Introduction:

Sop is a political doctrine which deals w separtion of power between three constitutionals institute.
(legislature,executive,judiciary).

Origin:

Mention aristotle,locke and monstesquieu.

Definition:

Give montesquieu definition(separate organs,official,eik institution ke loug dousre mein na ho, they
shoukd restrict, every institute have equal power apne function se realted.)Acc to montsq its
importance, in order to protect individual identity and prevent tyranny this model shall be used.

Comparison:

Bw us and uk. Us ka is written as a matter of design the idea of sop is available. Art 1 2 3 clearly states as
compare to uks constitutional arrangment its informal. Formally designed nahi hai it has part of uk
constitution through pragmatic fashion informally. Es liyei informal because unwritten constitution.

Give hint whether you agree or not w the satement asked in question.

Main Body:

Executive

Legislature
Judiciary

Executive w legislature, legislature w judiciary, judiciary w executive . analyse the degree of sop and
impact of recent reforms on Sop. Kis hadd takk separtion exist karti hai, kis had tak related aur kis had
takk alag hai. House of common disqualification act and reform act 2005 highlight this .

Executive w legislature:

Maybe the statutes were thedeliberate effort w executive and legislature ,explain kese staute banta hai.
Because there was a desire that sop should exist in uk.

Lord heilsham uks electoral system should be described as elective dictatorship as it lacks sop and
rather than democracy the system is based on the elective dictatorship.

Example: executive minsiter dominates legislature. 95%law making banti hai government policy pe. This
was furtherweakened by passing 1911 and 1949 parliment act in which power of hol was curtailed.
Executive and legiskature ke darmyan kamzor hai now give idea that it exits as well . if the opposition is
strongt than there’s political scrutiny (montsq; agar sop nahi hougi tou abuse of power hougi)

House of common disqualification act sec 1 restricts the in office bearers of hoc to contribute in
legislation(civil service,police,armed forces)

Section 2 of dq act: 95 minsters at a time can sit in hoc and can vote.

Compare the constitutional reform act 2005 didnt act at this end a lot.

Judiciary and executive:

Being an independent body the uks judiciary’s independence is guaranteed. It is impressively

independant.

Degree of separation in more positive manner that is very strong example

Independence of judiciary:

judicial review, security of tenure, regardless their excercise of function their job is secured, independat
commission for judges (consolidated fund for judges), nocivil suites of judges,contempt of courts rules
are applicable. Constitutional convention exist that minsters cant critise the judges and likewise.

Where sop does not exist (highlight that) executive ministers perform quasi judicial functions . primarily
judges ka kaam hai tou yei es cheezz ko point out karta hai that there’s weak relation. Hoc dq act didnt
do anything espe .CRA sop reinforced bw these two instituion (juidicial appointment commitee,senior
judges ki appointment independant ho) indepndant selection . Lord chancelor speaker of house of lord
houta tha and head of judiciary houta tha he was Lor chancelor ko limited in cabinet only.

Mention the cases jo sir share karein gy.