Commonwealth Law Review Journal 80

SEPARATION OF POWERS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Written by Mudassir Nazir*, Tauseef Ahmad** & Mohammad Aman Khan Afghani***

* 2nd year LLM Student, Faculty of Law Jamia Millia Islamia New Delhi

**2nd year LLM Student, Faculty of Law Jamia Millia Islamia New Delhi

***2nd year LLM Student, Faculty of Law Jamia Millia Islamia New Delhi

INTRODUCTION

The separation of power, although by no means universal, is widely regarded as one of the pillars
of a liberal constitutional democracy. Article 16 of the French declaration of rights of man 1789,
states that a society where rights are not secured or the separation of powers established has no
constitution.

The doctrine of Separation of Powers deals with the mutual relations among the three organs of
the Government namely legislature, executive and judiciary. The origin of this principle goes back
to the period of Plato and Aristotle. It was Aristotle who for the first time classified the functions
of the Government into three categories viz., deliberative, magisterial and judicial and Locks
categorized the powers of the Government into three parts namely: continuous executive power,
discontinuous legislative power and federative power. “Continuous executive power” implies the
executive and the judicial power, “discontinuous legislative power” implies the rule making power,
and “federative power” signifies the power regulating the foreign affairs.1 The French Jurist
Montesquieu in his book L. Esprit Des Lois (Spirit of Laws) published in 1748, for the first time
enunciated the principle of separation of powers. That’s why he is known as modern exponent of
this theory. Montesquieu 2said;

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of
magistrates, there can be no liberty, because apprehension may arise, least the same monarch or
senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again there is no
liberty if judicial power be not separated from the legislative and the executive power. Where it
joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control,

1I.P. Massey: Administrative Law, Edn. 1970, p. 35.

2 The Sprit of the laws (trans.nugent) `151-152

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 81

for the judge would then be the legislator. Where it joined with the executive power, the judge
might behave with violence and oppression. Miserable indeed would be the case, where the same
man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers,
that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions and that of judging the crimes or
difference of individuals.”3

In 18th century, there was complete and full-fledged monarchy in France. Louis XIV was well-
known for his absolute and autocratic powers. The king and his administrators were acting
arbitrarily. The subjects had no right or liberty at all. On the other hand, Montesquieu was very
much impressed by the liberal thoughts of Locke and he also based his doctrine on analysis of the
British constitution during the first part of the 18th century, as he understood it. According to him,
the secret of an Englishman’s liberty was the separation and the functional independence of the
three departments of the government from one another.in federalist 47, James Madison has
explained the above statement and had stated thus; the accumulation of all powers-legislative,
executive and judiciary-in the same hands, may justly be pronounced as the very definition of
tyranny. montisque who is generally credited with this claim does not mean that ought to have no
partial agency in, or no control over, the act of one department is exercised by the same hands
which possess the whole power of another department, the fundamental Principe of free
constitution are subverted.4

It is generally accepted that there are three main categories of governmental function, viz., the
legislative, the executive and the judicial. Likewise there are three main organs of the government
in a state i.e., the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. According to the theory of serration
of powers, these three powers and functions of the government must, in a free democracy, always
be kept separated to be exercised by the three different organs of the government. Thus the
legislature cannot exercise judicial or administrative function; the executive cannot exercise judicial
function nor can the judiciary exercise legislative or administrative function of the government.

According to Wade and Phillips5separation of powers may mean three different things;

1. That the same person should not form part of more than one of the three organs of
government, e.g. the minster should not sit in parliament

3 C.K.Takwani; Administrative law,Edn.2014,p.33

4. ibid at 34.
4 Nuzhat parveen khan; comparative constitutional law,edn2015 p.p260
5 AIR 1973 SC 1461

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 82

2. That one organ of the government should not control or interfere with the exercise of its
functions by another organ ,e.g. the judiciary should not independent of the executive or
that minsters should not be responsible to parliament
3. That one organ of the government should not exercise the functions of another, e.g., the
minster should not have legislative power.

In the case of kesavananda bharati case6 C.J Sikri observed that “separation of powers between
the legislature, the executive and the judiciary” is the basic feature of Indian constitution which
cannot be amended or altered. Shelat and Grover JJ, also observed that the “Demarcation of power
between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary” is the basic feature of Indian constitution
which cannot be amended.

The doctrine of separation of power as propounded by Montesquieu had tremendous impact on

the functioning of government.it was appreciated by English and American jurists and accepted
by politicans.in his book commentaries on the law of England, published in 1765, Blackstone
observed that if legislative, executive and judicial functions were given to one man, there was an
end of personal liberty. Madison also proclaimed;

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many
and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.7

IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE

The doctrine of separation of power in its true sense is very rigid and this is one of the reasons of
why it is not strictly accepted by a large number of countries in the world. The main object, as per
Montesquieu - Doctrine of separation of power is that there should be government of law rather
than having willed and whims of the official. Also another most important feature of this doctrine
is that there should be independence of judiciary i.e. it should be free from the other organs of the
state and if it is so then justice would be delivered properly. The judiciary is the scale through
which one can measure the actual development of the state if the judiciary is not independent then
it is the first step towards a tyrannical form of government i.e. power is concentrated in a single
hand and if it is so then there is a cent percent chance of misuse of power .Montisque great point
was that if the total power of government is divided among autonomous organs, one will act as a
check upon the other and in the check liberty can survive. All the jurist accept one feature of this

