Uni

ver
sit
yofKashmi
r
Schoolofl
aw
Cont
inuousAssessment:Ruleof
Law&Doct r
ineofSepar
ationof
Powers
Subj
ect
:Admi
nist
rat
iveLaw
Name:sonobarMi
r
Rol
lno:45
Semest
er:7t
h
Sect
ion:A
Submi
tt
edto:Dr
.If
ti
khar
Hussai
n
Rul
eofl
aw
Ther uleoflawi saconceptt hatdescr ibest he
supr emeaut hor i
tyoft hel awov ergov ernment al
act i
onandi ndi vi
dualbehav iour .Itcorrespondst oa
situationwher ebot hthegov er nmentand
i
ndi vidual sareboundbyt hel awandcompl ywi t
hit
.
Itistheant i
thesisoft y r
anni calorar bitrar
yr ul
e.The
ruleofl awi st hepr oductofhi stori
cal
dev elopment sov ercent uriesandi sl i
nkedt othe
riseoft hel i
ber aldemocr aticf orm ofgov ernmentin
theWest .Ther uleoflawi st hesubj ectof
compet ingt heories.
1.Forsome, theconcepthasapur elyformal
meani ng.Undert hi
sconceptoft her ul
eofl aw,the
statemustacti naccordancewi t
ht helawsi thas
promul gatedandt heselawsmustmeetacer tai
n
numberofmi nimum char acter
isti
cs.Forot hers,t
he
concepthasawi der,
mor esubstantive,meaning
thatincorporatesidealsofjust
iceandf airness.
Furthermeani ngscanal sobeascr ibedtot he
conceptaccor dingtov ari
ouspol i
ti
calideologies.
Al
thoughiti
sgeneral
lyaccept
edthatt
heext
entt
o
whichagovernmentadherest
othe
ruleoflawisindicat
iveofthedegreeofl
egit
imacy
ofitsacti
ons,thedivergentuseofthet
erm
i
llustr
atethattheconceptisfarfr
om havi
ng
achievedauniv er
sal
lyaccepted
meani
ng.I
ndeed,
whil
esomedeclar
etheconcept
t
ohaveatt
ainedt
hestat
usofanew
uni
ver
sall
y-accept
edpol
it
icali
dealf
oll
owi
ngt
he
endoftheColdWar 2
,othershaveont hecontrar
ygoneasf arast
o
assertthattheterm hasbeenmisusedandabused
tosuchanext entthatithasbecomeameani ngl
ess
phrase,devoidofanyt r
uemeaning.

Hist
ori
calEvol
uti
onoft
heRul
eof
Law
Ther
uleofl
awhasevolv
edov ercentur
iesandis
i
next
ri
cabl
yli
nkedt
ohistor
icaldevel
opmentsthat
havel edtot hegr adualemer genceofl iber al
democr aci esandt heirunder l
yingmodesof
gov ernanceandl egalsy stems. Ther olet hatl aw
playsi nsoci etywast hesubj ectofphi losophi cal
discussi onsi nGr eekandRomanant iquity .I
noneof
hislastdi al ogues, TheLaws( circa360B. C.),Pl at
o
i
scr editedwi thposi ti
ngt heideat hatt he
gov ernmentshoul dbesubser vientt ot hel aw3.The
i
deawasf ur therr efinedbyhi sst udentAr i
stot l
ei n
hiswor kThePol i
tics( circa350B. C. )inwhi chhe
cont rastedt her uleofl aw, reason, wi thther uleof
man, passi on, toexpl ainwhyt hegov er nment
shoul dbeboundbyl awasmeanst opr ev ent
arbitraryrul eandt heabuseofpower 4.Bot h
philosopher sagr eedt hatl awsmustbe
promul gatedf ort hecommongood5.TheseGr eek
wor kshadanot abl einf l
uenceonRomanl egal
thought ,mostnot abl yonCi cero, whoemphasi sed
i
nDeLegi bus( cir
ca54- 51B. C.)t hatt hel awmust
bef ort hegoodoft hecommuni t
yasawhol e,
therebysubj ectingl awt oi dealsofj ust i
ce6.Thef all
oftheRomanRepubl i
catt hehandsofemper or s
gavewayt oaut ocrat i
cr ule.Dur ingt her eignof
Emper orJust i
nianI,
Romanl awwascodi f
ied.The
result
ingCor pusJurisCivi
li
s(529to534A. D)
constitutedasetbackf ortherul
eofl
awi nsofaras
i
tpr ovi
dedt hattheemper orwasabovethelawand
notsubj ecttoit
, t
herebysanct
ioni
ngtheruleof
man.

