ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROJECT

DEVELOPMENT OF SEPARATION OF
POWER IN INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW

by
Shagun Singh
BA. (Hons) LLB. (Hons)

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF RESEARCH AND STUDY IN LAW

2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject

Page

Introduction.4

Montesquieus Contribution..7

Doctrine of Separation of Power in India............9

Practical Application of the doctrine13

Importance of the Doctrine...19

Conclusion...20

Bibliography22

INTRODUCTION
Separation of power, in simple words, is the idea that a government functions best when its
powers are not concentrated in a single authority but are divided among different groups or
branches. The United States was the first nation that used a written constitution to formally
adopt separation of powers as the framework for its government.
The idea of separation of powers developed during the period known as the European
Enlightenment. The Enlightenment began in the seventeenth century and lasted until shortly
before the beginning of the American Revolution. Enlightenment thinkers identified three
main powers that were inherent in government. These include:

Legislative power: the power to make law

Executive power: the power to enforce law

Judicial power: the power to interpret the law

Enlightenment theories of separation of powers warned against the concentration of all

government powers in the hands of a single individual or authority. They were heavily
influenced by the example of England. Over the course of the seventeenth century, England
had forged a political system that divided government power among three different
authorities.

Parliament held legislative power. Parliament was made up of two houses the House
of Commons and the House of Lords. Members of the House of Commons were
elected. Members of the House of Lords mostly inherited their positions. Both houses
deliberated on proposed laws.

A monarch (king or queen), who inherited the throne for life, held executive power. A
series of agreements between Parliament and the monarch had established
Parliaments supremacy, or control, over the monarch. By the early eighteenth
century, the monarchs power was mostly limited to enforcing laws passed by the
Parliament.

A judiciary held judicial power. Up through the seventeenth century, judges in

England had served at the pleasure of the monarch. The monarch had been able to
dismiss judges at will. But in 1710, the monarch agreed to a request by Parliament to
guarantee judicial independence. The monarch agreed that judges will hold their
positions during good behaviour. He also agreed that judges salaries could not be

diminished while they were in office. No judge could be dismissed unless both houses
of Parliament approved.

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 be exercised by three
separate organs of the Government. It means that one person or body of persons should not
exercise all three types of powers of government. The legislature should exercise legislative
functions and powers and should not administer or enforce it. The executive should not
control the legislature nor should it take over the functions of the judiciary.
According to Wade and Philips1, the theory of separation of the powers signifies the
following three different things:

That the same person should not form part of more than one of the three organs of the
government;

That one organ of the government should not interfere with any other organ of the
government;

That one organ of the government should not exercise the functions assigned to any
other organ.

According to Montesquieu, if the executive and the legislature are the same persons or body
of person there would be a danger of the legislature enacting oppressive laws which the
executive will administer to attain for its own ends. He further said that if one person or body
of persons could exercise both the executive and judicial powers in the same matter there
would be arbitrary power which would amount to complete tyranny and there would be no
objectivity of law.
This idea of separation of functions stems from the logical conclusion that if the law-makers
should also be the administrators and dispensers of law and justice, then the people at large
will be left without a remedy in case any injustice is done as there will be no superior
authority.
The doctrine of separation of powers has become an integral part of the governmental
structure. But, the practical application of the doctrine differs to a great extent. In theory, the
doctrine of separation of powers is supposed to have a threefold classification of functions
and corresponding organs. But because of the diverse and complex nature of a modern state,
where the process of law making, administration and adjudication cannot be clearly
1

th

Aldar John, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 6 Ed.

demarcated or assigned to separate institutions, the application of this doctrine in strict sense
is very difficult2.
It the governments role to protect individual rights, but governments have historically been
the major violators of these rights. Thus, a number of measures have been derived to reduce
this likelihood. The concept of Separation of Powers is one such concept. The basic
assumption behind this is that when a single person or group has a large amount of power,
they can become dangerous to citizens. The Separation of power is a way of removing the
amount of power in any groups hands, making it more difficult to abuse.
According to the theory of Separation of Powers, the three powers and functions of the
Government, i.e. the legislative, executive and judicial, must, in a free democracy, always be
kept separate and be exercised by three separate organs of the Government3.

2
3

th

Takwani, C.K., Lectures on Administrative Law, Eastern Law Company, Lucknow, 4 Ed

th
Sathe S.P., Administrative Law, LexisNexis Butterworths, New Delhi, 7 Ed.