6 Supra note 3. p34

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 83

doctrine that the judiciary must be independent of and separate from the remaining two organs of
the government viz., legislature and executive. Hence the Doctrine of separation of power do
plays a vital role in the creation of a fair government and also fair and proper justice is dispensed
by the judiciary as there is independence of judiciary. Also the importance of the above said
doctrine can be traced back to as early as 1789 where the constituent Assembly of France in 1789
was of the view that ―there would be nothing like a Constitution in the country where the doctrine
of separation of power is not accepted‖. The most important aspect of the doctrine of separation
of power is judicial independence from administrative discretions’’ there is no liberty, if the judicial
power be not separated from the legislative and executive.8.In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v
Raj Narain, 9K.Ramaswamy J. made the following observation;

It is the basic postulate under the Indian constitution that the legal sovereign power has been distributed between the
legislatures to make the law, the executive to implement the law and the judiciary to interpret the law within the
limits set down by the constitution. The courts are intermediary between the people and the other organs of the state
in order to keep the latter within the parameters delineated by the constitution. The can be no liberty if the power of
judging be not separated from the legislative and executive power.

Article 50 of the constitution of India, therefore enjoins the state, and in fact separated the judiciary
from the executive in the public service of the state. It’s the constitutional duty of the judiciary to
adjudicate the dispute between the citizens and the citizens, citizens and the state, the state inter-
se and the states and the centre in accordance with the constitution and the law. 10

Putting emphasis on the independence of judiciary, international congress of jurist held in New
Delhi in 1959, had resolved;

An independent judiciary is an indispensable requisite of a free society under the rule of law. Such independence
implies freedom from interference by the executive or the legislature with the exercise of judicial function.11The
separation of power has to be viewed through prison of constitutional ism and for upholding goals
of justice in its full magnitude12

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION

8 Friedmann , law in a changing society (1996) 383

9 AIR 1975 SC 2299 para 320
10 Kartar Singh v state of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
11 Reports of international congress of jurists, vol. IV (1960)
12 University of Kerala v council principal’s colleges, Kerala AIR 2010 SC 2532.

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 84

The doctrine of separation of power has emerged in several forms at different periods. Its origin
is traceable to Plato and Aristotle.in the 16th and 17th centuries, French philosopher john Bodin
and British politician Locke expressed their views about the theory of separation of powers. But
it was montisque who for the first time formulated this doctrine systematically, scientifically and
clearly in his book ESPRIT DES LOIS (the spirit of the laws) published in the year 1748.

The concept of separation of power can be traced back from 4th century B.C., when Aristotle, in
his treaties entitled ‘politics” described the three main agencies of government i.e. the general
assembly, the public officials and the judiciary.13In Rome, there was also three organs of
government viz., public assemblies, the senate and the public officials. After the fall of Roman
Empire Europe become the centre of power.in the beginning of 18th century the birth of
parliament took place in a present colour and the three organs of government Re-Appeared.
According to Locke these organs are legislative, executive and federative. However it’s to be kept
in mind that Locke did not consider all of them independently. He consider the legislative branch
to be the supreme, while the other two functions as internal and external affairs, and they were left
within the control of monarch. During those times executive and judicial functions were simply
known as “executive power”. The king was considered as the supreme and he holds supreme
power and all the organs are sub-ordinate to king. Chief justice coke in 1607 said that judicial
matters were not to be decided by the natural reason but by the artificial reason and judgments of
law, which law is an act which require long study and experience before that a man can attain
cognizance of it14.the judiciary were appointed by the king ,the judge shall serve amoung other
things that he will do justice without fear, to all men pleading before him, friends and foe alike,
that he will not delay to so even though the king should command him by his letters or by his
words of mouth to the contrary.it was clear in the minds of people that the only part that the king
played in the administration of justice was that of the appointment of judges.

PITFALLS OF SEPERATION OF POWER

Theoretically, the doctrine of separation of power was very sound, many defects surfaced when it
was sought to be applied in real life situations. Mainly, the following defects were found in this
doctrine.

 Historically speaking, the theory was incorrect. There was no separation of power under
the British constitution.at no point of time, this doctrine was adopted in England.Prof

13 Generally Robinson; The division of governmental powers in ancient Greece’s p. 614 (1903)
14 Fairlee,;The separation of power 21 Mich law rev,393 (1992) at 6

