Separation of Powers - A Comparative Analysis of The Doctrine India, United States of America and England - Academike (ISSN - 2349-9796)

8/28/2017 Separation of Powers: A Comparative Analysis of the Doctrine India, United States of America and England - Academike (ISSN:
N: 2349-9796)
ACADEMIKE (ISSN: 2349-9796)

NOTE: Articles published on this website are for information only. They do not construe legal advice.
ABOUT CONTACT
Separation of Powers: A Comparative

Analysis of the Doctrine India, United
States of America and England
April 30, 2015 by drishti 1 Comment
By Yashmita
Editors Note: The doctrine of separation of powers is essentially what fortifies the
three pillars of democracy. Without such a demarcation, the point of such offices
and such pillars is redundant, and the nation might as well be a dictatorial state,
with all three pillars working in collusion. This paper compares the doctrine
of separation of powers in India, the U.S.A. and England, and the reiteration of
this demarcation in the three nations by the judiciary.
INTRODUCTION
Meaning
The doctrine of Separation of Powers emphasizes the mutual exclusiveness of the three
organs of government, viz., legislature, executive and judiciary. The main underlying idea is
that each of these organs should exercise only one type of function. There should not be
concentration of all the functions in one organ otherwise it will pose a threat to personal
freedom, for; in that case, it could act in an arbitrary manner. It could enact a tyrannical law,
execute it in a despotic manner and interpret it in an arbitrary manner without any external
control. The purpose underlying separation doctrine is to diffuse governmental authority so
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/separation-of-powers-a-comparative-analysis-of-the-doctrine-india-united-states-of-america-and-england/ 1/18
8/28/2017 Separation of Powers: A Comparative Analysis of the Doctrine India, United States of America and England - Academike (ISSN: 2349-9796)
as to prevent absolutism and guard against tyrannical and arbitrary powers of the state, and
to allocate each function to the institution best suited to discharge it. The rationale underlying
the doctrine that been that if all power is concentrated in one and the same organ, there
would rise the danger of state absolutism endangering the freedom of the people. However, it
needs to be appreciated that in considering this doctrine, we have moved from the discipline
of law to that of political theory. The separation of powers is a doctrine not a legal principle.[i]
Origin
There is an old adage containing a lot of truth that power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. To evolve effective control mechanism, man had been looking for
devices to contain the forces of tyranny and authoritarianism. Separation of Powers was
conceived to be one such device.
It may not be possible to state precisely the origins of the doctrine of separation of powers.
However, if we look to the writings of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, it is possible to discern
a rudimentary separation of powers doctrine. Thus in his Politics, Aristotle remarked that:
There are three elements in each constitution in respect of which every serious lawgiver must
look for what is advantageous to it; if these are well arranged, the constitution is bound to be
well arranged, and the differences in constitutions are bound to correspond to the differences
between each of these three elements. The three are, first the deliberative, which discusses
everything of common importance; second, the officials . . .; and third, the judicial element.
The English political theorist, JohnLocke (1632-1704), also envisaged a threefold