Cr
it
ici
sm ofr
uleofl
aw
Iti
sundeni ablethatt her uleofl awf or msan
i
ntegralpartoft heliberalfor m ofdemocr atic
governmentwor ldwide.I tgoeswi thoutsay i
ngthat
“fr
eedom undert heruleofl aw”i sanof t
- r
epeated
mant r
aofWest ernl i
ber aldemocr acies.I nthi
s
sense,adherencef ort her uleofl awt herefore
appearstocar rywi thitanumberofconnot ati
ons
ofasocialandpol i
ticalnat ure.Seeni nt hisli
ght,
theruleoflawi snotnecessar ilyapol i
ti
callyneutr
al
concept.
Fori nstance, somear guet hatamodelof
governmentbasedont hewel farest ateis
i
ncompat iblewitht her uleofl aw.I nal aterediti
on
ofIntr
oduct i
ont oSt udyoft heLawsoft he
Const i
tut i
on, Diceyhaddepl oredwhathesawas
thedecl inei nt her uleofl awowi ngi npar ttot he
emer genceoft hewel f
arest ateandt headopt i
onof
l
egi slationt hatgaver egul atoryandadj udi cat ory
power st oadmi nist rativeent i
tieswi thoutr ecour se
tojudi cialr eviewbyt hecour t
s.Thi sconcer nhas
beenshar edbyl iber alcomment atorsovert ime.
LikeDi cey ,Hay ekar guedt hatt hewel f
ar est at ewas
i
ncompat iblewi t
ht her uleofl aw.Nonet heless, it
coul dbear guedt hatt heseconcer nshavebeen
temper edbyt her i
seofadmi nistr
ativel awasa
distinctar eaofl awi ncommonl awcount ries,
wher et heor dinar ycour t
shavedevel opedan
elabor at ebodyofcasel awt hathaspl acedl imi ts
onadmi nistrativedi screti
on, someofwhi chhas
beencodi f i
edi ntol egislati
on.Di ceycr iticisedas
beingi ncompat iblewi thther uleofl awt he
existencei nFr anceofsepar ateadmi nist rativel aws
thatdealwi t hrelat ionsbet weengover nmentand
thegover nedandwhi chdi dnotf al
lwi thint he
j
ur i
sdi ct i
onoft heor dinarycour t
s.However ,iti s
nowr ecogni sedt hatt heest abl i
shmentof
admi nist r
ativecour tst hataredi sti
nctf rom t heci vi
l
andcr iminalcourtsincountri
esf oll
owi ngt hecivil
codet radit
ionhasensur edtoal argeext entthat
discreti
onaryact i
onstakenbyt hegover nmentdo
notgounchecked.Mor eover,i
tisundeni ablethat
certaincountri
est hatfol
lowtheci villawt radit
ion–
forexampl eBel gi
um andSweden–whi chpr i
de
themsel vesonhavi ngapol i
ti
calsy stem t hat
embr acessoci alwelf
are,arealsowi delyaccept ed
asadher i
ngtot herul
eofl aw.
Ther ul eoflawiscr it
ici
zedasser vingaconveni ent
j
ust i
ficationforthecapi t
alistsy stem ofeconomi c
gover nanceandt hesocialinequi t
iest hatmayf low
from it.Locke’sviewt hatthegover nmentshoul d
servet osecur ethepr opertyright sofi ndividuals
wasshar edbyAdam Smi th,thepi oneerofpol it
ical
economy .InLect uresonJur ispr udence( 1763) ,he
declar edthat“[l
]awsandgover nmentmaybe
consi dered…asacombi nat i
onoft her i
cht o
oppr esst hepoor ,andtopr eser vet othemsel ves
theinequal it
yoft hegoodswhi chwoul dot her wise
besoondest r
oy edbyt heat t
acksoft hepoor ”.
Hay ekwr ote“ [
i]
tcannotbedeni edt hatt heRul eof
Lawpr oduceseconomi cinequal i
t y–al lthatcanbe
claimedf ori ti st hatt hisinequal ityi snotdesi gned
toef fectpar ticul arpeopl ei napar ticularway ”.Given
theunapol oget i
cst anceofl i
ber alt heor ists,itisnot
wondert hatt hesevi ewshavef edt hear gument sof
theirideologi calopponent s.Int hecommuni st
theor yofcl assst ruggl eel abor at edbyKar lMar x
andsuppor tedbyFr iedr i
chEngel s, t helawi soneof
themeansbywhi cht hecapi t ali
stcl assmai ntains
theirexploitat ionoft hewor ker s’ prol etariat.,
Suppor t
ersoft her uleofl awar guet hatt heconcept
i
snoti nherent l
yi deol ogicali nnat ur eandt hatt he
ruleofl awi sessent iall
yconcer nedwi t
hensur i
ng
respectf ort hel aw, what evert hatl awmaybe.
Proponent soft hesubst antiver ul eofl awal so
cont endt hatt her ul eofl awi ncor por atesi deal sof
fair
nessandj ust icet hatcanbeusedt oaddr ess
economi cinequal ity.Ther uleofl awal sof all
svi ctim
toaccusat i
onsofWest erncul t
ur ali mper iali
sm or
neocol onialism.Bycont r
astt ot hewest ,lawdoes
notnecessar i
lypl ayapr omi nentr olei nt he
organi sati
onofeast er nsoci et i
es.Forexampl e, i
n
Conf uciant heor y, af argr eateremphasi si spl aced
upont heobser vanceofr it
es( li
)orr ulesofconduct
toachi eveci vi l
isedbehavi ourandsoci alhar monyi n
soci et yandl imi t
st heappl icationoft het oolsofl aw
(fa)andpuni shment( xi
ng)t othosewhof ailto
abi debyt heCodeofRi tes( Lij
i).I
nConf ucianand
theot herdi stinct i
vecul turalt r
adi t
ionsofAsi aand
bey ond, themodesofsoci algover nancewhi ch
theset r aditionsadvocat eof t
enpl aceanemphasi s
ont hecommuni tyrathert hant hei ndi vidual .Asa
resul t,someseei nt hepr omot i
onofr ul eofl awa
meansf ort heWestt oimposei tsval uesont her est
oft hewor l
d.However ,suppor tersoft her uleofl aw
poi ntoutt hatt hemaj or i
tyofcount riesar e
member soft heUni t
edNat ionsandassuchagr ee
toabi debyt heUni versalDecl arati
onofHuman
Right swhi chcal lsfort her espectofhumanr ights
basedont her uleofl aw.Manydevel opi ng
count riesar eal sosi gnat oriestoal ar gear r
ayof
i
nt er nat ionalandr egionalt reatiesanddecl arations
thatcommi tt hem t ouphol dingst andar dssuchas
thoser elatingt othef unct i
oni ngoft hei rlegal
sy stemsandt hei ndependenceoft hej udiciary.
Final ly,andper hapsmosti mpor t
ant ly, many
developingcountri
eshaveadopt edthei
rown
constit
utionst
hatencapsulatemanyel ementsof
theruleoflaw.Inrecentyears,
theleadersofmany
developingcountri
eshavemadepubl i
c
pronouncement sdeclar
ingthei
rcommi tmentto
upholdingtheruleoflaw

