The Indian
Government is divided into three main organs which we know as “The Executive”,
The Judiciary”, and “The Legislative”. The three organs represent the people of
our country and they together are responsible for the smooth running of a
democratic government in our society.

The legislature is the law-making body, the executive is
responsible for the enforcement of all such laws and the judiciary deals with
the cases that arise from a breach of law.  All the three organs are
interlinked, and their roles and functions tend to overlap with each other at
times, since it is not possible to completely separate the three organs from
each other. The overlap has not only caused a lot of political debates in our
country but has also raised philosophic and jurisprudential debates among legal
scholars and the law fraternity in our country. The important question, whether
there should be a complete separation of power among the three organs or a well
co-ordinated system of distribution of powers, is the focal point of
contemplation.

All
three branches have “checks and balances” over each other to maintain
the balance of power and not to exceed the constitutional limits.

·        
President
can set aside a law passed
by the legislative or an advice given by the Union Council of Ministers when it is inconsistent with the constitution
of India.

·        
Even
president accepts a law passed duly by the legislative, it can be repealed by the Supreme Court after a fair trial if it is against the Basic structure of the constitution. Any citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court directly to repeal the unconstitutional laws
made by the legislative or executive.

·        
President
can be impeached after conducting a fair trial by the parliament for his
unconstitutional orders/decisions.

·        
President
can be asked to step down by the judiciary for his unconstitutional orders/decisions on
the grounds of losing eligibility criteria of the president.

·        
Parliament
can impeach judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of states for their
incompetence and mala fides.
Higher bench of judges can set aside the incorrect judgements of smaller bench
of judges to uphold the constitution.

The Doctrine of
Separation of Powers as given by the French researcher Montesquieu, back in the
sixteenth century expresses that, “There would be a finish of everything,
were a similar man or same body, regardless of whether of the nobles or of the
general population, to practice those three powers, that of sanctioning laws,
that of executing laws, that of executing open resolutions, and of attempting
the reasons for people.”

 

He called
attention to that setting power in the hands of just a single organ or
gathering in an administration would involve oppression. To diminish this
issue, he made sense of that the best arrangement was to disseminate the power
in three unmistakable organs of the legislature, i.e. the governing body, the
official and the legal. He felt this would enable every organ to be autonomous
of the other, which will prompt no infringement or covering of forces and would
in the end the administration could run easily with congruity.

 

The Constitution
of India sets out an utilitarian division of the organs of the State in the
accompanying way:

 

•           Article 50: State might find a way to
isolate the legal from the official. This is to ensure the freedom of legal.

 

•           Article 122 and 212: legitimacy of
procedures in Parliament and the Legislatures can’t be raised doubt about in
any Court. This guarantees the partition and invulnerability of the assemblies
from legal mediation on the charge of procedural inconsistency.

 

•           Judicial direct of a judge of the
Supreme Court and the High Courts’ can’t be talked about in the Parliament and
the State Legislature, as per Article 121 and 211 of the Constitution.

 

•           Articles 53 and 154 individually,
give that the official energy of the Union and the State might be vested with
the President and the Governor and they appreciate invulnerability from common
and criminal obligation.

 

•           Article 361: the President or the
Governor should not be responsible to any court for the activity and execution
of the forces and obligations of his office.

 

•           The governing body other than
practicing law-production powers practices legal powers in instances of break
of its benefit, arraignment of the President and the expulsion of the judges.

 

•           The official may additionally
influence the working of the legal by making arrangements to the workplace of
Chief Justice and different judges.

 

•           Legislature practicing legal powers
on account of changing a law proclaimed ultra vires by the Court and
revalidating it.

 

•           While releasing the capacity of
precluding its individuals and indictment of the judges, the lawmaking body
releases the elements of the legal.

 

•           Legislature can force discipline for
surpassing the right to speak freely in the Parliament; this goes under the
forces and benefits of the parliament. However, while practicing such power it
is constantly important that it ought to be in congruity with due process.

 

•           The leaders of each administrative
service is an individual from the governing body, hence making the official a
fundamental piece of the council.

 

•           The chamber of pastors on whose
guidance the President and the Governor demonstrations are chosen individuals
from the lawmaking body.

 

•           Legislative power that is being
vested with the governing body in specific conditions can be practiced by the
official. On the off chance that the President or the Governor, when the
council or isn’t in session and is fulfilled that conditions exist that require
quick activity may declare statute which has a similar power of the Act made by
the Parliament or the State lawmaking body.

 

•           The Constitution grants, through
Article 118 and Article 208, the Legislature at the Center and in the States
separately, the specialist to influence rules for managing their individual
system and lead of business to subject to the arrangements of this
Constitution. The official additionally practices law making power under
appointed enactment.

