Professional Documents
Culture Documents
POWERS:COMPARATIVE
STUDY
BY:-AUTHOR:-TANYA SHARMA
06851103517
SUBMITTED TO :-MRS.KOMAL
KAPOOR
Introduction
The research topic deals with the concept of “the separation of powers”
England and US. After that the researcher would like to articulate the
(2)
no one organ should perform functions that belong to the other.
century. In England after a long war between parliament and the King,
they saw the triumph of Parliament in 1688 which gave Parliament
powers of Parliament and the judicial powers of the courts. At that times,
powers and the courts exercised judicial powers, though later on England
“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same
become completely redundant and its chief value lies in emphasizing that
administrative arbitrariness.
highly needed so that three organ can not trespass with the
Research Methodology
The research work has been done with the help of doctrinal
method which carries the legal structure, case analysis and legal
check and balance under the separation of powers. The researcher has
Identification of issues
Issue No. 1:
Issue No. 2:
Issue No. 3:
reality?
Hypothesis
The hypothesis of the researcher is that the protection of the individual
executive or judicial power; the judiciary cannot exercise the other two
powers.
separation of power.
Art. I says
congress.”
Art. II says
Supreme Court of the United States has not been given power to decide
political questions, so that the court may not interfere with the exercise of
secretaries are appointed by her on the basis not of their party loyalty but
loyalty to herself. Her tenure does not depend upon the confidence of
legislature has absolutely no control over the Executive. The congress can
bring indirect pressure over the Executive through its power to levy taxes,
executive work and policies through its committees and the senate‟s
power to conform treaties and appointment.
does exercise some influence over it through his power to sent message
and veto legislation, the efficacy of his veto, however is limited as it can
Since the Glorious Revolution (1968), the king did not control
Parliament, nor Parliament the king. And it was John Lock, in 1690, who
would seem to have been the first to make a point of separation, the
legislative and executive. If both powers he argued are in the same hand,
the ruler will exempt themselves from the law and come to have, “a
distinct interest from the rest of the society.‟ If the legislators are to be
subject to the laws they will “take care that they more than for the public
good.” It is true that at the time Montesquieu was writing (1748) the
operation. And it is perhaps, still true with the growth of the civil service,
that the legislature and the executive are two autonomous centers of
since the Act of settlement of 1700, the judges have been independent.15
(ii) One organ of the government should interfere with any other
(iii) One organ of the government should not exercise the functions
as signed to any other organ.
integral part of the legislature, and all his ministers are also members of
is clear negation of the first formulation that the same person should not
but the judges of the superior courts can be removed on an address from
Loards who have held judicial office. Again, legislative and adjudicatory
Montesquieu and the English did not need to worry about the exact
distribution of powers. The goal was the preservation of liberty, not the
the judges.
The India Government has three wings that are the legislative, executive
judiciary from the executive. But the Indian constitution does not confer
organ. It has been accordingly, been held that there is no rigid separation
of powers.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v/s Raj Narain, Ray, C.J. also observed
constitution.
three separate organs of the Republic can take over the function assigned
to the other. The scheme of the constitution can not be changed even by
responsible to it.
Beside these by the virtue of Art. 123 and 212, the President or the
Governor has the power to making ordinance when both Houses of the
legislature are not in the secession. In the case of AK Roy v/s India, it is
said that this is legislative power, and an ordinance has the same status as
By the virtue of Art 72, the President has the power to grant
pardon. The Governor also has the power to grant pardon. The legislature
perform judicial function while committing, for contempt, those who defy
its orders or commit breach of privilege.
legislature which controls the executive and can even remove it also
and such of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, as he
deem necessary for the purpose. The judges of the Supreme Court and the
High Courts can not be removed except for misconduct or incapacity and
President.
promotion of, district judge in any state shall be made by the Governor of
the state in consulting with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in
the court has powers to make judicial review over the legislative as well
as the executive.
By the virtue of Art 145, the Supreme Court has the power to
makes rules and exercise administrative control over its staff.
that all powers of government are divided into executive, legislative and
the person entrusted with power in any one of these branches shall not be
permitted to encroach upon the power confided to the others, but each
shall by the law of its creation be limited to the exercise of the powers
Supreme Court held that the constitution has invested the constitutional
courts with the power to invalidate laws made by Parliament and State
incompetence, the legislature can not enact a law declaring that the
judgement of the court shall not operate; it can not over rule or annul the
decision of the court. But this does not mean that the legislature which is
competent to enact that law cannot re-enact that law. Similarly, it is open
to a legislature to alter the basic of the judgement. The new law or the
and balance. Just as courts ought not to enter into problems entwined in
the „political thicket‟, Parliament must also respect the preserve of the
institution.
the law as and when the law come into force, not before that. But here the
judiciary also interferes in the activities of the legislature before the bill
essential to enforce the theory of checks and balances among the three
good for the well for the democracy and it is the time which shows us