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 85

Ullman says, ‘’England was not the classic home of separation of power.’’15 .
Donoughmore committee also observed that there is no such thing as the absolute
separation of power between legislature, executive and judiciary.
 This doctrine is based on presumption that the three organs of the government are
independent to each other. In fact it’s not so. There is no watertight compartments. It’s
not easy to draw a distinguishing line between these with a strict mathematical calculation.
 As Paton16 observed “its extraordinarily difficult to define precisely each particular power’
’president Woodrow Wilson rightly said;
“The trouble within the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living
thing…no living thing can have its organ offset against each other as checks, and live. On
the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick cooperation, their ready response to the
commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Their
cooperation is indispensable, their welfare fatal”17
 Enforcement of rigid concept of separation of power will make modern government an
impossible entity. Strict adherence to this theory is practically impossible. The modern
state has to work as a pedestrian father. Gone are the days when it was police state.as the
time passes the problems of the state grows. Today the state is supposed to solve the
complex issues. Socio-economic problems and it’s not possible to do a strict adherence of
this theory. Justice Frankfurter says also observed that enforcement of rigid conception of
separation of power would make modern government impossible.
 The fundamental object behind Montesquieu’s doctrine was liberty and freedom of an
individual, but it cannot be achieved by mechanical division of functions and powers.in
England, theory of separation of power is not accepted and yet it’s known for the
protection of indiual liberty. For freedom and liberty, it’s necessary that there should be
rule of law and impartial ad independent judiciary and eternal vigilance on the part of
subjects.
 In modern practice, the theory of separation of power means an organic separation and
the distinction must be drawn between ‘‘essential and incidental power”. And that one
organ of government cannot usurp or encroach upon the essential functions belonging to
another organ, but may exercise some incidental function thereof.18

15 Supra note 3
16 ibid at 35
17 Friedmann, Law in a changing society p.382
18 J.J.R.Upadhyaya, Administrative law’ central law agency 9th edition p.47.

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 86

OBJECT OF SEPERATION OF POWER.

It has been argued that the object of separation of power is to prevent the amalgamation of
legislative, executive and judicial power into a common hand. Which will result into confusion and
choais.no one will take care of other, everyone will think for the welfare of its own. The
constitutional philosophers argued that the object of theory of separation of power is to check and
balance. The constitution distributes powers into legislative, executive and judicial power. The
checks and balance will keep the every one of them within their own domain. The check and
balance system will be able to guard against arbitrarily use of power by anyone branch. The
principle of checks and balance suggests overlapping functions in which each branch is able to
check the powers of others.

The logic behind this doctrine is of polarity, rather than strict classification, meaning there by that
the centre of authority must be dispersed to avoid absolutism.in the same manner Prof Wade
writes that the object of montisque was against accumulation and monopoly rather than
interaction.19Manistique himself never used the word ‘separation’. The object of this doctrine was
not create the berries but mutual restraint and respect between the three organs of the
government.in this sense this doctrine can be called as doctrine of “ check and balance”

The object and purpose of the doctrine is very well summarised by chandrachud, J. (as he then
was) in the case of Indra Nehru Gandhi V Raj Narain20.

‘No constitution can survive without a conscious adherence to its fine checks and balance. Just as court ought not to
enter into problems entwined in the ‘political thicket’ parliament must also respect the preserve of the courts. The
principle of separation of power is a principle of restraint which has in it the precept, innate in the prudence of self-
preservation. That discretion is the better part of valour’’

SEPERATION OF POWER AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDANCE

Judicial independence is an aspect of rule of law.seperation of power concerns the independence

of judicial system from other branches of government. Judicial independence require the
independence of indiual judges from any pressure. As lord hope stated;

19 Wade;Adminstrative Law, p.251

20 1975 SUPP SCC 1,260

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 87

Central to the rule of law, in a modern democratic society is the principle that the judiciary must be seen to be
independent of the executive.21

Judicial independence require judges to be protected against external pressure but does not mean
that they should not be accountable for their actions. Francis Bacon in his “Essay of Judicature”
showing the importance of „Temple of Justice‟ has expressed thus: “Solomon’s Throne was
supported by lions on both sides; Let them be lions, but yet lions under the throne; being
circumspect that they do not check or oppose any points of sovereignty.” (Quoted in S.C.
Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268 at p. 301). Here the
expression “Solomon’s Throne” symbolizes the majesty of our justice system and the word
„Lions‟ represents the Legislature and the Executive. Briefly it may be stated as” „Majesty of
Justice system‟ is supported by the Legislature and the Executive from both sides, nevertheless,
these Legislature and Executive are under the control of Judiciary. Legislature and Executive must
not go against any point of Sovereignty. As regards „Sovereignty‟ it is enough to state that in a
democracy it vests in the will of people.22 .

Today almost all the nations incorporated this principle that judiciary must be independent, free
from the interference of other organs of the state. Article 10 of the UDHR, article 14(1) of ICCPR
1966, article 6 of ECHR also talks about independent tribunal.

SEPERATION OF POWER IN UNITED KINGDOM

Although Montesquieu based his doctrine of separation of powers talking into account the British
constitution, as a matter of fact at no point of time this doctrine was accepted in water tight
compartments in England. On the contrary the reality is that the doctrine of integration of power
was a reality in England.Loard chancellor was the head of judiciary, and he was also the chairman
of house of House of Lords (legislature).the constitutional reforms act 2005,is an attempt to
strengthen the separation of powers in relation to judiciary. The constitutional reforms act 2005
attempts to strengthen the separation of power by creating a supreme court to replace the appellate
committee of house of lords, injecting an independent element into judicial appointments and
removing the lord chancellors roles as head of judiciary and speaker of the house of loards.it could

Millar v Dickson (2002) 3 ALL ER 1041,(41)

21

TEJ Bhadur Sing; Principles of separation of powers and concentration of authority, J.T.R.I-journal 2nd year 2 & 5
22

march 1966.

