Indian Polity, TLP-UPSC Mains Answer Writing
Q. 4. The Indian Constitution does not provide for a strict separation of powers, but recent events highlight growing tensions among the three organs of the state. Do you think the balance between the legislature, executive, and judiciary is being disrupted? Critically examine. (250words, 15 marks)
Introduction
Separation of powers means dividing duties among the legislature, executive, and judiciary to avoid power concentration and ensure checks and balances. The Indian Constitution follows this in spirit, aiming for balance over strict division.
Body
Constitutional Basis of the Doctrine
The Constitution does not lay down a strict separation of powers but adopts a functional separation—distinguishing roles while enabling pragmatic overlaps to ensure efficient governance and checks and balances.
Provisions enabling separation:
- Article 50: Separation of judiciary from executive in public services.
- Articles 121 & 211: Legislature barred from discussing judicial conduct.
- Articles 122 & 212: Courts barred from inquiring into legislative procedures.
- Article 361: Immunity for President and Governors from judicial proceedings. Provisions enabling functional overlap:
- Article 123: Executive ordinance-making powers.
- Article 124(4): Legislature’s role in removing judges.
- Judiciary often issues guidelines, filling legislative voids (e.g., Vishaka case).
- Delegated legislation empowers executive to make subordinate laws. Therefore, India follows a separation of functions, not of personnel or absolute powers, emphasizing coordination over isolation.
Growing Tensions Among Organs
Executive vs Legislature
- Misuse of Money Bill: Aadhaar Act (2016) bypassed Rajya Sabha—later questioned in Rojer Mathew Case 2020.
- Ordinance overreach: Excessive ordinance use during COVID diluted legislative scrutiny. Legislature vs Judiciary
- Post-verdict legislation: Laws passed to nullify court decisions (e.g., NJAC Act after SC Collegium verdict).
- Judicial overreach: Courts entering policy domain (e.g., Pegasus spyware case directions). Judiciary vs Executive
- Stalled judicial appointments: Delay in Collegium recommendations, leading to ~30% vacancies.
- Surveillance allegations: Alleged claims of Pegasus targeting judges may compromise judicial independence.
Is the Balance Being Disrupted?
- Lack of accountability: Overlap is blurring responsibility in some cases. (e.g., judicial cancellations in 2G, Coal cases).
- Erosion of faith: Repeated encroachments reduce public confidence in institutions. 3. Power accumulation: Executive actions often unchecked, tilting balance (e.g., use of ordinances).
- Hindered governance: Prolonged stand-offs (e.g., appointment delays) affect service delivery.
Why Balance Still Endures
- Judicial review as check: SC struck down Section 66A in Shreya Singhal (2015), protecting free speech.
- Legislative oversight continues: Parliamentary Committees examine key policies (e.g., Data Protection Bill).
- Cooperation aids governance: Executive and courts collaborated in COVID response (vaccine policy, oxygen supply).
- Rule of law upheld: SC upheld electoral disqualification in Lily Thomas v. Union of India 2013.
Way Forward
- Limit ordinance and Money Bill misuse: Adopt stricter norms, as suggested by Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission.
- Judicial appointment reforms: Establish a transparent Memorandum of Procedure. 3. Institutional dialogue: Create formal platforms for executive-judiciary-legislature communication.
Conclusion
Institutional balance is vital to democratic health. It must be protected through reforms, restraint, and mutual respect. “Power is safest in a system where it is checked by power.” – Montesquieu
