Table of ContentsPower corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutelyAnalysisConclusionReferencesPower corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutelyThe doctrine of separation of powers, as the name suggests, states that power of administration must be distributed between different organs, namely the legislative, executive and judicial powers which work mutually. This principle was initially posited by Aristotle when he classified the functions of a government into three categories, namely deliberative, magisterial and judicial. This was the first mention of the separation of powers. Many other philosophers like Locke also suggested this idea and divided governments. into three parts, namely the continuous executive power, the discontinuous legislative power and the federal power. The first designating the executive and judicial powers, the second the power to make rules and the third the power to manage foreign affairs. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay L.Esprit Des Lois which translates to Spirit of Law. He declared that: When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body or magistrate, there can be no liberty. Once again, there is no freedom if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive power. Where it joined the legislative power, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Where he associates himself with the executive power, the judge can behave with violence and oppression. Everything would come to an end if the same man or the same body exercised these three powers. In the current scenario, the three organs of separation of powers are known as: The Legislature - The Legislature is the principal legislative authority of India. It has two houses, namely Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. It makes laws, applies taxes and also controls the executive. The legislature is responsible for selecting the chief executive. It represents the true will of the people and serves as a role. He is a knight of the proper functioning of democracy. But as the doctrine of power dictates, he is not all-powerful. The executive has the power to command and control the military, it can veto laws, pardon convicted criminals and also participates in the appointment of judges. of the three executive bodies, it is the only one which has an express provision defining its power and its functioning. The Judiciary – The framers of our constitution were very careful with regard to the judiciary, the provisions made for the judiciary were such that the functioning of the judiciary becomes independent and impartial. The judiciary is the authority that interprets the constitution and acts as the guardian of the rights of citizens using the power of judicial review. But it also causes the judiciary to interpret the law and not make it. In India the doctrine of separation of powers exists but it is not followed in strict sense although the functions have been divided into three organs namely legislative, executive and judiciary these three organs are related to each other and since this doctrine is not followed in the strict sense in India. Their functions therefore tend to agree and overlap. When the drafting committee was drafting the constitution, a debate arose between Professor KT Shah, a member of the drafting committee, who believed in the idea of ​​complete separation of powers between the three bodies, and Mr. Khanumathiya, who believedthat a complete separation of powers would lead to conflict. between the three organs because each of them will try to place itself above the other. Mr. Hanumathiya's ideology was that instead of having a conflicting trinity, it is better to have a harmonious government. Mr Hanumathiya's ideology and arguments met with huge support and even the father of our constitution, Dr BR Ambedkar was not in favor of the idea of ​​absolute separation of powers, hence the motion of MKT Shah was rejected. This is how the concept of separation of powers has been shaped in India.AnalysisIn the Indian constitution, there is an express provision which states that the power of the union executive will be vested in the President of the country and the power of the The executive of the union will be entrusted to the president of the country. the state will be entrusted to the governor of that state. But when it comes to legislative and judicial power, there is no specific mention to confirm that these powers are conferred on any body. Although the head of the Executive is the President, but when a closer look at his powers shows that he is only the nominal head, the real power lies with the Prime Minister and his cabinet of ministers. The doctrine of separation of powers is not followed. in the strict sense in India, that is, there is no absolute separation, that is why we can observe that in certain situations, the President has the power to exercise judicial function as well as legislative, for example. When the President adopts an ordinance, he exercises a function that falls under both the legislative and judicial powers. Likewise, the legislature is in the process of impeaching the President, who, according to Article 61, exercises a judicial function. Similarly, if the High Court or the Supreme Court finds certain provisions to be contrary to law, then they can declare them null and void. So, in this way, proper checks and balances are maintained, so no one body gets too much power and the reason for this doctrine is thus maintained. Through the analysis of the following cases, we can see how the doctrine of separation of powers works in India: In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar[1] - The Supreme Court said that unlike the US Constitution where there is a clear bifurcation with regard to separation of powers in India, there is no clear bifurcation but separation of powers is implied in the Indian Constitution. In the Delhi Law Act[2], the Supreme Court held that although the Indian Constitution does not provide for express separation, our framers have carefully made provisions for the legislature to pass laws. This clearly implies that the only duty of the legislator is to pass laws even if this is not expressly mentioned. Justice BK Mukherjee observed: “The Indian Constitution has indeed not recognized the doctrine of separation of powers in absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government have been sufficiently differentiated and, therefore, one can very well say that our Constitution does not envisage the assumption by one organ or part of the State of functions which essentially belong to another. "In Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [3], the Supreme Court observed: “Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognized in the Constitution in its absolute rigidity, the makers of the Constitution have meticulously defined the functions of the various organs of the State and the judiciary must function within their own spheres demarcated by the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The Constitution relies on the judgment of these.organs to function and exercise their discretionary power strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends on the strength and independence of each of its organs. executive power rests with the president (c) and all judicial powers are vested in the Supreme Court. Thus, in the United States, the Supreme Court cannot interfere in the political decision-making of the executive branch of government. The power of judicial review does not exist. invested in the supreme court. But the president can interfere in judicial as well as legislative matters thanks to his veto and his treaty-making power. The judiciary, that is, the Supreme Court, has made many more amendments to the American Constitution than Congress itself. The system of checks and balances which was also stated by Montesquieu allows the three bodies to control each other's power. In symbolism, King Solomon's throne was supported by lions on both sides where the lions represented the executive and legislative and the throne represented judicial. He said the judiciary was supported by the legislature and the executive. The Supreme Court said: “Under the Constitution, the judiciary is above the administrative executive and any attempt to put it on an equal footing with the administrative executive should be discouraged. ". In pre-independence India, there was strong agitation regarding the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, if the judiciary was not separated from the executive, then the independence of the judiciary would only be a mockery. Today, the Supreme Court acts as a major litigator and the supreme courts serve as a center for major litigation. controversies with political connotations which force them to face public anger. The question has also been raised whether the judiciary is overstepping its bounds and interfering with the functioning of the executive and legislature. What is desired at present is to ensure a relationship of mutual understanding and harmony and since the doctrine of separation of powers was adopted in India, it fails to demarcate the boundary between these three organizations. courts began issuing directives to the government on everything from removing trash from the streets to purging the political system of political sordidness. With the broadening horizons of "judicial activism", a few percent of the population have criticized the judiciary overstepping its bounds and assuming government functions, but this is not a justifiable thought. The Supreme Court and High Courts act as watchdogs to keep the executive and legislature within the bounds of the law. Today, millions of people are suffering in the country. It is the judiciary that gives them hope. It is time that these three governing bodies realize the invisible boundaries that separate them and do not interfere in each other's functioning and, respecting this invisible line, set an example of good governance. Above analyzing the doctrine of separation of powers, we have seen that even though it is not followed rigidly in India, still it plays a very important role in the functioning of the country. We have seen how these three bodies work together even though there is no specified boundary. as to the extent to which they can interfere with each other's work. The above analysis shows that in today's age of technology and globalization, it is almost impossible to stick to the old doctrine of separation of powers, which stated that the bifurcation of power between THE. 1899