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 88

be that aspect of these reforms, particularly in relation to the lord chancellor, strengthen the
instuitional separation but weakens check and balances. The constitutional reforms act 2005
creates a new supreme court as the highest appellate court transferring to it the appeal functions
of the House of Lords and in devolution cases of the Privy Council. This takes effect in October
2009.the main reason are to ensure a separation of power between the legislature and the judiciary
and to enhance public understanding of and confidence in the judicial system. In England the
King being the executive head is also an integral part of the legislature. His ministers are also
members of one or other Houses of Parliament. This concept goes against the idea that same
person should not form part of more than one organ of the Government. In England House of
Commons control the executive. So far as judiciary is concerned, in theory House of Lords is the
highest Court of the country but in practice judicial functions are discharged by persons who are
appointed specially for this purpose, they are known as Law Lords and other persons who held
judicial post. Thus we can say that doctrine of separation of powers is not an essential feature of
British Constitution. It’s to be noteworthy here that under English system the executive cannot
impose taxes without the concurrence of legislature, as the imposition of taxes is purely a legislative
function.23 It has been also observed that there is no limitation on the legislature. The British
system involves the following system;-

1. That the judicial power would be exercised by court, presided by judicial officer.
2. The legislature has a power to prescribe maximum or minimum punishment for an
offence. However the selection between the minimum punishment and the maximum
punishment is a judicial function, which cannot be excersice either by legislature or the
executive. If the legislature seeks to excersice this power or to punish the indiual offender
by legislation, that would be a bill of attainder, which is condemned by the bill of rights
3. Carrying out a punishment is an executive function of state and this function is to subject
to any condition imposed by law.
4. The power to remit the sentence (mercy), in the case of particular offender, is an executive
function.

Lord Diplock in the case of hind’s v queen24, Stated that the United Kingdom have no written
constitution comparable that with the Australia and USA, yet in the sense that the legislature, the
executive, the judicial powers are vested in three separate organs. The basic conception of
separation of power is recognized even in unwritten constitution of that country. Again in the case

23 Attorney general vs. will’s united dairies, (1921) 91 LJKB 897.

24 1977 AC,

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 89

of Duport steels ltd v sirs 25 lord diplock observed it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the
British constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based on separation of powers. Parliament
makes the laws; the judiciary interprets them.in the case of H.V Homes office26 House of Lords
held that, parliament makes the law, executive carries the law into effect and judiciary enforces the
law.in the case of Reg v home secretary, 27it was observed; it is a feature of the peculiarity British
conception of the separation of powers that the parliament, the executive and the courts have each
their distinct and largely domain. Parliament has legally unchallengeable rights to make whatever
laws it thinks fit. The executive carries on the administration of the country in accordance with the
power conferred on it by law. The courts interpret the law and see that they are obeyed.in R V
Secretary of state ex parte fire brigades union28, Lord Mustill said at 267, the feature of
separation of power is that the parliament, executive and the courts have their distinct and
exclusive domain. Parliament has right to make law, whatever law it thinks right, the executive
carries on the administration of the country in accordance with the power conferred on it by law,
and the courts interpret the law and sees that they are obeyed.in Duport steels ltd v Sirs29 lord
Scarman said;-

“The constitution separation of powers, or more accurately functions, must be observed if judicial independence is not
to be put at risk…confidence in the judicial system will be replaced by fear of it becoming uncertain and arbitrary
in its application. Society will then be ready for parliament to cut the powers of the judges.’’

Even though the doctrine of separation of powers has deep rooted in English, it’s admitted fact
by the academician and philosophers that the doctrine was never accepted in English. The doctrine
finds no place in the English constitution. The UK constitution provides the supremacy of
parliament. Parliament has unlimited legal power to enact any law without external restraint.
Parliament supremacy is a legal principle meaning that a law formally made by parliament, in the
sense of queen, House of Lords and House of Commons acting together, must conclusively be
accepted as valid by the courts.30

SEPERATION OF POWER IN U.S.A

In 1787, the American constitution was drafted, and the doctrine of separation of power was
adopted. In America, the doctrine of separation of power forms the foundation on which the

25 1980 1 ALL ER 529

26 1939 3 ALL ER 537
27 (1995) 2 WLR 464
28 (1995) 2 ALL ER 244
29 (1980) 1 ALL ER 529 AT 551
30 Pickin v British railway boards 1974

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 90

entire structure of the constitution is based. The doctrine of separation of power has been accepted
and strictly adopted by the founding father of the U.S constitution and is considered to be the
heart of the American constitution.31 Art. I says:

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress.”

Art. II says:

“The executive powers shall be vested in President”

Art. III similarly states:

“The judicial power….. Shall be vested in one supreme court…….”

In the leading case of Field v Clark32 the US supreme court observed, that “the congress cannot delegate
legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the
system of government ordained by the constitution”.

In the case of Youngstown sheet & tuber co. v sawyer, J Jackson observed that the “with all
its defects, delay, and inconviance men have discovered no techniques for long preserving free government except that
executive be under the law, and the law be made by parliamentary deliberations”

The American Constitution further ensures that not only that there should be separation of the
judiciary from the other two organs, it also ensures that there should be separation of the legislature
from the executive. To achieve that end, they provided by Art. I, section 6(2) of the constitution
that no Senator or Representative during the time for which he is elected, be appointed to any civil
office under the authority of the United State.in the American constitution ,there is a system of
check and balance, and the powers vested in one organ of the government cannot be exercised by
any other organ.in theory, no one organ of the government can encroach upon the power of the
other.Jaffe and Nathanson stated, the division of our government into three great establishment
is an indisputable fact-writ large and clear in the basic documents. Jefferson said’

The concentration of legislative, executive and judicial power in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic
government.it would be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands and not by a single

31 Bucklery v R.valeos, 46 LED 2d 659;424 US I (1976)

32 36 LED 294; 143 US 649 (1892)

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 91

person.one-hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be an oppressive as one’’33 in U.S.A the doctrine has
following features, which is applied in modern practice.