MONTESQUIEUS CONTRIBUTION
Montesquieu stated the Doctrine of Separation of Powers in the following words: There
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 cause of individuals.4
According to Montesquieu, the doctrine of separation of powers means that no one person or
body should be vested with all three types of powers. There must be a division of functions
on the following basis: the legislature should make laws but not administer or enforce them,
the executive must administer the made laws but neither influence the legislature in the
making of the laws nor stand in judgment of the same and the judiciary must determine rights
and uphold justice without taking over the functions of law-making or administration. He
further said that such separation is necessary in order to ensure that justice does not become
arbitrary and capricious.
He thought that concentration of power in one person or a group of persons results in tyranny.
And thus, for decentralization of power to check arbitrariness, he thought that there is a need
for vesting the governmental power in three different organs. The principle implies that each
organ should be independent of the other and that no organ should perform functions that
belong to the other.
The value of this doctrine lies in that it attempts to preserve human liberty by avoiding the
concentration of powers in any one person or body of person. As stated by Madison- The
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

th

Aldar John, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 6 Ed.

pronounced the very definition of tyranny. And for the prevention of this tyranny, the
doctrine of separation of power holds its greatest importance.
Also, the separation proposed by Montesquieu did not apply merely to the organs and their
functions but in regard to their personnel as well. This according to him was for the reason
that, if a person holding office in one wing of the government should wield power in regard
to another wing, it would defeat the purpose of the separation itself. Montesquieu was
convinced that it was only through such a system of separation of powers that a government
could be made free from the dangers of capricious or tyrannical rule.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWER IN INDIA

In India, there are three distinct activities in the Government through which the will of the
people are expressed. The legislative organ of the state makes laws, the executive forces them
and the judiciary applies them to the specific cases arising out of the breach of law. Each
organ while performing its activities tends to interfere in the sphere of working of another
functionary because a strict demarcation of functions is not possible in their dealings with the
general public. Thus, even when acting in ambit of their own power, overlapping functions
tend to appear amongst these organs. The question which is important here is that what
should be the relation among these three organs of the state, i.e. whether there should be
complete separation of powers or there should be co-ordination among them.
The Constitution of India embraces the idea of separation of powers in an implied manner.
Despite there being no express provision recognizing the doctrine of separation of powers in
its absolute form, the Constitution does make the provisions for a reasonable separation of
functions and powers between the three organs of Government.
By looking into the various provisions of the Constitution, it is evident that the Constitution
intends that the powers of legislation shall be exercised exclusively by the legislature.
Similarly, the judicial powers can be said to vest with the judiciary. The judiciary is
independent in its field and there can be no interference with its judicial functions either by
the Executive or by the Legislature. Also, the executive powers of the Union and the State are
vested in the President and the Governor respectively5.
The constitution of India lays down a functional separation of the organs of the State in the
following manner:

Article 53(1), Constitution of India

Article 50 lays down that State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive.
This is for the purpose of ensuring the independence of judiciary. Article 122 and 212
provides validity of proceedings in Parliament and the Legislatures cannot be called into
question in any Court. This ensures the separation and immunity of the legislatures from
judicial intervention on the allegation of procedural irregularity6. Judicial conduct of a judge
of the Supreme Court and the High Courts cannot be discussed in the Parliament and the
State Legislature, according to Article 121 and 211 of the Constitution. Articles 53 and 154
respectively, provide that the executive power of the Union and the State shall be vested with
the President and the Governor and they enjoy immunity from civil and criminal liability.
The legislature besides exercising law making powers exercises judicial powers in cases of
breach of its privilege, impeachment of the President and the removal of the judges. The
executive may further affect the functioning of the judiciary by making appointments to the
office of Chief Justice and other judges. Legislature exercising judicial powers in the case of
amending a law declared ultra vires by the Court and revalidating it. While discharging the
function of disqualifying its members and impeachment of the judges, the legislature
discharges the functions of the judiciary7. Legislature can impose punishment for exceeding
freedom of speech in the Parliament; this comes under the powers and privileges of the
parliament. But while exercising such power it is always necessary that it should be in
conformity with due process8. The heads of each governmental ministry is a member of the
legislature, thus making the executive an integral part of the legislature. The council of
ministers on whose advice the President and the Governor acts are elected members of the
legislature. Legislative power that is being vested with the legislature in certain

