In the Delhi Laws Act case, the Supreme Court followed for the first time that except where the constitution has conferred power on a body, the way of thinking that an organ should not perform functions which basically, belong to others is followed in India. By a majority of 5 to 2, the Court held that the explanation of the separation of powers, although not a significant part of our Constitution, is, in rare circumstances, evident in the legal rules of the Constitution itself. -even. As Kania observes, CJSay no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay “Although in the constitution of India there is no express separation of powers, it is clear that a legislature is created by the constitution and detailed provisions are made to oblige the legislature to pass laws. Does this not imply that unless it can be inferred from other provisions of the constitution, other organs - executive or judicial - are not intended to exercise legislative functions? » This judgment suggests that the three organs of state, namely the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, are bound and subject to the legal rules of the Constitution, which limit their powers, legal controls, responsibilities and relationships with each other. Furthermore, it can be assumed that none of the state organs, the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, would go beyond their powers as defined in the Constitution. The question before the Supreme Court in this case related to the extent of the government's power to update the Constitution, as conferred by the Constitution itself. It was argued that Parliament was “better than anyone or anything else” and represented the sovereign will of the people. Thus, if the people's representatives in Parliament decided to amend a particular law to control individual freedoms or limit the extent of judicial power, the executive and legislature had no right to question whether or not this was related to the Constitution. keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized document from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay However, the Court did not allow this argument and instead ruled in favor of the person arguing against a court decision on the grounds that the belief The separation of powers was part of the "basic structure" of our Constitution. Pursuant to this decision, there was no longer any need to confuse the double meaning with the idea of ​​a single objective recognized as part of the Indian Constitution, permanent even by an Act of Parliament. Thus, the idea of ​​separation of powers was included in Indian laws..