classification of powers. Writing in The Second Treatise of Government (1689), Locke drew a
distinction between three types of power: legislative, executive and federative. . In Lockes
analysis, the legislative power was supreme and although the executive and federative
powers were distinct, the one concerned with the execution of domestic law within the state
and the other with a states security and external relations, he nevertheless took the view that
they are always almost united in the hands of the same persons. Absent from his
classification is any mention of a separate judicial power. Moreover, the proper exercise of
these powers is achieved not through separation but on the basis of trust i.e., that a
community has entrusted political power to a government. Thus, Lockes analysis does not,
strictly speaking, amount to the exposition of a doctrine of the separation of powers.[ii]
The doctrine saw its full expansion in the hands of Charles Louis de Secondat, otherwise
known as Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755). He felt that the history of despotic Tudors
and absolutist Stuarts, showed that freedom was not secured, if the executive and the
legislative powers were held in the same hands. He deduced his ideas of separation of
powers from his observations and ideas of the relations between the Stuart King and the
Parliament. He thought that Parliament would never be arbitrary, and the denial of legislative
power to the King alone could make the rule by extemporary decrees impossible.
Montesquieu having experienced the tyrannies in the monarchical France, must have
watched the conditions on the other side of the Channel with envy. In the second half of the
17th century, he would not fail to notice that the Englishmen stood under the warm sunshine
of the Magna Carta. Having lost his legislative and tax powers to the Parliament, the English
King was left with no prerogative. Parliament made the laws. His Majestys Government was,
even though the cabinet system was not yet developed, administering the laws passed by
Parliament. By the end of the century the judges, like the Great Coke, could not be dismissed
by the King at his will, because the Act of Settlement gave them tenure during good behavior
as distinguished from tenure during the pleasure of His Majesty. Montesquieu concluded that
the secret of the Englishmens liberty was the separation and functional independence of the
three departments of the Government from one another.[iii]
In his book, De LEsprit des Lois (The Spirit of the Laws) 1748, Montesquieu stated:
When legislative power is united with executive power in a single person or in a single body
of the magistrates, there is no liberty, because one can fear that the same monarch or senate
that makes tyrannical laws will executive them tyrannically. Nor is there liberty if the power of
judging is not separate from legislative power and from executive power. If it were joined to
legislative power, the power over the life and liberty of the citizen would be arbitrary, for the
judge would be the legislator. If it were joined to executive power, the judge could have the
force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same man or the same body of principal men,
either of nobles, or of the people, exercised these three powers: that of making the laws, that
of executing public resolutions, and that of judging the crimes or the disputes of individuals.
[iv]
SEPARATION OF POWERS IN INDIA
In India, the doctrine of Separation of Powers has not been accorded a constitutional status.
Apart from the directive principle laid down in Article 50 which enjoins separation of judiciary
from the executive, the constitutional scheme does not embody any formalistic and dogmatic
division of powers.[v]
As a general provision, Parliament is entrusted to make the law for the union. Executive is
entrusted with duty of implementation of law and judiciary is also considered to be
independent under the constitutional scheme in India. However, there are many exceptions
which negate the application of this doctrine.[vi]
Constitutional Provisions
Under Article 53 the executive powers of the union are vested with the President and under
Article 154 the Governor is vested with execution powers but they do exercise their powers
with the aid and advice of the council of ministers at the Centre (Article 74) and at the State,
as the case may be. Both President and Governor exercise the power of ordinance making
under the constitution thus performing legislative functions. President makes laws for a State,
after the dissolution of the State Legislature, following the imposition of the Presidents Rule
(Article 356). President has the power to disqualify any member of the house under Article
103. The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President, while the parliament
has the power to impeach the judges. The President has the power to decide a disputed
question of the age of a judge of Supreme Court or any High Court for purpose of set restrain
from the judicial service.
The Union Council of Ministers is responsible to the Lok Sabha (Article 75). This house has
the powers to start impeachment proceedings against the President (Article 61) and the
judges of the Supreme Court. The members of Council of Ministers will be members of either
house of Parliament under Article 75(5) which means there is overlapping of personnel also.
[vii]
The judicial function of Parliament is too substantial in certain respects. It can consider the
question of breach of any known parliamentary privilege; and in a case where the charge is
established have power to punish for their contempt.
The High Courts in certain marginal spheres perform such functions which are administrative
rather than judicial. Their power of supervision over other subordinate courts under Article
227 is more of the administrative nature than judicial. When under Article 228 they have
power to make transfer of cases, they exercise administrative control over the State district
courts as well. The legislative power of the High Courts and the Supreme Court includes their
power to frame rules which is fairly wide.
The Executive in India is authorized to legislate in the name of delegated legislation. In the
name of administrative adjudication of the right of individual citizens, the administrative
agencies, which are statutory tribunals and domestic tribunals have been constituted and
perform judicial function.[viii]
Judicial Opinion of the Doctrine of Separation of

Powers
There have been several landmark judgements that have changed the face of the doctrine of
separation of powers in India. These are discussed in this section.
The only validity of the doctrine of separation of powers is in the sense that one organ should
not assume the essential functions of the other. This was the view of Supreme Court in Ram
Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1955 SC 549], it was held that the
Constitution has not indeed recognized the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute
rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government 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
belong to another.[ix]
Since after the Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala [AIR 1973 SC 1461], and the judicial
articulation of the doctrine of basic structure and essential features of the Constitution
therein, the separation of powers is spoken as a structural basis of the constitutional
framework and cannot be destroyed by any amendment.[x]
The doctrine puts less and less emphasis on organizational pattern, and seeks to effect
increasingly functional division. In re Delhi Laws Act case [AIR 1951 SC 332], Honble Kania,
CJ., observed that.
Although in the Constitution of India. . . . . . there is no express separation of power, it is