Concl
usi
on
Concl
usi
onandFut
urePr
ospect
s
Init
spr esentdaymeani ng, theruleoflawi sof ten
usedasshor thandf ortheexi stenceofgood
governancei napar t
icul
arcount ry.IntheWestand
othercount ri
est hathaveadopt edal i
beral
democr aticmodeofgov ernance, t
her ul
eofl awi s
seenasessent i
alf oreconomi candsoci al
developmentandasanecessar yprerequi sit
ef or
theexistenceofdemocr at icmodeofgov ernment .
Inhiswor k,Ont heRul eofLaw, History,
Pol iti
cs,
Theory( 2004),Br i
anTamanahahasasser tedt hat
theruleofl aw“st andsint hepecul i
arstateofbei ng
thepre-emi nentlegiti
mat i
ngpol it
icali
deali nt he
worldtoday ,withoutparticularagreementupon
precisel ywhati tmeans” .Hedr awstheanal ogyt hat
ther uleofl awi sliketheconceptoft hegood:
“every onei sf orit”,butno- oneknowspr ecisel
y
knowswhati ti s.
Whi letheconceptoft her ul
eof
l
awi st hesubj ectofcompet ingt heories,the
existenceofadi vergenceofv iewsast oitspr ecise
meani ngdoesnoti nvali
dat et her ul
eofl awasa
concepti nlaw.Mostt heoristst endtoagr eethat ,at
thev er ymi nimum i tdoesi ncludear equi r
ement
thatt hegov ernmentobser veacount ry’
sl awsand
theexi stenceofi nstit
utionsandmechani sms
whi chal lowi ndi v
idualst oenf or cethel awsagai nst
offi
ci als.I
nt i
mei tishopedt hatt heruleofl awwi ll
gainnotj ustuni versalaccept anceast oits
desi r
abi l
ity,butal sof urtheragr eementast oits
precisemeani ng

