Judicial Pronouncements In India And Separation Of Power Theory

 Judicial Pronouncements In India And Separation Of Power Theory

Judicial Proclamations in India and the Theory of Separation of Powers

This section discusses the evolution of the theory as it has been revealed via a series of court decisions and case laws. It may be concluded from the foregoing discussion that there is no hard and fast rule when it comes to the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary in the United States. The legislative branch is referred to as a lawmaker, whereas the judiciary is referred to as a law interpreter. The division of authority, jurisdiction, and so on is tacitly established.

In Re, Delhi Laws Act, the Supreme Court of India declared for the first time that, unless in cases where the power has been delegated to an organ by the constitution, the principle that one organ shall not undertake functions that belong to another organ is adhered to in the country. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, for example, the Supreme Court observed that "it is the fundamental precept of India's Constitution that the legal sovereign power has been apportioned between the legislative to enact laws, the executive to administer laws, and the judiciary to interpret laws."

In Jayantilal Amritalal Shodhan v. F. N. Rana, the court found that it cannot be assumed that legislative functions are only carried out by the legislature, administrative activities are only carried out by the executive, and judicial functions are only carried out by the judiciary.

One of the most well-known decisions of the Indian Supreme Court, Golak Nath v. the State of Punjab, found that each of the three organs has its own set of powers, functions, and responsibilities. They should operate with this in mind because they have unquestionably been constitutionally mandated to do so. It also maintains its limits and does not exceed the authority and jurisdiction of other organs and authorities.

Nothing is more important than the Constitution, and all of the government's organs must operate in accordance with the Constitution's directives. Article 368 of the Constitution has been raised on numerous occasions, and the question that has arisen is about it. It is concerned with the power of the parliament to modify the constitution. However, there have been instances in which the claimed power has been arbitrarily exercised by the Parliament, allowing it to maintain a strong grip on power over the court.

The court, which has historically served as the ultimate arbiter of the law, has issued a ruling on the breadth of the power granted on the Indian Parliament in the topic of amendments to the Constitution. In the landmark judgement of Keshvananda Bharti v. the State of Kerala, the Supreme Court of India expressed a similar point of view, holding that the amending authority of parliament is subject to the fundamental provisions of the Constitution. Making any arbitrary law will not allow Parliament to overthrow the fundamental framework as established by the judiciary.

So any law that acts arbitrarily in nature will be declared unconstitutional and will be overturned by the courts. The idea of basic structure was also brought to light as a result of this decision. The bench also ruled that separation of powers is the fundamental framework of the Constitution, and that no one, not even the Indian government, could undermine that structure by restoring Article 368 of the Indian Constitution.

It is not that either of the organs should be free from encroachment, but that encroachment should be within reasonable boundaries and should not be excessive, as this would jeopardise the independence of the organs. In contrast, in Udai Ram Sharma v. Union of India, the court found that "the American idea of separation of powers is precise and does not apply to India," according to the court.

Consequently, it may be concluded from the preceding analysis that the three organs must act within the boundaries of their authority and must refrain from acting arbitrarily or by undermining the fundamental structure of the Indian Constitution in any way.