
PIL emerged as a powerful tool in the 1980s to provide access to justice to marginalized and disadvantaged sections of society. The judiciary, led by proactive judges, relaxed the rules of locus standi and allowed any individual or organization to file a case on behalf of those who could not approach the court themselves. A notable example is the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), where the Supreme Court allowed an NGO to file a case on behalf of bonded laborers.
Judicial Guidelines and Directives
In various PILs, the judiciary has issued guidelines and directives to the executive, aiming to address issues such as environmental protection, human rights, and corruption. These guidelines, while encroaching upon the executive’s domain, have often proven necessary to address policy paralysis, bureaucratic inefficiency, or corruption. The Supreme Court’s directives in the MC Mehta v. Union of India case (1986) are a prominent example of judicial guidelines to address environmental protection.
Balancing Act
Although judicial legislation can be seen as a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, the Indian Constitution provides for a system of checks and balances, allowing the judiciary to review and interpret the actions of the executive and legislature. A significant example is the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Common Cause v. Union of India case (2017), where the court directed the government to introduce measures for transparency in political funding, addressing corruption while encroaching upon the executive’s domain.
Conclusion
While judicial legislation can be seen as antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers, the filing of numerous PILs praying for guidelines to be issued to executive authorities is justified in the context of India’s unique challenges. The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in upholding the rights of citizens, addressing pressing social issues, and ensuring accountability from the executive and legislative branches. This intervention, while pushing the boundaries of the separation of powers, has been necessary to maintain a balance and protect the public interest in many cases.
See less