 The doctrine has produced a presidential form of government which is based on

dichotomy of the executive and the legislature. The president is the head of state and of
government. He is neither a member of congress nor dependent for his tenure upon the
confidence of the congress in him.
 With the advancement of time the rigorous doctrine has now been relaxed. The president
now excersice legislative functions by sending messages to the congress and by the
excersice of the right to veto. The congress has power to excersice judicial functions of
impeachment to remove the president. Senate discharges the executive functions regarding
treaties and in the making of certain appointments. The congress has delegated the
legislative power to numerous administrative agencies and these bodies excersice all types
of functions. The position in America is that despite the theory that the legislature cannot
delegate its power to the executive a host of rules and regulations are passed by non-
legislative bodies, which have been judicially recognized as valid. The Supreme Court never
held that the combination of all the powers in one agency is un-constitutional .
 So far as judicial organ is concerned the Courts have supervisory control over both the
Congress and the President, by way of judicial review. It is true that legislature enacts the
Law, but it is also true that in dealing with the new problems, where Law is silent, the
Courts have to create the Law. The Chief Justice Hughes’s remarks are most pertinent in
this connection, as he candidly said- „The Constitution is what the judges say it is.34 The
amendments which have been incorporated in American Constitution, all are not by
Congress itself, but most of the amendments have been incorporated in Constitution by
American Supreme Court. In this way it can be said that in U.S.A. there is also not any
possibility to have a rigid personal separation of powers.

In the present era, the strict observance of the doctrine of separation of power is impossible
because the functions had grown in a speedy manner. Each organ of the government is
interdependent on each other.as Woodrow Wilson had observed that “the trouble with the theory
is that government is not machine but a living thing…no living thing can have its organs offset
against each other as checks and live. government is not body of blind forces, it is body men, with

Citied in indra Gandhi v Raj Narian,1975 supp SCC 1, Para 319.Air 1975 SC 2299
33

Handel, Charles Evants Hughes and the Supreme Court (1951), II quoted by Bernard Schwartz in American
34

Constitutional Law 1955 page 130

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 92

highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day of specialization, but with a common
task and purpose, their cooperation is indispensable; their warfare fatal”35.the modern view is that
although the framers of American constitution had adopted the doctrine of separation of power
to divide the three organs of the government so that they may not overlap within the functions of
others but it was never conceded that the three organs will operate with full and absolute
independence. The intention of framers was that each organ should work within its bound and
should not overlap within the functions of other. These organs should work as a check and balance
on each other.

SEPERATION OF POWER IN AUSTRALIA

The common wealth of Australia constitution act 1900 adopts the model of separation of power
by distributing three branches of government into three different bodies.

Sec, 1 provides;-

The legislative power of the common wealth shall be vested in the parliament.

Section 61 provides;-

The executive power of common wealth is vested in the queen and is exercisable by the governor
general the queen representative.

Section 71 provides;-

The judicial power of common wealth shall be vested in a federal supreme court, and in such other
federal courts as the parliament creates.

From the above sections of the Australian constitution act it’s clear that the legislature makes the
law, the executive puts the law into operation and the judiciary interprets the law. A strict
separation of power in not always evident in Australia.in Victorian stevedoring and general contracting co
Ltd v Dignan36 the high court of Australia held that it was impossible, consistent with the British
tradition, to insist upon a strict separation between legislative and executive powers.in absence of
the contrary the doctrine of separation of power is embodied in the constitution.it was intends to
confine each of the three departments of the government the excersice of power with which it was

35 Supra note 4. p.p264.

36 (1931) HCA 34

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 93

invested by the constitution.it has accordingly been held that under the Australian constitution,
judicial and non-judicial functions cannot be united in the same persons or body of persons and
judicial persons can be vested only in a court.in various constitutional cases the high court has
separated the judicial power from the other two powers but not separated the legislative and
executive power due to the nature of the Westminster system of the responsible government37.the
high court decisions which affirms that the system of responsible government prevents the
complete separation of legislative and executive powers was Victorian stevedoring and general contracting
co pvt ltd v Digman (Digmans case) 1936.the Digmans case is also considered authority for the
proposition that parliament may delegate its power without significant restrictions.

In practice there is only partial separation of powers, that is the judiciary is independent and
separated from the other two branches i.e. The legislature and the excecative.the executive (cabinet
ministers) is formed from within the legislature (parliament).according to Hughes Australia has a
political system that is suggested to be on that follows the Westminster parliamentary system and
responsible government. The Australian system of government combines and uses aspects of both
the UK model and the US model of government and separation of powers. The Australian model
is therefore a mixture of English and American model. These models have important philosophical
and theoretical organs based in significant historical events. The English separation of model based
in the English revolution of s1688 and the American separation of power model based on
American revolution of 1775 and the declaration of independence of 1776.there was not a similar
revolution in Australia, instead it has been gradual peaceful social, political and constitutional
reforms. Thomson (1980) coined the term “washminster mutation” to describe the mixed parentage
of Australia. The Australian political system is a hybrid of the Westminster system of government
and the American federal and constitutional aspects of government. There is a significant
difference between the theory and practice of separation of powers in countries like the UK, US
and the Australia.