Doctr
ineofSepar
ati
onofPower
s:
I
ndianConst
it
uti
on
“
TheSepar
ati
onofPower
s”i
sadoct
ri
net
hathas
exerci
sedthemi ndsofmanypeopl es.Anci
ent
phil
osophers,poli
ti
calt
heoriesandpoli
ti
cal
sci
entist
s,f
ramer sofconstit
uti
ons,j
udgesand
academicwr i
tershaveallhadcausetoconsidert
he
doctri
nethr
ought hecenturi
es.

Thi
smainlysi
gnif
iesthedivi
sionofdif
fer
entpowers
i
nbetweenvari
ousor gansofthestat
e;execut
ive,
l
egi
slat
ureandjudici
ary.

Thetheoryofsepar
ati
onofpower
ssigni
fi
esmai
nly
thr
eeformulat
ionsofGov
ernment
alpowers;

i
.Thesameper
sonshoul
dnotform par
tofmor
e
t
hanoneoft
hethr
eeorgansofthestat
e.
i
i.Oneorganshoul
dnoti
nter
fer
ewi
thanyot
her
organofthest
ate.
i
ii
.Oneorganshouldnotexerci
set
hef
unct
ions
assi
gnedtoanyotherorgan.
Def
ini
ti
onalCr
isi
s:
Thereisnoexactdef i
nit
ionoft hi
sdoctri
nebecause
ever
y bodyisint
erpret
ingitaccordingtohi
sown
vi
ewsandi ti
salsonotpossi bl
et ofi
ndtheexact
ori
ginbutwecanseef orthef i
rstti
meAr i
stot
le[
1]
wassay ingaboutthedoctrineofseparati
onof
power sinhisbookPolit
icsasf oll
ows:

“Therearet hreeel ement sineachconst i

tut i
onin
respectofwhi chev eryseriouslawgi vermustl ook
forwhati sadv ant ageoust oit;
ifthesear ewel l
arranged,andt hedi f
ferencesinconst it
utionsar e
boundt ocor respondt othedifferencesbet ween
eachoft heset hreeelement s.Thet hreear e,fi
rstt
he
deliber
ati
v e,whi chdiscussev er y
thingofcommon
i
mpor t
ance; secondt heoffici
als…andt hi
rdt he
j
udi ci
alel
ement .
”

