Separation of powers under Indian Constitution



The theory is based on the concept that concentration of power or one authority or one authority or one organ gives a room or a chance for unregulated and tyrannical exercise of a power which threatens rights and liberties or a  power which threatens rights and liberties or a common people at large . This theory is originated by Aristotle and developed by Locke. In 16th and 17th century French philosopher John Bodin and British politician Locke respectively expressed their views about theory of separation of power. But this doctrine was first propounded by French Jurist Montesquieu. He formulated the theory in his book “Spirit of law” published in 1748. According to him there are three organ of government i.e. Legislative, Executive and Judiciary.

Functions of Legislature

  • Passing of laws, discussing various action and policy of govt.
  • Passing of budget.
  • Ratification of treaties and international covalent

Functions of Executive

  • Maintaining law and order.
  • Administration of state.
  • Ensuring implementation of policy of government.

Functions of Judiciary

  • Interpretation of laws.
  • Deciding of disputes.
  • Determining legality of governmental action. .

According to this theory of separation of power is need of a free democracy in other words legislative function should be done only by legislation, Executive function should be done by executive and judicial function should be done by judicial person.

Position in India

There are no different arrangements with respect to the Teaching of Partition of Forces has been given in our Constitution. In any case, there are some mandate standards are given in the constitution as to a limited Part IV and Part-V and Articale-50 of our constitution is isolating the legal executive from chief as “the state shall take steps to separate judiciary from the executive in the public services of the state” and except this there is no formal and dogmatic division of powers.

READ  Concept of exchange under property law

In India, practical covering is there as well as the individual covering is winning


Under Article-142 and Article-145 of Indian constitution, the Supreme court  has the ability to proclaim void the laws passed by lawmaking body and activities taken by the leader on the off chance that they abuse any arrangement of the constitution or the law passed by the lawmaking body in the event of chief activities. Indeed, even the ability to correct the constitution by Parliament is dependent upon the examination of the Court. The Court can announce any correction void in the event that it changes the fundamental design of the constitution. By and large courts have given headings for the Parliament to make strategies.


The President of India who is the preeminent chief expert in India practice law making power as statute making power under Article-123, likewise the Legal forces under Article-103(1) and Article-217(3), he has the counseling capacity to the SC of India under Article-143 and furthermore the exculpating power in Article-72 of the Constitution. The chief additionally influencing working of the legal executive by making arrangements to the workplace of Boss Equity of India and different appointed authorities.


The Committee of Minister is chosen from the assembly and this Board is answerable for the council. The council practicing legal forces in instances of penetrate of its advantages, indictment of the President under Article-61 and evacuation of judges. The administrative body has the corrective forces under Article-105(3).

In words of Gledhill, “constitution of India has not ceremoniously wedded with Doctrine of Separation of Powers, however, it is whenever possible followed the doctrine of separation of powers.”

READ  The Concept of Corporate Veil

Judicial Response:

There are numerous cases wherein SC has given decisions on premise of the realities identified with those cases however we can comprehend the situation of this teaching in India by seeing some milestone conclusions given by the Supreme Court in after cases;

In Smash Jawaya v. Province of Punjab

C.J. Mukerjee, said and held:

“Indian Constitution has not for sure perceived the convention of detachment of forces in its outright unbending nature however the elements of the various parts or parts of the public authority have been adequately separated and thus it tends to be all around said that our constitution doesn’t think about suspicion by one organ or part of the Province of Capacities that basically have a place with another.”

In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

C.J. Ray said and held:

“In the Indian constitution there is division of forces from a wide perspective as it were. An inflexible detachment of powers as under the US constitution or as under Australian constitution doesn’t matter to India.”

  1. Beg added:

“Partition of forces is the piece of the essential construction of constitution. None of the three independent organs of the republic can assume control over the capacities appointed to the next. This plan of the constitution can’t be changed even by reestablishing to Article-368 of the constitution.”


There are different benefits with the acknowledgment of this teaching in the framework;

  1. The productivity of the organs of state expanded because of detachment of works consequently time utilization diminishes.
  2. Since the specialists will deal with the questions of their parts so the level of virtue and accuracy increments.
  3. There is the division of work and subsequently division of ability and work happens.
  4. Because of division of work there is no covering stays in the framework and subsequently no one meddle with others working region.
  5. Since the covering eliminated then there is no chance of the opposition in the middle various organs.
READ  Elements of Malice and Intention in Law of Torts


As there are benefits joined to this teaching, there are a few impediments can likewise happen because of this principle;

  1. As I have said there will be expanded proficiency yet invert impact can likewise be seen in light of the fact that of the covering between privileges of the organs on the off chance that we are not after the regulation in its exacting sense since organs may battle for the incomparability over one another.
  2. There is likewise a chance of contest between organs again for demonstrating ones incomparability over the other organ.
  3. There is additionally probability of deferral of interaction in light of the fact that there won’t be any chief over other subsequently the activities of the organs can get subjective.


To conclude we can say that despite the fact that there is a definitional emergency for this principle in any case, each state deciphered the principle of detachment of forces as per their arrangement what’s more, need of the state. There are different benefits the drawbacks present with the principle however it is alive from the hour of Aristotle regardless of the fundamental construction is been changed by the current governments. USA is following it in a soul and known as the heroes of the regulation of detachment of forces alongside France. There will never be ever this convention been continued in UK in its most flawless structure. In India there isn’t any obvious portrayal of the convention in the constitution yet we have followed it at whatever point is required and it is been sure about seeing different decisions given by the Supreme Court.

Author: Dhawani Sharma,
Amity University , Madhya Pradesh

Leave a Comment