SEPERATION OF POWER IN CANADA

Canada’s system of government is based on a parliamentary model quite distinct from the
presidential system operating in U.S.A.The leading constitutional writers observed that the
Canada’s retention of the British system o responsible government is utterly inconsistent with any

37 Waterside workers federation of Australia v j.w.alexandra ltd (Alexandra case) 1918 25 CLR 434

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 94

separation of the executive and legislative.38While this is one important view it has never been
approved by the supreme court of Canada.in the case of dismantle v the queen, 39the supreme
court refer the doctrine a ‘essential feature of the constitution”.the separation of power in Canada exists
only between the judiciary and the parliament, not between the executive and the legislature within
the parliament has become constitutional orthodoxy. The supreme court of Canada in the case of
peter Hogg claims that, there is no general separation of power in the constitution act 1867.the
act doesn’t separate the legislative, executive and judicial functions and insist that each branch of
government excersice only its own functions.as between the legislative and executive branches,
any separation of power would make little sense in a system of responsible government ; and its
clearly established that the act doesn’t call for any such separation. According to Hogg Canada have
little separation of powers doctrine. The constitutional act 1867, establishes executive power by ss.9-
16.these provisions vests the executive power in the queen, and calls for its excersice by the
governor general and Privy Council. The constitutional act 1867, establishes significant power in
the executive branch, including by s.15, the command of armed force. The constitutional act 1867
identifies and organises separate constitutional status as well for the legislature (section 17-52) and
judiciary (section 96-101) and specifies their respective powers and limits. It’s worth remembering
that within the text of constitutional act 1867 the three branches of government are connected
functionally as to give each a constitutional control over the other. Parliament is invested with the
constitutional powers to enact all federal laws and to establish federal courts. Parliament is checked
by the powers of the executive to call the houses of commons into session. [Sec 38].and by the
power of the judiciary to declare laws unconstitutional .parliament is also checked by the powers
in the executive to reserve bills passed by the house of parliament and to disallows laws enacted
[sec55-7].the veto-like powers, designed for British control of Canadian law making, have long
since fallen into disuse, but they still exist in the text and the structure of the constitution. The
judicial branch has a constitutional power to try all cases, to interpret the laws in those cases and
to declare any law or executive act UN constitutional . The judiciary is checked by the powers in
the executive to appoint its members by power in the legislature to enact amendments that
overturn judicial decision, including many constitutional decisions and also by the combined
power of the executive and legislative branches to remove the judges.

38 Hogg, constitutional law of Canada ,1999 student ed.,p.321

39 (1985),1 SCR 441,491

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 95

SEPERATION OF POWER IN INDIA

The doctrine of separation of power in India has not accorded a constitutional status. However
the framers of the constitution doesn’t support accumulation of power.in the constituent assembly
there was a proposal to incorporate this doctrine but the same was not accepted and was dropped.
In Constituent Assembly Debates Prof. K.T. Shah a member of Constituent Assembly laid
emphasis to insert by amendment a new Article 40-A concerned with doctrine of separation of
powers. This Article reads: “There shall be complete separation of powers as between the principal
organs of the State, viz; the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.”

Kazi Syed Karimuddin (a member of Constituent Assembly) was entirely in agreement with the
amendment of Prof. K.T. Shah. Shri K. Hanumanthiya, a member of Constituent Assembly
dissented with the proposal of Prof. K.T. Shah. He stated that Drafting Committee has given
approval to Parliamentary system of Government suitable to this country and Prof. Shah sponsors
in his amendment the Presidential Executive. He further commented: “Instead of having a
conflicting trinity it is better to have a harmonious governmental structure. If we completely
separate the executive, judiciary and the legislature conflicts are bound to arise between these three
departments of Government. In any country or in any government, conflicts are suicidal to the
peace and progress of the country. Therefore in a governmental structure it is necessary to have
what is called “harmony” and not this three-fold conflict.”40

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena also agreed with the view of Shri K. Hanumanthiya. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar,
one of the important architect of Indian Constitution, disagreeing with the argument of Prof. K.T.
Shah, advocated thus: “There is no dispute whatsoever that the executive should be separated
from the judiciary. With regard to the separation of the executive from the legislature, it is true
that such a separation does exist in the Constitution of United States; but many Americans
themselves were quite dissatisfied with the rigid separation embodied in the American Constitution
between the executive and legislature. There is not slightest doubt in my mind and in the minds of
many students of Political Science, that the work of Parliament is so complicated, so vast that
unless and until the members of the Legislature receive direct guidance and initiative from the
members of the Executive, sitting in Parliament, it would be very difficult for Members of
Parliament to carry on the work of the Legislature. I personally therefore, do not think that there
is any very great loss that is likely to occur if we do not adopt the American method of separating

TEJ Bhadur Sing; Principles of separation of powers and concentration of authority, J.T.R.I-journal 2nd year 2 & 5
40

march 1966.

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 96

the Executive from the Legislature.41” With the aforesaid observations the motion to insert a new
Article 40-A dealing with the separation of powers was negatived i.e. turned down.

