An analysis of the violation of Separation of Power
INTRODUCTION
Parliamentary democracy was recognized as the most suitable system for India. The reason could be that the federal structure would help in solving the problem of the nation which was faced at the time of independence
One of the characteristics of the federal structure is the doctrine of separation of powers. The doctrine of separation of power provides functions of all organs of the State — the Executive, the Legislature and the judiciary to be carried out by separate bodies.
The doctrine of separation of powers is an integral part and it helps to keep checks and balances amongst the organs of the State.
Our forefathers who framed our Constitution were able to foresee that if unequal power vested with any of the three organs of the State, could lead to distorted situations of conflict, which could lead to compromise on democracy.
Thus, they adopted such a situation where all organs would need to exist harmoniously so that smooth function could be carried out and all the roles are restricted so that no organ could intervene in any other organ work.
The term separation of powers originated with the Baron de Montesquieu, a French writer. The framers of the Indian Constitution decided to use the American system as a base and have three separate branches: executive, judicial, and legislative.
In recent years, the boundaries between the different branches of government have become blurred, particularly with some judiciary members asserting powers through 'judicial activism' that are constitutionally designated for the legislative or executive branches.
The Supreme Court has recognized the separation of powers as a 'basic feature' of the Constitution, indicating that each branch must operate within its distinct area unless the Constitution explicitly allows otherwise. The Constitution provides for 'judicial review' to ensure legislative and executive actions comply with constitutional mandates, but does not endorse 'judicial activism' which extends beyond mere review. Any overreach by one branch into the functions of another contradicts this foundational principle. Therefore, all branches must adhere strictly to their constitutional roles and avoid encroaching on the powers of others.
The Essence of Separation of Powers
The separation of powers givesdistinct functions to the branches of government:
This division of power serves a critical purpose: it prevents any one branch from putting excessive authority on another branch, yet on same time keep checks and balances.
A More Nuanced Reality
If we go deep down in the constitution, the position is not as simple as it seems, For Eg:- The President enjoys some legislative powers as well such as issuing ordinances and enacting laws for states under specific circumstances. Additionally, the President can settle disputes regarding the retirement age of judges and rule on the disqualification of Parliament members. This shows degree of overlap in functions between the branches.
Similarly, the Judiciary, while primarily focused on judicial duties, also undertakes some executive tasks. High Courts oversee lower courts and can transfer cases between them. Both the Supreme Court and High Courts have the authority to establish procedural rules within their respective jurisdictions.
The legislature, on occasion, performs judicial functions as well. Examples include impeaching the President or removing judges from office. It can also levy surcharges and make decisions concerning state reorganization.
Judicial Interpretations and the "Basic Structure" Doctrine
The concept of separation of powers has been a subject of extensive analysis by Indian courts. They acknowledge the necessity for some overlap between branches while upholding the core principle. The landmark case of Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab (1955) established that while India doesn't have a strict separation of powers, the Constitution sufficiently differentiates between branches to prevent an undue concentration of authority.
A significant development in Indian jurisprudence is the "basic structure" doctrine. The Constitution can be amended, but the judiciary has ruled that Parliament cannot alter its fundamental principles, such as democracy, federalism, and fundamental rights. Established in cases like Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), this doctrine strengthens the separation of powers by safeguarding the core values enshrined in the Constitution.
Conclusion
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle underpinning Indian democracy. While the Constitution provides the structural framework, judicial interpretations have significantly shaped its practical application over time. Landmark Supreme Court decisions have emphasized the judiciary's crucial role as the guardian of the Constitution's integrity. These rulings have solidified the understanding that while Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter its core structure or fundamental principles.
Looking ahead, several recommendations can bolster the effectiveness of separation of powers in India. Firstly, there is a continuing need for clarity in defining and reinforcing the boundaries between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Legislative measures and judicial pronouncements should emphasize the distinct roles and responsibilities of each branch to prevent overreach and maintain institutional balance.
Secondly, safeguarding judicial independence remains paramount. Measures should be taken to protect judicial appointments, tenure, and operational autonomy from undue influence, thereby ensuring the judiciary's ability to act as an impartial arbiter and uphold the rule of law.
Thirdly, enhancing public awareness about the importance of separation of powers in safeguarding democratic principles is crucial. Civic education initiatives and outreach programs can empower citizens to understand and actively support these constitutional values. As the dynamics of governance evolve in a globalized and technologically advanced world, the doctrine of separation of powers needs to adapt as well. A balance needs to be struck between flexible interpretation and preserving core constitutional values to effectively address contemporary challenges.
Finally, strengthening oversight bodies like the Election Commission and Comptroller and Auditor General can further reinforce checks and balances in governance, thereby promoting transparency and accountability in public administration.
By embracing these recommendations, India can solidify its commitment to constitutional governance, uphold the rule of law, and ensure that the separation of powers continues to serve as a safeguard against arbitrary authority, thereby preserving and advancing democratic ideals for future generations.