clear that a legislature is created by the Constitution and detailed provisions are made for
making that legislature pass laws. Is it then too much to say that under the Constitution the
duty to make laws, the duty to exercise its own wisdom, judgment and patriotism in making
law is primarily cast on Legislature? 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?[xi]
Therefore, the functions of different organs are clearly earmarked so that one organ does not
usurp the functions of another. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain [AIR 1975 SC 2299],
Ray CJ., also observed that in the Indian Constitution there is separation of powers in broad
sense only. Beg, J., has observed that basic structure also embodies the separation of
powers doctrine and none of the pillars of the Indian Republic can take over the other
functions, even under Article 368. Chandrachud, J., reiterated this view and held that this
doctrine is useful as a means of checks and balances in a political setup. For examples the
judiciary should shy away from the politics of the Parliament and the latter should revere the
opinion of the Courts.[xii]
On a casual glance at the provisions of the Constitution of India, one may be inclined to say
that the doctrine of broad division of the power of state has been accepted under the
Constitution of India. In Golaknath v. State of Punjab [AIR 1967 SC 1643], Subba Rao, CJ.,
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 exercise their respective powers without overstepping their limits. They
should function within the spheres allotted to them.
In Bandhuva Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [AIR 1984 SC 802], Pathak J., said:
The Constitution envisages a broad division of the power of state between the legislature,
the executive and the judiciary. Although the division is not precisely demarcated, there is
general acknowledgment of its limits. The limits can be gathered from the written text of the
Constitution, from conventions and constitutional practice, and from an entire array of judicial
decisions.[xiii]
Essential functions were defined in Mallikarjuna v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1990 SC
1251], when the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the State Government to
evolve proper and rational method of determination of seniority among the veterinary
surgeons in the matters of promotions to next higher rank of Assistant Director of Veterinary
Surgeons. The Supreme Court quashed the aforesaid direction and observed that the power
under Article 309 of the Constitution to frame rules is the legislative power which has to be
exercised by the President or the Governor of the State as the case may be. The High Court
or Administrative Tribunals cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate on
any matter. In this way the principle of restraint prevents any organ of the State from
becoming superior to another or others in action.
Similarly, in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India [AIR 1990 SC
334], it was held that no court can issue a direction to a legislature to enact a particular law
neither it can direct an executive authority to enact a law which it has been empowered to do
under the delegated legislative authority.[xiv]
SEPARATION OF POWERS IN USA

SEPARATION OF POWERS IN USA

If the Rule of Law as enunciated by Dicey affected the growth of Administrative Law in
Britain; the doctrine of Separation of Powers had an intimate impact on the development of
Administrative Law in the U.S.A. As Davis points out probably the principal doctrinal barrier
to the development of the Administrative process has been the theory of separation of
powers. The truth is that while the doctrine of separation has affected the character of the
American Administrative Law, the doctrine itself has been affected by the newly emerging
trend in favour of Administrative Law.[xv]
The doctrine of separation forms the basis of American constitutional structure. Articles I, II
and II delegate and separate powers and also exemplify the concept of separation of powers.
Art. I vests legislative power in the Congress; Art. II vests executive power in the President
and Art. III vests judicial power in the Supreme Court.[xvi]The ideal of separation, both
functional and personnel is yet unrealized but nearest approximation is reached in the State
Constitution of Massachusetts in the U.S. It is said therein, that-
The legislative department shall never exercise the executive or judicial powers, or either
of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of
them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative or executive powers, or either of them;
to the end it may be a government of law and not of men.[xvii]
Presidential Form of Government

The form of government, characterized as presidential, is based on the theory of separation
between the executive and the legislature. The President is both the head of the state as well
as its chief executive. He appoints and dismisses other executive officers and thus controls
the policies and actions of government departments. The persons in charge of the various
departments, designated as the Secretaries of State, hold office at his pleasure, are
responsible to him and are more like his personal advisors. The President is not bound to
accept the advice of a Secretary and the ultimate decision rests with the President. Neither
the President nor any member of the executive is a member of the Congress and a
separation is maintained between the legislative and executive organs. This system of
government is fundamentally different from the parliamentary system prevailing in India.[xviii]
In U.S.A., the President is not in theory responsible to the Congress unlike India where the
cabinet is collectively responsible to the Parliament. The President has a fixed tenure of
office and does not depend on majority support in the Congress. Before the expiry of his
term, he can be removed only by the extremely cumbersome process of impeachment. Nor
can the President dissolve the Congress whereas in India, Prime Minister has the power to
seek dissolution of the Parliament. The executive therefore is not in a position to provide
effective leadership to the legislature and it is not always that the Congress accepts the
programme and the policy proposed by the executive. The independence of the Supreme
Court is constitutionally guaranteed.[xix]
Principle of Checks and Balances