In1689theEngl
ishpol
it
icalt
heoristJohnLocke[
2]
alsoenvi
sagedathr
eefoldclassi
ficat
ionofpowers
i
nt hebookTheSecondTreatiseofGov er
nmentas:
“Maybet oogr eatat emptat
iont ohumanf rai
lt
y…for
thesameper sontohav ethepowerofmaki nglaws,
tohavealsoi ntherehandst hepowert oexecute
them, wherebyt heymayexemptt hemselvesfrom
obediencet olawstheymake, andsui
tthelawbot h
i
ni t
smaki ngandex ecut
ion,tomaket hei
rown
pri
vateadv antage.”

Anot
heronewhosaidaboutthi
sdoctr
ineis
Montesqui
eu[
3]whodescri
bedsepar
ationofpower
s
i
nhisbookTheSpir
itofLawsin1748as:

“Whenl egi
slativ
epoweri suni
tedwi thexecut
ive
powerinasi nglepersonorinasi nglebodyof
magistracy,therei
snolibert
y,becauseonecanf ear
thatt
hesamemonar chorsenat ethatmakes
tyr
annicall
ylawswi l
lexecutethem tyranni
cal
ly.

Nort
her
eisl
i
ber
tyi
fthepowerofj
udgi
ngi
snot
separatefr
om legi
slat
ivepower .I
fitwerejoi
nedt o
l
egislat
ivepower,t
hepowerov ertheli
feandlibert
y
ofciti
zenwouldbear bi
trary,f
orthejudgewoul dbe
thelegi
slat
or.I
fitwerejoinedtotheexecutiv
epower ,
thejudgecouldhavethef orceofanoppressor.

Allwouldbel osti
ft hesamemanorsamebodyof
pri
ncipalmen, ei
therofnobles,orofthepeople,
exerci
sedt hesethreepowers:thatthemakingof
l
aws, thatofexecutingpubli
cresoluti
ons,andof
j
udgingt hecrimesordi sput
esofindivi
duals

Adv
ant
ages:
Therear
evari
ousadvantageswi
tht
heaccept
ance
ofthi
sdoct
ri
neinthesystem;
1.Theef f
ici
encyoftheorgansofst
atei
ncr
eased
duet oseparat
ionofworkshenceti
meconsumpti
on
decreases.
2.Si
ncet heexpert
swil
lhandl
ethematt
ersoft
hei
r
part
ssot hedegreeofpur
it
yandcorr
ect
ness
i
ncreases.
3.Therei
sthedivi
sionofwor
kandhencedi
vi
sionof
ski
llandl
abouroccurs.
4.Duet odi
visi
onofwor kther
eisnoov er
lappi
ng
remainsinthesystem andhencenobodyinter
fer
e
withother
swor ki
ngarea.
5.Sincetheover
lappi
ngr
emov
edthenther
eisno
possibi
li
tyoft
hecompeti
ti
oni
nbetweendi
ffer
ent
organs.

Di
sadv
ant
ages:
Asther
ear eadv
ant agesat
tachedt
ot hi
sdoctr
ine,
ther
earesomedi sadvant
agescanalsooccurdueto
thi
sdoctr
ine;

1.AsIhav esaidtherewi l
lbeincreasedeff
ici
ency
butrever
seeffectcanal sobeseenbecauseoft he
overl
appingbetweenr i
ghtsoft heorgansifwear e
notfol
lowingthedoct r
ineinitsstri
ctsensebecause
organsmayf i
ghtf ort
hesupr emacyov ereachother.
2.Thereisalsoapossibi
l
ityofcompet
it
ionbetween
organsagainforpr
ovingonessupremacyoverthe
otherorgan.
3.Therei
salsopossi
bil
i
tyofdel
ayofprocess
becausether
ewill
notbeanysuper
visoroverot
her
hencetheacti
onsoft
heorganscanbecome
arbi
tr
ary.

