What is Separation of Powers / Pillars of Governance?
Historical Background
Key Points
9 points- 1.
The Constitution of India implicitly provides for the separation of powers through distinct chapters for the Union Executive (Part V, Chapter I), Parliament (Part V, Chapter II), and the Union Judiciary (Part V, Chapter IV).
- 2.
Article 50 explicitly mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
- 3.
The Legislature (Parliament/State Legislatures) makes laws, controls the executive through various mechanisms, and can impeach judges.
- 4.
The Executive (President, Prime Minister, Council of Ministers) implements laws, formulates policies, and appoints judges.
- 5.
The Judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts) interprets laws, reviews executive actions, and ensures the constitutionality of legislative acts.
- 6.
Checks and Balances: The judiciary can declare laws unconstitutional (judicial review); the executive is accountable to the legislature; the legislature can impeach judges and remove the executive through no-confidence motions.
- 7.
No single organ can usurp the functions or powers of another, as upheld by the Supreme Court in various judgments.
- 8.
This principle is considered part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, meaning it cannot be amended by Parliament.
- 9.
Ensures accountability, prevents arbitrary rule, and protects individual liberties.
Visual Insights
Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances in India
This mind map illustrates the doctrine of Separation of Powers as applied in India, detailing the three pillars of governance, their distinct functions, and the crucial system of checks and balances that prevents concentration of power.
Separation of Powers (India)
- ●Legislature (Parliament/State Assemblies)
- ●Executive (President, PM, CoM)
- ●Judiciary (SC, HCs, Subordinate Courts)
- ●Checks & Balances (Interdependence)
Recent Developments
5 developmentsOngoing debates about judicial activism and judicial overreach, where the judiciary is perceived to be encroaching upon legislative or executive domains.
Concerns about executive dominance and the weakening of parliamentary scrutiny.
The role of statutory bodies like the Lokpal in the broader governance framework, and their interaction with established pillars.
Discussions on the need for greater parliamentary oversight over the executive and accountability of the judiciary.
The 'cash-for-query' case itself highlights the tension between parliamentary autonomy and external oversight mechanisms.