Article 50 of the constitution which enjoins the separation of judiciary from the executive, the
constitutional scheme doesn’t embody any formalistic and dogmatic division of power42. The
Indian constitution doesn’t speak of the functions of the three organs of the state. Under the entire
constitution article 53 provides only the executive power is vested within the president and it shall
be exercised by him in accordance with the constitution either directly or through sub-ordinate
officers appointed by him. The supreme court in the case of Ram jawaya kapur v state of
Punjab43observed that the “Indian constitution hasn’t indeed recognized the doctrine of separation of power in
its absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government have been sufficiently
differentiated and consequently it can be very well said that our constitution doesn’t contemplate assumption by one
organ or part of the state of function that essentially belong to another”.

Just like article 53(1) and 154 (1),where the executive power of the union and of the states vested
with the president and of the governors respectively , there is no corresponding provisions in our
constitution which provides legislative power and the judicial power to a particular organ.
Accordingly in Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain44the court observed the Indian constitution adopts
separation of power in broad sense only. A rigid separation of power as under the American
constitution or under Australian constitution doesn’t apply in India.in the result, there is no bar
against vesting the judicial powers of states in tribunal other than the courts strictly-so called. The
very fact that the article 136 (1) and 227(1) of the constitution mentions both courts and tribunals
shows that the judicial power of the state may vested in courts and tribunals, even though the two
class of judicial authorities may differ as to the nature as the question referred to them, the
procedure to be followed by them and the like.

if we study the provisions of constitution carefully on can find that the doctrine of separation of
power had not been accepted in India in strict sence.but one can inclined that the doctrine of
separation of power has been accepted in india.in the case of Golakhnath v state of Punjab45,Subba
Rao, C.J. observed;

41 Constuent assembly debates book no 2, vol no VIII second print 1989 p,967-968
42 Upendra baxi; development in Indian administrative law, in public law in India, 1982(A.G.Noorani, ED) p.136.
43 Air 1955 SC 549
44 1975 SUPP SCC 1;AIR 1975 SC 2299
45 AIR 1967 SC 1643

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 97

“The constitution brings into existence different constitutional entities, namely, the union, the states, and the union
territories.it creates three major instruments of power, namely the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.it
demarcates their jurisdiction minutely and expects them to exercise their respective powers without overstepping their
limits. They should function within the spheres allotted to them”

In Bandhuva mukti morcha v union of India, 46Pathak J. (as he then was) observed;

“The constitution envisages a broad division of the power of state between the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary. Although the power is not precisely demarcated, there is generally acknowledgment of its limits. The limit
can be gathered from the written of the constitution, from conventions and constitutional practices, and from an
entire array of judicial decisions’

In India, not only there is functional overlapping but there is personal overlapping also. The
Supreme Court has power to declare the laws void passed by the legislature and the actions of
executive if they violate any provision of the constitution or of any law passed by the parliament.
The power to amend the constitution of parliament is subject to judicial Secrutunity of the court.
Every law passed by legislature is void if they violate the basic structure of the constitution as
propounded by the supreme court of India in the kesavananda bharati case. The president of India
who is the executive head also enjoys law making power in the form of ordinance-making power,
making laws for a state after the state legislature is dissolved. And also judicial power under article
103(1) and article 217(3), to mention only a few. He decides disputes regarding the age of judge of
a high court or the Supreme Court for the purpose of retiring him47.the president also enjoys the
power regarding dis-qualification of any members of any house of parliament.48The executive
furthered affect the judiciary by making appointment to the office of chief justice and other judges.

Likewise the parliament excersice legislative function and is competent to make any law not
inconsistent with the provisions of constitution, but many legislative functions are delegated to the
executive.in certain situations the parliament perform judicial functions as well. Article 105 of the
constitution of India gives power to parliament to decide the question of breech of its privilege
and if proved can punish a person concerned.in case of impeachment of president, one house acts
as prosecutor and the other house investigates the charge and decides whether they were proved
or not. The latter is purely judicial function.49

46 AIR 1984 SC 802

47 Article 217(3) inserted by the constution 15th amendment act 1963
48 Article 103,of the constution
49 Article 66, of the constution.

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 98

On the other hand the judiciary is supposed to perform judicial functions but they perform
executive and sometimes legislative functions as well. Under article 227 of the constitution, the
high courts has supervisory powers over all sub-ordinate courts and tribunals, and also the power
to transfer cases. The high court and the Supreme Court frames rules, regulations, regulating their
own procedure for conduct and disposal of cases.50High court rules, Supreme Court rules are few
examples of it. Judiciary under Indian Constitution has been given an independent status. It has
been assigned the role of an independent umpire to guard the constitution and thereby ensure that
other branches may not exceed their powers and function within the constitutional framework.
Commenting and clarifying the concept of independence of judiciary, Sir A.K. Aiyar, who was one
of the framers of the Constitution, had observed that51-

“The doctrine of independence (of judiciary) is not to be raised to a level of a dogma so as to

enable the judiciary to function as a kind of super-legislature or super executive. The judiciary is
there to interpret the constitution or to adjudicate upon the rights between the parties concerned”

JUDICIAL PRONUNCEMENTS

The following cases explain the real position of doctrine of separation of powers prevailing in
India...