Posi
ti
onI
nUSA:
Theframer sofconst i
tutionofUSAbel ievedthat
onlybyal l
ocat ingt hethreebasi cfunctionsoft he
government ;l
egi slat
ive,execut i
veandj udici
al,i
nto
thr
eesepar ate, coordinatebr anchescoul dpowerbe
appropriatelydi spersed.Thust heUSConst i
tuti
on
all
ocatest het hr eepower si nseparatebranches.
Thefirstthreear ti
cleoft heirconsti
tuti
on, knownas
thedistr
ibut i
vear t
icl
es, definethestructureand
power soft hecongr ess( legisl
ati
vebody ),executi
ve
andthej udiciary .
Theywer eawareoft heMont esquieu’ sideaabout
separ at i
onofpower sandt hef actthatt henew
const itutionadoptedwasbasedonsepar at i
onof
power s.Yett heywer eequall
yawar et hatinmost
statest helegisl
aturedominat edtheexecut i
veand
j
udici ary .Thesy st
em ofchecksandbal ances
creat edbyt heframersandensur est hatCongr ess
cannotdomi natetheexecutiveandj udi ci
al
branchesoft henat i
onalgovernment .Mor eov er,
const itutionalli
mitati
onsarenott obedef ined
enti
r elyi ndependentlyofmajor it
arianpr eferences.

TheSupr emeCourtofUShasnotbeengivenpower
todecidepoli
ti
calquest
ions,sot
hatt
heCourtmay
notint
erfer
ewiththeexerci
seofpowersoft
he
execut
ivebranchofthegov er
nm
ThePresi
dentofUSAinterf
ereswitht heexerciseof
thepowersbythecongressthr
ought heexerciseof
Vetopower.Healsoexerci
sesthel awmakingwi th
theuseofhistr
eatymakingpower .ThePresident
alsoi
nter
fereswit
hthefuncti
oningoftheSupr eme
Courtt
hroughtheexer
ciseofhispowert oappoi nt
j
udges.
InthesamemannerCongr essinterfereswi t
ht he
power soft hePresi
dentt hroughv oteonbudget ,
approval ofappoint
ment sbyt hesenat eandt he
rat
ifi
cationoft hetr
eaty.Congr essal sointer
feres
wit
ht hewor ki
ngofcour t
sbypassi ngpr ocedural
l
aws, creatingspecialcourtsandbyappr ovi
ngt he
appointmentofj udges.

Inthistur
n,thejudi
ciaryi
nterfereswiththepower s
oftheCongr essandt hePresidentthroughthe
exerciseofit
spowerofj udici
al revi
ew.Iti
scorrect
tosayt heSCofUSAmademor eamendment stoUS
Const i
tut
ionthantheCongr essi t
self
.

Inbri
efwecansayt hatthecondi
ti
oninUSbythe
wordsofCORWI N[7]
,“separat
ionofpowersar
e
morespecifi
cal
lyseeninUSAbutabsolut
e
separat
ionofpowersdoesnotexist
sinUSA.”
Posi
ti
onI
nUK:
Asepar ationofpower sinthepur estformisnotand
neverhasbeenaf eatureinfunctioningoftheorgans
ofgov ernmenti nUK[ 8]andsi nceUKhasnowr i
tt
en
constitutionsot hereisnowr i
tt
endocument
regardingt hi
smat ter
.Anexami nationofthethree
power sr ev ealsthatinpr acti
ce,theyar eexer
cisedby
personsorbodi eswhi chexer ci
semor ethanone
suchpower .

Posi
ti
onI
nIndi
a:

Const
it
uti
onalPr
ovi
sions:

Therearenosepar atepr ov
isi
onsregar
dingthe
Doctri
neofSeparat i
onofPower shasbeengi v
enin
ourConstit
uti
on.Butt herearesomedirecti
ve
pri
ncipl
esaregivenint heconsti
tuti
onasinPart-
IV
andPart-VandAr t
icale-50ofourconst
itut
ioni
s
separat
ingthej udi
ciaryfrom executiv
eas,“thestate
shall
takestepst osepar atejudici
aryfr
om the
executi
veint hepublicservicesofthestat
e,”[11]and
exceptthisthereisnof ormal anddogmaticdi vi
sion
ofpower s.

