SEPARATION OF POWERS IN

INDIA
In India, the doctrine of separation of powers has not been
accorded constitutional status. Apart from the directive
principle laid down in Article 50 which enjoins separation
of judiciary from the executive, the constitutional scheme
does not embody any formalistic and dogmatic division of
powers.
The Supreme Court held in Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of
Punjab
“Indian Constitution has not indeed recognized the
doctrine of separation of powers 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
does not contemplate assumption by one organ or part of
the State of functions that essentially belong to another.”
In India, this doctrine cannot claim any historical
background.
Till 19th century, Legislature does not appeared as
a body separate from executives.
It was firstly proposed by K.T. Shah at the time of
drafting of the Constitution but the idea was
dropped down. But article 50 provided the
separation of judiciary from the executives. There
is implicit division of the three but this doctrine is
not wholly incorporated in our Constitution.
As a general practice, the executive has been
entrusted with the legislative and judicial powers.
The executive power is vested in the President of Indian Union
under Article 53 (1) and Governors of the State under Article 154
(1).
Article 53states that the executive power of the Union shall be
vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either
directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance
with this Constitution. Whereas article 74 states that There shall
be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to
aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his
functions, act in accordance with such advice:
Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers
to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the
President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after
such reconsideration.
The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by
Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.
The President being the head of the Union exercises his power
constitutionally on the aid and advice of Council of Ministers.
Under article 123, he can perform legislative powers in the name
of Ordinance making power under article 123 whereas governor
can exercise legislative powers under article 213. He can make
laws under article 356 at the time of emergency. Under article
372 and 372-A, his functions are purely legislative.
Under article 103, he performs the judicial functions.
High Courts under article 227 and 228 perform the
administrative functions.
According to Article 75 (5), no individual can be the member of
Council of Minister unless he is also the member of either house
of Parliament. The principle of collective responsibility of
ministers to the LokSabha is negation of Doctrine of Separation
of Powers.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, Ray C.J. observed that
in the Indian Constitution there is separation of powers in a
broad sense only. A rigid separation of powers as under the
American Constitution or under the Australian Constitution
does not apply to India. However, the Court held that though
the constituent power is independent of the doctrine of
separation of powers to implant the story of basic structure as
developed in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerela, on the ordinary legislative powers will be an
encroachment on the theory of separation of powers.
But, Beg, J. added that separation of powers is a part of the
basic structure of the Constitution. None of the three separate
organs of the Republic can take over the functions assigned to
the other. This scheme of the Constitution cannot be changed
even by resorting to Article 368 of the Constitution.
In India, not only is there a functional overlapping but there is personnel
overlapping also. The Supreme Court has the power to declare void the
laws passed by the legislature and the actions taken by the executive if the
violate any provision of the Constitution or the law passed by the
legislature in case of executive actions.
Even the power to amend the Constitution by Parliament is subject to the
scrutiny of the Court. The Court can declare any amendment void if it
changes the basic structure of the Constitution. 
The President of India in whom the Executive Authority of India is vested
exercises lawmaking power in the shape of ordinance making power and
also the judicial powers under Article 103(1) and Article 217(3) to
mention only a few.
The Council of Ministers is selected from the Legislature and is
responsible to the Legislature. The Legislature besides exercising law-
making powers exercises judicial powers in cases of breach of its
privilege, impeachment of the President and the removal of the judges.
The Executive may further affect the functioning of the judiciary by
making appointments to the office of the Chief Justice and other Judges. 
 JUDICIAL APPROACH
There were times where the judiciary has faced tough challenges in
maintaining and preserving the Doctrine of separation of power and it has in
the process of preservation of the above Doctrine has delivered landmark
judgments which clearly talks about the independence of judiciary as well as
the success of judiciary in India for the last six decades.
The first major judgment by the judiciary in relation to Doctrine of
separation of power was in Ram Jawaya v State of Punjab. The court in the
above case was of the opinion that the Doctrine of separation of power was
not fully accepted in India. Further, the view of Mukherjee J adds weight to
the argument that the above-said doctrine is not fully accepted in India. He
states that-
“The Indian constitution has not indeed recognized the doctrine of
separation of powering its absolute rigidity but the functions of the different
parts or branches of the government have been sufficiently differentiated and
consequently it can very well be said that our constitution does not
contemplate assumption, by one organ or part of the state, of functions that
essentially belong to another”.
Later in I.C. Golak Nath v State of Punjab, Subha
Rao, C.J opined that
“The constitution brings into existence different
constitutional entitles, namely the union, the state
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 there
limits. They should function with the spheres
allotted to them”
The above opinion of the court clearly states the change in
the court’s views pertaining to the opinion in the case
of Ram Jawaya v State of Punjab related to the doctrine of
separation of power.
In Keshvananda Bharti v Union of India, theSupreme
Court was of the view that amending power was now
subject to the basic features of the constitution. And hence,
any amendment tampering these essential features will be
struck down as unconstitutional.
Beg, J. added that separation of powers is a part of the basic
structure of the constitution. None of the three separate
organs of the republic can take over the functions assigned
to the other. Hence this further confirmed the opinion of the
court in relation to the doctrine of separation of power.
In Indira Gandhi Nehru v. Raj Narain, where the
dispute regarding P.M. election was pending before the
Supreme Court, opined that adjudication of a specific
dispute is a judicial function which parliament, even
under constitutional amending power, cannot exercise i.e.
the parliament does not have the jurisdiction to perform a
function which the other organ is responsible for
otherwise there will be chaos as there will be overlapping
of the jurisdictions of the three organs of the state.
Also, 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.” So if there is a provision then there
should be proper implementation and this judgment
emphasis on that point only.
Also in I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu, S.C. took the
opinion opined by the Supreme court in Kesavananda
Bharati case pertaining to the doctrine of basic structure and
held that the Ninth Schedule is violative of the above-said
doctrine and hence from now on the Ninth Schedule will be
amenable to judicial review which also forms part of the
basic structure theory.
From the above few case laws right from Ram Jawaya v
state of Punjab in 1955 to I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil
Nadu in there has been a wide change of opinion as in the
beginning the court was of the opinion that as such there is
no Doctrine of Separation of Power in the constitution of
India but then as the passage of time the opinion of the
Supreme Court has also changed and now it does include the
above said Doctrine as the basic feature of the Constitution.