“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, and execute them in a tyrannical manner.” – Montesquieu
Introduction
The division of power is based on two methods, i.e., either territorial where the power is divided between the central government and different regional governments; or functional as the work of the government has become so extensive that in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness it is deemed necessary to entrust the work of the government to different and specialized organs. Government powers have traditionally been classified as legislative (law-making), executive (law-enforcement) and judiciary (interpretation of laws and adjudication). In modern political thinkers it was Bodin who first advocated the idea of separation of executive and judicial powers in the interest of better administration of justice. Locke also advocated the separation of powers and recognized the importance of judicial function to be just and impartial. However, ideas of these great thinkers were developed and formulated into a coherent theory by the French philosopher Montesquieu who gave the doctrine of tripartite division of governmental functions with mutual checks and balances. He was of the opinion that it is not the machinery of government or political institutions which make the people free. It is the spirit or the manner in which the government organs function that secure freedom or liberties of people. Montesquieu was deeply impressed by the individual freedom and liberty present in the English society and while analyzing the English Legal system he observed that the stability and liberties enjoyed was derived from their adherence to the principle of separation of powers. The doctrine of separation of power as laid down by Montesquieu was to safeguard individual liberty.
Learn more about Constitutional Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified course by Scriboard Advocates and Legal Consultants!
Moreover, there is no liberty if the power of the judiciary is not separated from the legislature and executive. Had judiciary been joined with the legislative then the life and liberty of the individual would be subject to arbitrary control because the judge would then be the legislature; had it been clubbed with the executive then the judge might behave with violence and oppression. Montesquieu vehemently opposed the concentration of government powers, legislative, executive and judicial, in the hand of one person or in the same body of person which would be dangerous to individual liberty. There could be no protection of the individual freedom as the legislature, the prosecutor and the judge all would be same and hence there can be no check against abuse of executive authority, legislative tyranny or judicial misbehavior. He therefore, advocated that the three functions of the government should be entrusted to three different departments, each separately and independently performing its own distinct function.
Application of Doctrine of Separation of Powers under Indian Political System
In the Indian Constitution, which provide for parliamentary form of government strict separation of the Legislature and the Executive is not possible as the Cabinet consist of persons who are Members of Parliament. Under the Indian Political System there is no rigid separation of powers. The Indian Constitution had the privilege to see the working and taking advantage of other democratic constitutions with their operations.
Under Articles Articles 53(1) and 154(1), the Constitution of India has vested the executive power in the Union and the State with the President and the Governor. However, there is no explicit provision of vesting the legislature and judicial powers in a particular organ. In fact, the power to amend the Constitution is regarded as part of the constituent power conferred on Parliament.
Learn more about Constitutional Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified course by Scriboard Advocates and Legal Consultants!
In Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India the Supreme Court of India considered the question whether the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited so as to permit amendment or repeal of any provision of the Constitution. A Bench of 13 Judges declared that the power to “amend” does not include the power to abrogate the Constitution or to damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Some of the Judges mentioned a few basic features by way of illustration: Supremacy of the Constitution, Democratic Republican form of government, Secular character of the Constitution, separation of powers among the legislature, the executive and judiciary, the federal character of the Constitution, rule of law, equality of status and of opportunity.
Subsequently, power of judicial review has been declared as a basic feature of the Constitution in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. The Supreme Court has since struck down quite a few amendments to the Constitution, made by Parliament as violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, the Judiciary is independent in its field and there can be no interference either by the executive or the legislature. The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI and judges of the Supreme Court the Supreme Court has power to make Rules for efficient conduction of business. In fact, it is noteworthy that Article 50 of the Constitution puts an obligation over the state to separate the judiciary from the executive. However, since Article is a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP) it cannot be enforced in a court of law and has mere persuasive value.
Learn more about Constitutional Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified course by Scriboard Advocates and Legal Consultants!
Similarly, there are certain provisions in the constitution which provides for powers, privileges and immunities to the Members of Parliament from judicial scrutiny into the proceedings of the house. Such provisions are thereby making legislature independent, in a way.
A landmark decision in this regard was the case of Keshav Singh, which was a special reference case, where he was committed to incarceration on the behest of contempt of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly. A petition was filed and the Legislative Assembly took a serious view of the matter and passed a resolution that Keshav Singh, his Advocate who moved the High Court and the two Judges who entertained the petition and granted bail had committed contempt of the Assembly and all of them should be produced before it in custody. Subsequently when the matter reached the Supreme Court, where they clarified that once a court is satisfied about the existence and the extent of privilege and its breach it should decline to interfere with the privileges of the House. However, the two judges in this case were not guilty of contempt.
Learn more about Constitutional Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified course by Scriboard Advocates and Legal Consultants!
The Constitution provides for the conferral of executive power on the President. The powers and functions of the President have been powers enumerated in the Constitution itself. The President and the Governor are immune of civil and criminal liabilities. Generally, the legislature is the repository of the legislative power but, under some specified circumstances the President is also empowered to exercise legislative functions. For instance, while issuing an ordinance, framing rules and regulations relating to Public service matters, formulating law while proclamation of emergency is in force. These were some instances of the executive head becoming the repository of legislative functioning. President performs judicial functions also while assenting to death sentences.
On the other hand, the parliament performs certain judicial functions as well. It can decide the question of breach of its privilege, and in case of impeaching the President; both the houses take active participation and decide the charges. Judiciary, in India, too can be seen exercising administrative functions when it supervises all the subordinate courts below. The power of judicial review exercised by the Judiciary also prevents legislative transgression in powers of different organs of the government. The National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) judgement is one such case where the judiciary declared the law of the parliament to be void as it undermined Judicial Independence and Judicial Primacy in the appointment of judges.
Conclusion
In India, we follow the principle of separation of functions and not of powers. And hence, we do not abide by the principle rigidly. An example of it can be seen in the exercise of functions by the Cabinet ministers, who exercise both legislative and executive functions. Article 74(1) gives the Cabinet an upper hand over the executive by making their support and guidance mandatory for the 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 Supreme Court in Ram Jawahar v. Punjab. Indian system is developed on the concept of ‘checks and balances’ and the same is consistent with the Montesquieu who had recognized that an absolute separation of powers would lead to state of repose and inaction. Therefore, none of the three organs can dispel the essential functions of the organs, which constitute a part of ‘basic structure’ doctrine. Some of these instances of checks and balances are legislative review of the functioning of the executive by deliberations and discussion in the Parliament; executive appointment of judges (President appoints them); The President can set aside a law passed by the legislative or any guidance provided by the Union Council of Ministers when the same is not in alignment with the Constitution of India. In case, the president assents to the law passed duly by the legislative, it can be repealed by the Supreme Court after a fair trial if it is against the Basic structure of the Constitution. Thereby, it would not be wrong to say that separation of powers in itself is not foundation of liberty. It is the system of checks and balances which allows individual liberty to exist. In fact, in words of Lord Acton: – ‘Power corrupts and absolute Power tends to corrupt absolutely. Conferment of power in a single body leads to absolutism. But, even after distinguishing the functions, when an authority wields public power, then providing absolute and sole discretion to the body in the matters regarding its sphere of influence may also cause abuse of such power. Therefore, the doctrine of separation of powers is a theoretical concept and is impracticable to follow it absolutely.’
Learn more about Constitutional Law with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified course by Scriboard Advocates and Legal Consultants!
