Abstract

The doctrine of separation entails a separation among judiciary, executive and legislature which can remove any tyrannical situation by concentrating all these powers in same or one hand. However, the doctrine cannot be followed in its strict sense as this would again give way to absolutism by entrusting whole power to the concerned head of an organ. Likewise, entrusting judiciary, executive and legislature with whole power in their respective area of influence may lead to a functional deadlock of government. There have been various instances where a rising need of flexibility and cooperation among these organs was felt to avoid stagnant functioning of governments. This paper discusses the various circumstances where such need of separation of powers is felt and tries to establish a pragmatic application of the doctrine. The basic activities of government effect daily life of people and attach itself to general public welfare. So, need of the hour is to set up a system which works effectively and efficiently avoiding any deadlock among different organs. We can analyse the contemporary situation by scrutinising constitutions of various countries that have opted for more pragmatic and flexible application of this doctrine avoiding any rigidity. The basic tendency among different countries is to avoid any strict application of the doctrine of

separation and to follow a mixed system where there can be proper checks and balances along with such separation. Although constitutions impart a separation of functions among different bodies but they refrain from designating an absolute power to any organ. Their attempt is to establish a system with different organs working in a close tandem to each other without any conflict. The idea is aimed to avoid any ineptness in working and to instil a sense of cooperation and responsibility among them.