L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 400

Pandit M S M Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1960 SC 1186
8
Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, (1965) 1 SCR 413
7

circumstances can be exercised by the executive9. If the President or the Governor, when the
legislature or is not in session and is satisfied that circumstances exist that necessitate
immediate action may promulgate ordinance which has the same force of the Act made by
the Parliament or the State legislature. The Constitution permits, through Article 118 and
Article 208, the Legislature at the Centre and in the States respectively, the authority to make
rules for regulating their respective procedure and conduct of business subject to the
provisions of this Constitution. The executive also exercises law making power under
delegated legislation. The tribunals and other quasi-judicial bodies which are a part of the
executive also discharge judicial functions10. Administrative tribunals which are a part of the
executive also discharge judicial functions. Higher administrative tribunals should always
have a member of the judiciary11. The higher judiciary is conferred with the power of
supervising the functioning of subordinate courts12. It also acts as a legislature while making
laws regulating its conduct and rules regarding disposal of cases.
All this shows that Indian Constitution does not opt for the strict separation of powers
because it is undesirable and impracticable but implications of this concept can be seen in
India in its diluted form.
Besides the functional overlapping, the Indian system also lacks the separation of personnel
amongst the three departments.
Applying the doctrines of constitutional limitation and trust in the Indian scenario, a system is
created where none of the organs can usurp the functions or powers which are assigned to

Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, (1965) 1 SCR 413

Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD, 1993 (3) SCC 161
11
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 125
12
Article 235 of the Indian Constitution
10

another organ by express or necessary provision, neither can they divest themselves of
essential functions which belong to them as under the Constitution13.
Further, the Constitution of India expressly provides for a system of checks and balances in
order to prevent the arbitrary or capricious use of power derived from the said supreme
document. Though such a system appears dilatory of the doctrine of separation of powers, it
is essential in order to enable the just and equitable functioning of such a constitutional
system. By giving such powers, a mechanism for the control over the exercise of
constitutional powers by the respective organs is established14.
This clearly indicates that the Indian Constitution in its plan does not provide for a strict
separation of powers. Instead, it creates a system consisting of the three organs of
Government and confers upon them both exclusive and overlapping powers and functions.
Thus, there is no absolute separation of functions between the three organs of Government.

13

Mittal D.P., Natural Justice Judicial Review & Administrative Law, Taxmann Allied Services (P.) Ltd., New
Delhi
14
http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2006/seperation-of-powers.html

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE IN INDIA

The debate about the doctrine of separation of powers, and exactly what it involves in regard
to Indian governance, is as old as the Constitution itself. Apart from the directive principles
laid down in Part-IV of the constitution which provides for separation of judiciary from the
executive, the constitutional scheme does not provide any formalistic division of powers. It
appeared in various judgments handed down by the Supreme Court after the Constitution was
adopted. It is through these judicial pronouncements, passed from time to time, that the
boundaries of applicability of the doctrine have been determined.
In the re Delhi Laws Act case15, it was for the first time observed by the Supreme Court that
except where the constitution has vested power in a body, the principle that one organ should
not perform functions which essentially belong to others is followed in India. By a majority
of 5:2, the Court held that the theory of separation of powers though not part and parcel of
our Constitution, in exceptional circumstances is evident in the provisions of the Constitution
itself.
As observed by Kania, C.J.:
Although in the constitution of India there is no express separation of powers, it is clear that
a legislature is created by the constitution and detailed provisions are made for making that
legislature pass laws. Does it not imply that unless it can be gathered from other provisions of
the constitution, other bodies-executive or judicial-are not intended to discharge legislative
functions?
In essence, this judgment implied that all the three organs of the State, i.e., the Legislature,
the Judiciary, and the Executive are bound by and subject to the provisions of the