The U.S. Constitution however incorporates some exceptions to the doctrine of separation
with a view to introduce the system of checks and balances. For instance, a bill passed by
the Congress may be vetoed by the President and, to this extent the President may be said
to be exercising a legislative function. Again, appointment of certain high officials is subject to
the approval of the Senate. Also, treaties made by the President are not effective until
approved by the Senate; to this extent, therefore, the Senate may be deemed to be
exercising executive functions. The Congress continuously probes into executive functioning
through its various committees, and also has the power to tax and sanction money for
governmental operations. The Supreme Court has the power to declare the Acts passed by
the Congress unconstitutional. But the judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the
President with the consent of the Senate. This exercise of some part of the function of one
type by an organ of the other type is justified on the basis of the theory of checks and
balances. It means that the functioning of one organ is checked in some measure by the
other organ so that no organ mat run amok with its powers and misuse the same.[xx] Thus,
in the case of Panama Refining Company v. Ryan [(1935)293 U.S. 388(400)], commenting
on the practicality of the doctrine J. Cardozo said:
The doctrine of separation of powers is not a doctrinaire concept to be made use of with
pedantic rigor. There must be sensible approximation, there must be elasticity of adjustment
in response the practical necessities of government which cannot foresee today the
development of tomorrow in their nearly infinite variety.[xxi]
Administrative Growthand Separation of Powers

Administrative law and separation doctrine are somewhat incompatible, for modern
administrative process envisages mingling of various types of functions at the administrative
level. Had the doctrine of separation been applied strictly in the U.S.A., the growth of
administrative process would have been extremely difficult and modern government might
have become impossible. For practical reasons therefore the doctrine of separation has to be
diluted somewhat to accommodate the growth of administrative process.[xxii]
Delegated Legislation
The American Administrative Law has certain distinctive features which are a product of
separation doctrine. A significant breach of the doctrine occurred when the courts concede
the legislative power could be conferred on administrative authorities, and thus, the system of
delegated legislation came in vogue. But, in a bid to reconcile the separation doctrine, the
courts laid down that Congress cannot confer an unlimited legislative power on an
administrative authority, that the Congress must not give up its position of primary legislator
and that the Congress should therefore lay down the policy which the delegate is to follow,
while making the rules.[xxiii] J. Mukherjee in re Delhi Laws Act [Supra] case observed:
The position in America is that despite the theory that legislature would not delegate its
power to the executive a host of rules and regulations are passed by non-legislative bodies,
which have been judicially recognized as valid.[xxiv]
SEPARATION OF POWERS IN
ENGLAND
Maitland traces the doctrine of Separation of Powers in England to the reign of King Edward I
(1239-1307). He observes that all the three elements were present in the form of Parliament,
Kings Council and Courts of Law.
Viscount Henry St. John Boling Broke (1678-1751) in his book Remarks on the History of
England advanced the idea of separation of powers. He laid emphasis on balance of powers
within the constitution because an imbalance would destroy it. He asserts that for protection
of liberty and security in a state, equilibrium is needed between the Crown, the Parliament
and the people.
Although Motesquieu derived the concept of his doctrine of separation of powers from the
British Constitution, as a matter of fact at no point of time this doctrine was accepted in its
strict sense in England. On the contrary, in reality, the theory of integration of powers has
been adopted in England. It is true that the three powers are vested in three organs and each
has its own peculiar features, but it cannot be said that there is no sharing out of the powers
of the government. Thus, the King, though an executive head is also an integral part of the
Legislature. Similarly, all his Ministers are also members of one or the other Houses of the
Parliament. The Lord Chancellor is head of judiciary, Chairman of the House of Commons
(Legislature), a member of the executive and often a member of the cabinet. The House of
Commons ultimately controls the Legislative. The judiciary is independent but the judges of
the superior courts can be removed on an address from both Houses of Parliament.[xxv]
In England, S.O.P has historical relevance only. Daniel Ullman says, England is not the
classic home of the separation of powers. Each power there has taken on a character of its
own, while at the same time preserving the features of the others. The position has been
summed up by the Donoughmore Committee in the following words:-
In the British Constitution there is no such thing as the absolute separation of legislative,
executive and judicial powers. In practice it is inevitable that they overlap. In such
Constitutions as those of France and the United States of America, attempts to keep them
rigidly apart have been made, but have proved unsuccessful. The distinction is nonetheless
real and important. One of the main problems of modern democratic State is how to
preserve the distinction whilst avoiding too rigid an insistence on it, in the wide border land
where it is convenient to entrust minor legislative and judicial functions to executive
authorities.[xxvi]
The U.K. does have a kind of separation of powers, but unlike United States it is informal.
Black Stones theory of Mixed Government with checks and balances is more relevant to the
U.K. Separation of powers is not an absolute or predominant feature of the U.K. Constitution.
The three branches are not formally separated and continue to have significant overlap.
The U.K. is becoming increasingly concerned with the Separation of powers, particularly
because of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects the right to
fair trial. The Constitutional Reforms Act, 2005 reforms the office of Lord Chancellor and the
Law Lords will stop being in the legislature. Section 23 of the Act provides for establishment
of Supreme Court of United Kingdom. The Supreme Court whose powers have been
separated from the powers of Parliament has become functional since October, 2009.
Section 61 of Constitutional Reforms Act, 2005 provides for Constitution of Judicial
Appointments Commission, for appointments of Judges in the Supreme Court as well as the
court of appeal. Thus by and large independence of Judiciary has been ensured by the
Constitutional Reforms Act, 2005.[xxvii]
On numerous occasions, senior judges have expressed the opinion that the U.K. Constitution
is base on a separation of powers. Thus in Duport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs (1980), Lord Diplock
stated that:
At a time when more and more cases involve the application of legislation which gives effect
to policies that are the subject of bitter public and parliamentary controversy, it cannot be too
strongly emphasized that the British Constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based in
the separation of powers; Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interprets them.[xxviii]
CONCLUSION
The modern interpretation of the doctrine of separation of powers is not a mere theoretical
philosophers conception. It is a practical work-a-day principle. The division of Government
into three branches does not imply, as its critics would have us think, three water-tight
compartments. The machinery and procedure of legislative impeachment of executive
officers and judges, executive veto over legislation and appointment of judges and judicial
review of legislation and executive action are essential features of any sound constitutional
system. It is said that instead of applying the doctrine in a strict sense of the functional
machinery and procedures of the Government, the doctrine should be deemed to require a
system of checks and balances among the three departments of the Government while
opposing the concentration of governmental powers in any of the three departments.
Edited By Drishti Das
ENDNOTES
[i] Commentary: Jain M.P & S.N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, Wadhwa &
Company Nagpur, 2007, pp 31,32.
[ii] Parpworth Neil, Constitutional & Administrative Law, Oxford University Press United
Kingdom, 2012, pp 18,19.
[iii] Jain Kagzi M.C., The Indian Administrative Law, University Law Publishing Co. Pvt.
Ltd., 2002, pp 15,16.
[iv] Supranote 2, pp 19,20.
[v] Massey I.P, Administrative Law, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2012, p 40.
[vi] Kumar Devinder, Administrative Law, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2007, p 19.
[vii] Id, p 20.
[viii]Supra note 3, p 19.
[ix]Supra note 5, p 40.
[x]Supra note 3, p 20.
11 Jain M.P & S.
N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, Wadhwa & Company, Nagpur, 2007, p 26.
[xii] Kesari U.P.D, Lectures on Administrative Law, Central Law Publications, Allahabad,
2005, pp 23,24.
[xiii] Upadhaya J.J.R, Administrative Law, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2006, p 40.
[xiv]Ibid, p 42.
[xv]Supra note 1, p 31.
[xvi]Ibid, p 32.
[xvii]Supra note 3, p 16.
[xviii] Supra note 1, p 32.
[xix]Ibid.
[xx]Ibid, p 32,33.
[xxi]Supra note 13, p 39.
[xxii]Supra note 1, p 33.
[xxiii]Ibid.
[xxiv]Supra note 13, p 39.