InIndi
a,notonlyf
unct
ional
overl
appi
ngist
her
ebut
alsothepersonal
over
lappi
ngisprev
ail
i
ng.

Judi
ciar
y:

UnderArti
cle- 142andAr t
icl
e-145ofourconst i
tuti
on,
theSChast hepowert odeclarev oidthelaws
passedbyl egi sl
atur
eandact i
onst akenbyt he
executi
veift heyv i
olateanypr ovi
sionoft he
consti
tut
ionort helawpassedbyt helegi
slaturein
caseofexecut iv
eact i
ons.Event hepowert oamend
theconsti
tut i
onbyPar li
amenti ssubjecttot he
scrut
inyoft heCour t.TheCour tcandecl areany
amendmentv oidifi
tchangest hebasicst r
uctureof
theconsti
tut i
on.[12]Inmanycasescour t
shav e
i
ssueddi r
ect ionsforthePar l
iamentt omakepol i
cies.
Execut
ive:
ThePr esidentofI ndiawhoi st
hesupr emeexecut ive
authori
tyinI ndiaexer ciselawmaki ngpoweri nthe
form ofor dinancemaki ngpowerunderAr ti
cle-123,
alsotheJudi ci
al power sunderArticle-
103(1)and
Arti
cle-
217( 3) ,
hehast heconsultingpowert ot heSC
ofIndiaunderAr ticle-
143andal sot hepardoning
poweri nAr ticl
e-72oft heConstitution.The
executiveal soaf fecti
ngfuncti
oningoft hejudiciary
bymaki ngappoi nt mentstotheof fi
ceofChi ef
Justi
ceofI ndiaandot herj
udges.

Legi
slat
ure:
TheCounci lofMini
sterisselectedfrom the
l
egisl
atureandt hi
sCounci li
sresponsibleforthe
l
egisl
ature.Thelegisl
atur
eexer cisi
ngjudici
alpowers
i
ncasesofbr eachofit
spr i
vil
eges, i
mpeachmentof
thePresidentunderArti
cle-
61andr emovalofjudges.
Thelegislat
ivebodyhast hepunitiv
epower sunder
Ar
ti
cle-
105(
3).

InwordsofGledhi
ll
,“const
it
uti
onofI ndi
ahasnot
ceremoni
ouslyweddedwi t
hDoct r
ineofSeparati
on
ofPowers,however
,itiswheneverpossibl
efoll
owed
thedoct
ri
neofseparationofpower s.
”

Judi
cialResponse:
Therearemanycasesinwhi chSChasgi ven
j
udgement sonbasisofthefactsrel
atedtothose
casesbutwecanunder standthepositi
onofthis
doctr
ineinIndi
abyseeingsomel andmar kopi
nions
giv
enbyt heSupremeCour ti
nf ol
l
owingcases;

I
nRam Jaway
av.St
ateofPunj
ab[
13]

C.
J.Muker
jee,
sai
dandhel
d:
“I
ndi
anConsti
tut
ionhasnotindeedr
ecognizedthe
doct
ri
neofseparat
ionofpowersini
tsabsolut
e
ri
gidi
tybutt hefuncti
onsofthediff
erentpart
sor
branchesoft hegovernmenthavebeensuf fi
cient
ly
dif
ferenti
atedandconsequent l
yitcanbev er
ywel l
saidthatourconst i
tut
iondoesnotcontemplate
assumpt i
onbyoneor ganorpartoftheStateof
Functionsthatessenti
all
ybelongtoanother.
”

I
nIndi
raNehr
uGandhi
v.Raj
Nar
ain[
14]

C.
J.Raysai
dandhel
d:
“I
ntheIndi
anconsti
tuti
onthereissepar
ati
onof
powersinabroadsenseonly.Arigi
dseparat
ionof
powersasundertheUSconst i
tut
ionorasunder
Austr
ali
anconsti
tut
iondoesnotapplytoIndi
a.”