In Re Delhi Law Act case52 Honble Chief Justice Kania observed: “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 for making that legislature pass laws. It is
then too much to say that under the Constitution the duty to make laws, the duty to exercise its
own wisdom, judgment and patriotism in making law is primarily cast on the legislature? Does it
not imply that unless it can be gathered from other provisions of the Constitution, other bodies
executive or judicial are not intended to discharge legislative functions?

In Golakhnath vs. state of Punjab53, the constitution brings into existence different
constitutional entities.it creates three major instruments of power, namely legislature, executive,
and the judiciary.it demarcates their jurisdiction minutely and without overstepping their limits.
It’s clear that the doctrine of separation of power has not been accepted in India in strict sense.

50 Article 145,225 of the constution

51 Citied in Glanville Austin, the Indian constution; corner stone of a nation-174 (1966)
52 1951 SCR 747 AIR 1951 SC 332
53 AIR 1967 SC 1643

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 99

The Supreme Court has power to declare void the laws passed by the legislature and the actions
taken by executive if they violate any provision of the constitution. The executive can affect the
functioning of judiciary by making appointment to the office of chief justice and other judges.

In Asif Hameed v. State of J & K54, it has been held that

Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognized under the constitution in
its absolute rigidity but the constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various
organs of the state. Legislative, Executive and Judiciary have to function within their respective
spheres demarcated under the constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another.
Legislative and executive organs, the two facets of the people‘s will, have all the powers including
that of finance. Judiciary has no power over sword or the purse. Nonetheless it has power to
ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of the state function within the constitutional limits. It
is the sentinel of democracy.

In Jayantilal Amritalal Shodhan V F.N.Rana,55 it was observed by the court that it cannot be
assumed that the legislative functions are exclusively performed by the legislature, executive
functions by the executive and the judicial functions by the judiciary alone. Our constitution has
not made an absolute or rigid division of functions between three agencies of the state.

In Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar56, Honble Chief Justice S.R. Das opined that in
the absence of specific provision for separation of powers in our Constitution, such as there is
under the American Constitution, some such division of powers legislative, executive and judicial-
is nevertheless implicit in our Constitution

In Udai Ram Sharma v. Union of India57, Supreme Court held that “The American doctrine of
well-defined separation of legislative and judicial powers has no application to India.”

In Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala58, Honble Chief Justice Sikri observed: “Separation
of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is a part of the basic structure of
the Constitution; this structure cannot be destroyed by any form of amendment.”

54 AIR 1989 SC 1899

55 AIR 1964 SC 648; (1964) 5 SCR 294
56 AIR 1958 S.C. 538 at p. 546
57 AIR 1968 S.C. 1138
58 AIR 1973 SC 1461

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 100

In Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P59. Supreme Court held: “The Indian Constitution, though it
does not accept the strict doctrine of separation of powers, provides for an independent judiciary
in the States. But at the time the direct control of the executive. Indeed it is common knowledge
that in pre-independence India there was a strong agitation that the judiciary should be separated
from the executive and that the agitation that the judiciary should be separated from the executive
and that the agitation was based upon the assumption that unless they were separated, the
independence of the judiciary at the power levels would be a mockery.” (See also S.C. Advocates-
on-Record Case, AIR 1994 S.C. 268 at p. 272).

The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Jethmalani vs. Union of India60 Sudershan Reddy and
surrender Singh Nijjar JJ, constuting the SIT’S is the apparent violation of separation of powers.

61
In Minerva Mills Case ‘’under our constitution we have no rigid separation of powers as in
united states of America, but there is a broad demarcation though, having regard to complex nature
of the governmental functions, certain degree of overlapping is inevitable. The reason for this
broad separation of power is that the concentration of power in any one organ may, to quote the
words of j chandrachud (as he then was) in smt.indira Gandhi’s case, by upsetting that fine balance
between the three organs, destroy the fundamental premises of a democratic government to which
are pledged.

CONCLUSION

The constitution of U.S.A and Australia expressly incorporated the doctrine of separation of
power. While on the other side the countries like England, India and Canada the doctrine of
separation of power is not expressly provided but is impliedly incorporated. Whether the doctrine
is expressly provided or impliedly provided the strict adherence to the applicability of the doctrine
is impossible because it’s humanely impossible to restrict the functioning of state into three organs
precisely. The organs of the state needs to be in such a manner so as to overlap between one
another. The doctrines of separation of power is a theoretical concept and leads to the collapse of
the system. . Prof. Garner has rightly said the doctrine is impracticable as a working principle of
Government. It is not possible to categorize the functions of all three branches of Government
on mathematical basis. The observation of Frankfurter is notable in this connection. According to

59 AIR 1966 SC 1987

60 W.P.(C) NO.176 OF 2009,Decided on 04 july-2010
61 AIR 1980,SC,1789

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]
Commonwealth Law Review Journal 101

him Enforcement of a rigid conception of separation of powers would make Government

impossible. It is my opinion that the doctrine of Montesquieu is not merely a myth but also carries
a truth, but in the sense that each organ of the Government should exercise its power on the
principle of Checks and Balances signifying the fact that none of the organs of Government should
usurp the essential functions of the other organs. Professor Laski has aptly remarked. It is
necessary to have a separation of functions which need not imply a separation of personnel.

Commonwealth Law Review Journal

Volume 3 [September 2017]