Separation of Powers - A Comparative Analysis of The Doctrine India, United States of America and England - Academike (ISSN - 2349-9796)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Separation of Powers - A Comparative Analysis of The Doctrine India, United States of America and England - Academike (ISSN - 2349-9796)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

8/28/2017 Separation of Powers: A Comparative Analysis of the Doctrine India, United States of America and England - Academike (ISSN:

ACADEMIKE (ISSN: 2349-9796)

Separation of Powers: A Comparative

The English political theorist, JohnLocke (1632-1704), also envisaged a threefold

SEPARATION OF POWERS IN INDIA

Judicial Opinion of the Doctrine of Separation of

Although in the Constitution of India. . . . . . there is no express separation of power, it is

SEPARATION OF POWERS IN USA

SEPARATION OF POWERS IN USA

Presidential Form of Government

Principle of Checks and Balances

Administrative Growthand Separation of Powers

Edited By Drishti Das

[iv] Supranote 2, pp 19,20.

[vii] Id, p 20.

[viii]Supra note 3, p 19.

[ix]Supra note 5, p 40.

[x]Supra note 3, p 20.

11 Jain M.P & S.

[xv]Supra note 1, p 31.

[xvii]Supra note 3, p 16.

[xviii] Supra note 1, p 32.

[xxi]Supra note 13, p 39.

[xxii]Supra note 1, p 33.

[xxiv]Supra note 13, p 39.

S-ar putea să vă placă și