 

•           The councils and other semi legal
bodies which are a piece of the official additionally release legal capacities.
Regulatory councils which are a piece of the official likewise release legal
capacities.

 

•           Higher regulatory courts ought to
dependably have an individual from the legal. The higher legal is consulted
with the energy of administering the working of subordinate courts. It additionally
goes about as a lawmaking body while making laws managing its direct and
standards in regards to transfer of cases.

 

Other than the
utilitarian covering, the Indian framework likewise does not have the partition
of staff among the three divisions.

 

Applying the
conventions of sacred constraint and trust in the Indian situation, a framework
is made where none of the organs can usurp the capacities or forces which are
doled out to another organ by express or important arrangement, neither would they
be able to strip themselves of fundamental capacities which have a place with
them as under the Constitution.

 

Further, the
Constitution of India explicitly accommodates an arrangement of governing rules
with a specific end goal to keep the discretionary or impulsive utilization of
energy got from the said preeminent report. Despite the fact that such a
framework seems lazy of the principle of partition of forces, it is basic with
a specific end goal to empower the fair and impartial working of such a sacred
framework.

 

By giving such
powers, a system for the control over the activity of sacred powers by the
individual organs is built up. This plainly demonstrates the Indian
Constitution in its arrangement does not accommodate a strict partition of
forces. Rather, it makes a framework comprising of the three organs of
Government and gives upon them both select and covering forces and capacities.
Along these lines, there is no supreme division of capacities between the three
organs of Government.

 

Hence, the
division of forces principle, in principle, goes for isolating force and
spreading it with the end goal that oppression by the legislature might be
avoided totally as equivalent power vests in three separate organs which go
about as a check and adjust for each other. Therefore relegating an alternate
capacity to every organ and making restrictive capacities for them counters the
convergence of forces and makes this tenet a win. Truth be told this tenet has
been received the world over in numerous constitutions and in our own to a
degree too. It is an amazing method for ensuring human freedom and making an
arrangement of administration which is dependable and reasonable.

 

Regularly known
as the ‘Father of American Constitution’, American government official, James
Madison, expressed that “The amassing of all forces, authoritative,
official and legal, in similar hands whether of one, a couple, or numerous and
whether inherited, self-designated or elective, may fairly be articulated the
very meaning of oppression.”

 

The above
proclamation in more straightforward words implies that the smooth and
agreeable running of government can be gotten by appropriate conveyance of
energy among the three organs of the majority rule government.

 

In India, the
open deliberation about the appropriation of forces dates as long back as the
Constitution itself, and was broadly bantered in the Constituent Assembly.
Presently, it does obviously appear that the constitution of India has been
made taking the division of forces teaching into thought, however it hasn’t
been expressed or grasped by the constitution itself. In spite of the fact that
an exertion has been made by the composers of the constitution to keep the
organs isolated, a great deal of covering and blend of forces has been to given
to each of the three organs of the administration.

 

The
authoritative and official wings are firmly associated with each other because
of this, the official is capable to the lawmaking body for its activities and
gets its forces from the assembly. The leader of the official is the president,
however a more critical look demonstrates that he is just an ostensible head
and the genuine power rests with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet of
clergymen as in Article 74(1). In specific circumstances the President has the
ability to practice legal and administrative capacities.

 

For instance,
while issuing laws Art? The legal too performs managerial and administrative
capacities. The parliament too may perform legal capacities, for instance if a
president is to be indicted the two places of Parliament are to play a dynamic
participatory part. Along these lines every one of the three organs go about as
a check and adjust to each other and work in coordination and collaboration to
influence our parliamentary arrangement of administration to work. India being
a to a great degree expansive and differing nation needs a framework like this
where all organs are mindful to each different and in addition composed to each
other, generally making administration conceivable turns into an exceptionally
unbending and troublesome errand.

 

Note that the
division of forces is as yet an imperative directing guideline of the
constitution. Most critical is our legal framework which is totally autonomous
from the official and the lawmaking body. The High Courts and Supreme Courts
have the energy of legal audit which enables them to announce any law go by the
parliament illegal on the off chance that it so chooses. As concerning the
judges, they are greatly all around secured by the Constitution their lead
isn’t available to discourse in the Parliament and their arrangement must be
made by the President in discussion with the Chief Justice of India and the
judges of the Supreme court.

 

Here a dialog on
legal activism is adept, the verbal confrontation about legal activism
considers judges accepting authoritative or official capacities and there is
much worry among the heroes of the activism banter about judges assuming
control and barging in on the elements of the council and official. A reference
to Montesquieu’s entry in his book Separation of Powers might be made,
“Again there is no freedom, if the energy of judgment be not isolated from
the administrative and official forces. Were it joined with the administrative
the life and freedom of the subject would be presented to self-assertive
control; for the judge would be then the lawmaker.