15

[1951] S.C.R. 747

Constitution, which demarcates their respective powers, jurisdictions, responsibilities and

relationship with one another. Also, that it can be assumed that none of the organs of the
State, including the judiciary, would exceed its powers as laid down in the Constitution.
But still, in practice, from time to time, disputes continued to arise as to whether one organ of
the State had exceeded the boundaries assigned to it under the Constitution. This question of
what amounts to an excess, was the basis for action in the landmark Kesavananda Bharti16
case of 1973. The question placed before the Supreme Court in this case was in regard to the
extent of the power of the legislature to amend the Constitution as provided for under the
Constitution itself. It was argued that Parliament was supreme and represented the
sovereign will of the people. As such, if the peoples representatives in Parliament decided to
change a particular law to curb individual freedom or limit the scope of judicial scrutiny, the
judiciary had no right to question whether it was constitutional or not. However, the Court
did not allow this argument and instead found in favor of the appellant on the grounds that
the doctrine of separation of powers was a part of the basic structure of our Constitution.
Thus, the doctrine of separation of powers is acknowledged as an integral part of the basic
features of our Constitution. It is also agreed that all the three organs of the State, i.e., the
Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive are bound by and subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, which demarcates their respective powers, jurisdictions, responsibilities and
relationship with one another. It is assumed that none of the organs of the State, including the
judiciary, would exceed its powers as laid down in the Constitution. It is also expected that in
the overall interest of the country, even though their jurisdictions are separated and
demarcated, all the institutions would work in harmony and co-operation to maximize the
public good.

16

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. AIR 1973 SC 1461

As per this ruling, there was no longer any need for ambiguity as the doctrine was expressly
recognized as a part of the Indian Constitution, unalterable even by an Act of Parliament.
Thus, the doctrine of separation of powers has been incorporated, in its essence, into the
Indian laws.
The doctrine of separation of powers was further expressly recognized to be a part of the
Constitution in the case of Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab17, where the Court held that
though the doctrine of separation of powers is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution it
stands to be violated when the functions of one organ of Government are performed by
another. This means the Indian constitution had not indeed recognized the doctrine of
separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of different parts or branches of
the Govt. have been sufficiently differentiated and consequently it can very well be said that
our constitution does not contemplate assumption, by one organ or part of the state, of
functions that essentially belongs to another.
In Asif Hamid v. State of Jammu & Kashmir18, Legislature, executive and judiciary have to
function within their own sphere as demarcated under the constitution. No organ can usurp
the functions assigned to another. The functioning of the democracy depends upon the
strength and independence of each of its organs. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to
restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. However the
only check on judicial power is the self-imposed discipline of judicial restraint. Therefore this
doctrine cannot be liberally applied to any modern government, because neither the powers
can be kept in water tight compartments nor can any government can run on strict separation
of powers.

17
18

AIR 1955 SC 549

AIR 1989 SC 1899

In Suman Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir19, the respective State Government reserved
certain seats in medical colleges for the students residing in the particular state on reciprocal
basis, this policy of state was challenged on the ground that it discriminate among the
students on the ground of place of birth. The Supreme Court rejected the policy on the ground
of discrimination but meanwhile the students who are the beneficiaries of this policy had
completed their substantial education, and now it is not in the interests of justice to cancelled
their admission, therefore here supreme court applied the doctrine of prospective overruling
and held that the government must not apply the impugned policy from next academic year.
Therefore, by using the doctrine of prospective overruling in the above to cases, the Supreme
Court maintained the balance between judiciary and other organs of the government. It can
also be maintained by using the self restraint by the judges.
In Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf club v. Chander Hass and Another20, the Supreme Court
warned the High court for its over activism. The Supreme Court held that since there was no
sectioned post of tractor driver against which the respondents could be regularized as tractor
driver, the direction of the first appellate court and the single judge to create the post of
tractor driver and regularizing he services was completely beyond their jurisdiction. The
court cannot direct the creation of post. Creation and sanction of post is a prerogative of the
executive or legislative authorities and the court cannot arrogate to itself this purely executive
or legislative function, and direct creation of posts in any organization. The court further said
that the creation of a post is an executive or legislative function and it involves economic
factors. Hence, the courts cannot take upon themselves the power of creation of post.

