INTRODUCTION
No single principle explains how India’s Constitution keeps power in check better than the idea of separation of powers. At its heart lies a simple truth — power corrupts when it piles up unchecked. When India wrote its Constitution, it refused to let any one arm of government grow so strong that it could crush the others or the people it serves.
Unlike the American model, which draws a hard line between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, India’s approach is softer but no less serious. Here, power is split, but the lines overlap just enough to hold each other in place. That balance has shaped India’s democracy for over seventy years, through good times and crises alike.
Where It Comes From
Montesquieu, a French thinker from the 18th century, gave this idea its modern shape. He believed freedom would vanish if law-making, law-enforcing and law-deciding powers sat with one person or body. His warning still rings true. Countries that fail to split these roles often slip into dictatorship.
India borrowed this idea but tweaked it to fit its own political DNA. We did not choose a presidential system like the United States. Instead, we built a parliamentary system where the executive is born from the legislature and survives on its confidence. That makes a complete wall between the two impossible, but India’s framers knew that. They trusted that careful design, clear roles and an alert judiciary could protect the balance.
How The Constitution Divides Power
Look at the text. Executive power sits with the President for the Union and Governors for the States, but real control lies with the Council of Ministers. Legislative power belongs to Parliament and State Assemblies. The Judiciary, from the Supreme Court down, decides what the law means and how it applies.
It seems neat on paper. But India’s Constitution never says these organs must live in watertight boxes. Instead, it hints at boundaries but leaves them flexible. The word ‘separation’ doesn’t even appear in the document. Still, the structure tells the story.
Designed Overlaps
The most obvious overlap is that ministers — who run the executive — sit in the legislature. They steer bills, defend their actions in debates and face no-confidence votes. This blend keeps the executive tied to the legislature’s will.
The Judiciary checks both the other arms through its power to review laws and actions. If Parliament passes a law that breaks the Constitution, courts can strike it down. If a minister or official crosses the line, courts can stop them too.
But Parliament can push back. It can change the Constitution itself — within limits — if it feels the court read it wrong or too narrowly. The President and Governors can shape law too, sending bills back for reconsideration or bringing ordinances when urgent lawmaking can’t wait.
Judges sometimes do what looks like legislating — filling gaps where Parliament is silent. They issue guidelines until lawmakers step in. Meanwhile, Parliament and Assemblies perform quasi-judicial work when they try to remove judges or impeach a President.
Courts on Separation of Powers
The Supreme Court’s voice has shaped this idea as much as the text. In 1955, in Ram Jawaya Kapur, the court made it clear — India’s Constitution does not demand a rigid split, but the core roles are distinct.
In 1973, Kesavananda Bharati cemented this balance in stone. The court declared that no Parliament, no matter how big its majority, can twist the Constitution so far that it breaks its ‘basic structure’. The separation of powers sits inside that basic frame. If one organ swallows the others, the whole system collapses.
Later rulings kept this guard up. In Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain, the court blocked an attempt to shield the Prime Minister’s election from review. It would have erased the courts’ check on the powerful. More recently, in Rojer Mathew, the court pushed back against executive control over tribunals, warning that judicial independence cannot be compromised by tweaks in administrative control.
The Real-World Strain
No doctrine lives untouched by reality. Critics have often pointed out that India’s executive has leaned too heavily on ordinances to sidestep Parliament. Ordinances were meant for emergencies, not as shortcuts. Yet governments of all stripes have tested this door.
Tribunals show another pressure point. They were created to lighten court loads. But too much executive grip over who runs them or how they work undermines their freedom.
Judicial overreach is a frequent charge too. When courts dictate policy details, critics say they cross from judging to governing. Court orders have set deadlines for cleaning rivers, banned firecrackers, capped school fees. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it stirs a debate about where the judge’s bench ends and the minister’s desk begins.
The tussle over judicial appointments has added fresh fuel. The National Judicial Appointments Commission, which aimed to give the executive a bigger say in picking judges, was struck down. The court feared it would weaken independence. Yet the system it defended, the collegium, faces questions about transparency and accountability.
Checks, Not Chains
Despite these frictions, the genius of India’s arrangement is that the overlap works as a brake, not a chain. Parliament can question ministers, force resignations, bring down governments. The executive can dissolve legislatures and call fresh elections if needed. Courts can overturn bad laws or actions that flout rights.
This push and pull can look messy. It often slows things down. But that mess is the point — it stops power from moving too fast, too recklessly.
Staying the Course
Protecting this balance needs constant care. Legislatures should not shrink into hollow chambers where bills pass without debate. Executives must use ordinances sparingly. Judges should wield restraint, trusting lawmakers and administrators to do their job unless there’s clear constitutional harm.
Appointments to key bodies like the Election Commission, Lokpal or anti-corruption offices should be fair, transparent and beyond easy political capture. Reforms in how judges are picked can work only if they protect freedom on the bench while making the process open and credible.
Above all, people must stay alert. Constitutions work when citizens defend their spirit. Every time a law is passed, an ordinance issued, a court strikes down an act, the test is whether it keeps power spread out, not hoarded.
CONCLUSION
Separation of powers in India is not about walls but guardrails. It is a living balance that changes shape but holds its ground. It lets power flow, but not overflow. It demands cooperation and invites tension. The system thrives on that push and pull.
When the balance breaks — when Parliament stops asking questions, when ministers brush aside lawmakers, when judges trade caution for control — the warning signs show. But as long as the idea lives in our institutions and minds, the republic stands strong.
The real guardian of this idea is not just the text of the Constitution, or even the courts. It is the people who refuse to let power pile up unchallenged. It is a lesson that matters now as much as it did in 1950.
CONTRIBUTED BY: LAKSHAY NANDWANI (INTERN)