J.Begadded:
“Separat
ionofpowersisthepartoft
hebasic
struct
ureofconsti
tut
ion.Noneofthethreesepar
ate
organsoftherepubli
ccantakeoverthefuncti
ons
assignedtotheother
.Thisschemeoft he
const
it
utioncannotbechangedev
enbyr
est
ori
ngt
o
Art
icl
e-368oftheconst
it
uti
on.”

Concl
usi
on:

Emer
gence:

From t heabov ediscussi onwecanconcl udet hat

thought her eisadef i
ni t
ional cri
sisforthisdoct rine
butev eryst at
ei nterpretedt hedoct ri
neofsepar ati
on
ofpower saccor dingt ot heirunder st
andi ngand
needoft hest ate.Ther ear ev ari
ousadv antagest he
disadv antagespr esentwi tht hedoctri
nebuti tis
ali
v efrom thet imeofAr i
stotlenomat terthebasi c
structureisbeenchangedaccor di
ngt ot hemoder n
gov ernment s.USAi sf oll
owi ngitinaspi ritand
knownast hechampi onsoft hedoctri
neof
separ ati
onofpower sal ongwi thFrance.Ther ei s
nev erevert hi
sdoct rinebeenf oll
owedi nUKi nits
purestf orm.InI ndiat hereisnotanycl ear -cut
descri
pti
onofthedoctr
ineint
heconsti
tut
ionbutwe
havefoll
oweditwheneveri
sneededanditisbeen
cl
earonseeingvari
ousjudgementsgi
venbythe
SupremeCourt.

I
nbr i
efwecansaythattheDoctr
ineofSeparati
on
Powers;i
sfoll
owedinUSwi t
haspiri
t,never
fol
lowedinUKpurel
y,andIndi
ahasfolloweditwit
h
l
argeexcepti
ons.

Fut
ureDi
rect
ion:
Aswehav eseent hatthedoctrineofsepar ationof
power sintheclassi
cal senseisstructur
al rather
thanfunctionalandcannotbeappl iedassuchi n
moder ntimesandhencei tischangingcont i
nuously
accordingtoneedofmoder ngovernments.Andt he
l
ogicbehi ndthisdoctr
ineisstil
l v
alidbecauset he
l
ogicbehi ndthisdoctr
ineisonlyt oavoidabsol uti
sm.
Andhencewecansayt hatthi
swi ll
runal ongway
foryearsandmaybef ur t
herdil
utedbyaut horit
iesto
ful
fi
llneedatt hatti
me.
Opi
nion:
Inmyopinioni
nI ndiajudi
ciar
yi sverypower f
uland
l
egisl
atur
ehasl essscopet ointerfer
einitswork,
alt
houghlegi
slaturehasrulemaki ngpowerand
dir
ecti
vepowerf ortheexecuti
v esalso.Executi
ves
areawardedwithpower sbutthatpowercannotbe
usedduetosev eralcompli
cations.

Asfarassepar
ati
onofpower
sisconcer
nedIcan
suggestf
oll
owi
ngpoint
s:
1.Separ
ati
onofpower
smustbet
her
easi
tpr
event
s
arbi
tr
ari
ness.
2.Judi
ciar
ymustbeawardedwit
hmor epowersand
thescopeofJudi
cial
Rev
iewshouldbeincr
eased.
3.Mostoft
hetimesthepower sofexecutiv
ear e
subj
ectt
oaffi
rmati
onoflegi
slatur
e, t
hisposit
ion
shoul
dbeimprovi
sebecauseitaffectsthenotionof
separ
ati
onofpowers.
4.Separati
onofpowersmustbet herebutther
e
mustbesomepower swi t
hallor
ganswhichenables
them t
ocont r
oleachotherandpreventt
he
possi
bil
ityofarbi
tr
aryuseofpowersbyanyor gani.
e.
syst
em ofcheckandbal anceshoul
dbei mprovi
sed.
5.Adisadvantagewi
ththi
ssystem i
sdelayof
processduetolackofsuper
visormustbe
eradi
catedbymakingchangesinlawsothatt
ime
wouldbesav ed.