Revision summary
India does not follow a rigid American separation of powers. Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955) treated the Cabinet as part of a parliamentary legislature. Articles 13, 32 and 226, charged judicial salaries, and a hard removal process are mutual checks. Kesavananda and Minerva Mills keep judicial review inside the basic structure. The design is checks and balances, not sealed branches.
Model answer
Introduction
A strict separation of powers would keep the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary in sealed boxes, as in a pure reading of Montesquieu. The Constitution of India copies the functions of those three organs, but it also lets each organ check the others. The Supreme Court said this plainly in Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955): India does not follow a rigid American separation.
Body
No strict separation
- Articles 53 and 74 place executive power in the President, who acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, so the political executive sits inside the legislature through Articles 75 and 88.
- Ordinance power under Article 123, and the power of the Houses to punish for contempt of themselves, mix law-making with executive and quasi-judicial work.
- Article 50 asks only for separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State; it is a Directive Principle, not a wall between all three organs.
- Delegated legislation, parliamentary committees that examine the executive, and judges sitting on commissions show daily overlap of functions.
- Ram Jawaya Kapur held that the Indian design is a parliamentary system in which the Cabinet is a part of the legislature, not a rival sealed branch.
Checks and balances in the text
- Articles 13, 32, 136, 141, 142 and 226 give courts the power to strike down statutes and executive acts; that is a judicial check on the other two organs.
- Articles 121 and 211 bar discussion of a sitting judge except on a removal motion; salaries of judges are charged, and removal needs a parliamentary address, so the legislature cannot casually punish the Court.
- Parliament can impeach a judge, create courts under Articles 124 and 247, and amend the Constitution under Article 368, which is a political check on the judiciary.
- The President and Governors, the Rajya Sabha’s share in some appointments, and Article 356 as read in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) check the Union executive in the federal field.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) placed separation of powers and judicial review inside the basic structure, so even an amendment cannot wipe out the balance.
How the balance works in practice
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India show the Court stopping Parliament when it tries to make itself the last judge of elections or of fundamental rights.
- The executive checks the Court through the collegium’s need for a Memorandum of Procedure and through the power to appoint after consultation; the failed National Judicial Appointments Commission still shows the tension, not a sealed separation.
- A fair explanation therefore agrees with the question: India chose checks and balances, not a strict separation of powers.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD T[Three organs in the text] --> O[Functional overlap] T --> C[Checks and balances] C --> J[Arts 13 32 226 review] C --> P[Parliament removal and money] C --> K[Kesavananda basic structure] J --> B[Balanced constitutional government]
Conclusion
The Constitution does not accept a strict separation of powers. It assigns functions to three organs and then binds them through judicial review, parliamentary control, charged salaries, and the basic-structure limit. That is the Indian principle of checks and balances.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
"The Central Administration Tribunal which was established for redressal of grievances and complaints by or against central government employees, nowadays is exercising its powers as an independent judicial authority." Explain.
Next question in the 2019 paper (Q2). View answer →
-
Does Article 50 create a strict separation of all three organs?
No. It is a Directive Principle about the judiciary and the executive in State services. The political executive still sits in the legislature.
-
Can Parliament remove judicial review by amendment?
Kesavananda and Minerva Mills treat judicial review as part of the basic structure. An amendment that destroys it would not stand.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks
Explain and distinguish between Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals. Whether they entertain civil as well as criminal cases? -
2020 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities. -
2018 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India. (15). -
2015 · Q5 · GS II · 12 marks
Resorting to ordinances has always raised concern on violation of the spirit of separation of power doctrine. While noting the rationales justifying the power to promulgate, analyse whether the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue have further facilitated to resorting to this power. Should the power to promulgate the ordinances be repealed?
More from this paper
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2019 · GS II · 10 marks
"The Central Administration Tribunal which was established for redressal of grievances and complaints by or against central government employees, nowadays is exercising its powers as an independent judicial authority." Explain.
Governance and Policy
Article 323A and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, created the CAT for Union service disputes. The original aim was expert, speedy redress instead of a first writ in the High Court. Sampath Kumar treated a proper tribunal as a substitute forum; Chandra Kumar restored High Court review as basic structure. The CAT still hears the dispute first, with civil-court powers and reasoned orders. It is an independent judicial authority of first instance, not a ministry cell and not a sealed final court.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2019 · GS II · 10 marks
What are the methods used by the Farmers organizations to influence the policy- makers in India and how effective are these methods?
Governance and Policy
Article 19 speech, assembly and association frame farmers’ methods. Protest, memoranda, elections, media and writs are the main tools. The 2021 repeal of the three farm laws shows high effectiveness of united, long agitation. Short and split protests usually win a bonus, not a stable MSP law. Tenant and women farmers remain poorly reached, so method success is real but uneven.
Q4 · UPSC Mains 2019 · GS II · 10 marks
From the resolution of contentious issues regarding distribution of legislative powers by the courts, 'Principle of Federal Supremacy' and 'Harmonious Construction' have emerged. Explain.
Federal Structure and Devolution
Legislative disputes are resolved by pith and substance, colourable-legislation tests, and repugnancy analysis. Harmonious construction reads Union and State entries so both retain meaning. If both cannot be obeyed, Article 254 makes the Union Concurrent law prevail. Article 254(2) is a limited, President-assented exception until Parliament occupies the field again. Federal supremacy is the residual rule after harmony fails, not the first strike against every State statute.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.