19
20

1983 AIR 1235

2008 AIR SCW 406

Similarly, in Madhu Holmagi v. Union of India21, wherein one Advocate filed a public
interest litigation challenging the Agreement 123 i.e. Indo-US nuclear treaty proposed to be
entered by the Indian government, petitioner contended that court must have to scrutinize the
all documents relating to the agreement 123 and must have to prevent the Indian government
from entering in to the nuclear deal. In this court dismissed the petition and also imposed a
cost of Rs 5000 on the petitioner stating that it is an abuse of court proceeding. Because the
question raised by the petitioner is a question of policy decision, which is to be decided by
the parliament and not by the judiciary.
However, it was after the landmark case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain22, that the
place of this doctrine in the Indian context was made clearer. It was observed: That in the
Indian Constitution, there is separation of powers in a broad sense only. A rigid separation of
powers as under the American Constitution or under the Australian Constitution does not
apply to India. Chandrachud J. also observed that the political usefulness of the doctrine of
Separation of Power is not widely recognized. No Constitution can survive without a
conscious adherence to its fine check and balance.
In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab23, Supreme Court took the help of doctrine of basic
structure as propounded in Kesvananda Bharati case and said that Ninth Schedule is violative
of this doctrine and hence the Ninth Schedule was made amenable to judicial review which
also forms part of the basic structure theory. It was observed: The Constitution brings into
existence different constitutional entities, namely, the Union, the States and the Union
Territories. It creates three major instruments of power, namely, the Legislature, the
Executive and the Judiciary. It demarcates their jurisdiction minutely and expects them to

21

[(1980) 1 SCR 668]

AIR 1975 SC 2299
23
1967 AIR 1643
22

exercise their respective powers without overstepping their limits. They should function
within the spheres allotted to them.
Thus, referring to the above content, it proves that Separation of Power is practiced in India
but not that rigidity. It is not embodied in the Constitution, though practiced. The three main
powers do cross their limit and interfere in each others task whenever necessary.

IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE

The doctrine of separation of power in its true sense is very rigid and this is one of the
reasons of why it is not accepted by a large number of countries in the world. The main
object as per Montesquieu in the Doctrine of Separation of Power is that there should be
government of law rather than having will and whims of the official. Also another most
important feature of the said doctrine is that there should be independence of judiciary i.e. it
should be free from the other organs of the State and if it is so then justice would be delivered
properly. The judiciary is the scale through which one can measure the actual development of
the State. If the judiciary is not independent, then it is the first step towards a tyrannical form
of government i.e. power is concentrated in a single hand and if it is so then there is a very
high chance of misuse of power. Hence the Doctrine of Separation of Power does play a vital
role in the creation of a fair government and also fair and proper justice is dispensed by the
judiciary as there is independence of judiciary.

CONCLUSION
The doctrine of separation of powers has come a long way from its theoretical inception.
Today, the doctrine in its absolute form is only recognized in letter as it is entirely unfeasible
and impractical for usage in the operational practices of a government. With the passage of
time, States have evolved from being minimal and non-interventionist to being welfare
oriented by playing the multifarious roles of protector, arbiter, controller and provider to the
people. In its omnipresent role, the functions of the State have become diverse and its
problems interdependent hence, any serious attempt to define and separate the functions
would only cause inefficiency in the government.
The modern day interpretation of the doctrine does not recognize the division of Government
into three water-tight compartments but instead provides for crossing rights and duties in
order to establish a system of checks and balances. The mere separation of powers between
the three organs is not sufficient for the elimination of the dangers of arbitrary and capricious
government. Even after the distinguishing the functions, if an authority wielding public
power, is provided an absolute and sole discretion within the body in the matters regarding its
sphere of influence, there will be a resultant abuse of such power. Therefore, a system of
checks and balances is a practical necessity in order to achieve the desired ends of the
doctrine of separation of powers. Such a system is not dilatory to the doctrine but necessary
in order to strengthen its actual usage.
In conclusion, it is evident that governments in their actual operation do not opt for the strict
separation of powers because it is undesirable and impracticable, however, implications of
this concept can be seen in almost all the countries in its diluted form. The discrepancies
between the plan and practice, if any, are based on these very grounds that the ideal plan is
impractical for everyday use. India relies heavily upon the doctrine in order to regulate, check

and control the exercise of power by the three organs of Government. Whether it is in theory
or in practical usage, the Doctrine of Separation of Powers is essential for the effective
functioning of a democracy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Takwani, C.K., Lectures on Administrative Law, Eastern Law Company, Lucknow,

4th Ed

Sathe S.P., Administrative Law, LexisNexis Butterworths, New Delhi, 7th Ed.

Aldar John, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Palgrave Macmillan, New York
6th Ed.

Websites

www.indiankanoon.org

www.pucl.org

www.legalservicesindia.com

www.jurisonline.com

www.jstor.org