The legislative, executive, and judicial branches of a democratic nation’s government are known as the trias politica model, and each branch has its own distinct independent powers and responsibilities. India is a democracy with power divided among these branches, which each oversee a different aspect of government.

It is generally accepted that there are three main categories of governmental functions – (i) the Legislative, (ii) the Executive, and (iii) the Judicial. At the same time, there are three main organs of the Government in State, i.e., legislature, executive and judiciary. According to the theory of separation of powers, these three powers and functions of the Government must, in a free democracy, always be kept separate and exercised by separate organs of the Government. Thus, the legislature cannot exercise executive or judicial power; the executive cannot exercise legislative or judicial power of the Government.

SIGNIFICANCE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

Concentration of power in one centre/authority, can lead to maladministration, corruption, nepotism and abuse of power.

Separation of powers helps in-

1. Preventing autocracy
2. Create efficient administration
3. Independency of power is maintained
4. Prevents the legislature from enacting arbitrary or unconstitutional laws.

Separation of the judiciary and executive branches is covered in Article 50 of the Indian Constitution. It states that the State must take action to keep the executive and judicial branches apart in its public services.
According to Montesquieu, if the Executive and the Legislature are the same person or group of people, there is a risk that the Legislature will pass oppressive laws that the Executive will implement to further its own objectives. This creates the potential for arbitrary rule and turns the Judge into a legislator rather than a law interpreter.

If the legislative authority were added to the power of that person, it would be arbitrary power, which would amount to complete tyranny, if one person or group of people could use both the executive and judicial powers in the same case. The doctrine’s value comes from its attempt to protect human liberty by preventing the consolidation of power in the hands of one person or group of people. Therefore, it is important to avoid the various government institutions from intruding on one another’s jurisdiction. In India, the legislative branch also includes the executive. The President, who is in charge of the executive branch, follows recommendations of the Council of Ministers.

The three branches of government’s roles are sufficiently distinct, even though the Indian Constitution does not acknowledge the notion of absolute rigidity in the separation of powers.State of Punjab v. Ram Jawaya, AIR 1955 SC 549. None of the three government organs can assume the duties that have been delegated to them.State of Kerala v. Keshanand Bharti, AIR 1973 SC 1461; State of J&K v. Asif Hameed, AIR 1989 SC 1899. The Supreme Court ruled in State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (AIR 1997 SC 1511) that the judiciary must acknowledge the fundamental character and significance of the legislative process and must show it the respect and consideration it deserves.

The judiciary is likewise supposed to get the respect and consideration it deserves from the Legislative and Executive. The Indian Constitution acknowledges and upholds the idea of equality among the three branches of the government. The plan already includes the idea of checks and balances.

Relationship between Legislature and Judiciary

Even though the functions of the executive and the judiciary are well-defined in the Constitution, the system of checks and balances ensures that each one can impose checks on the other.

• The judiciary can strike down laws that it considers unconstitutional or arbitrary.
• The legislature, on its part, has protested against judicial activism and tried to frame laws to circumvent certain judgments.
• Judicial activism is said to be against the principle of separation of powers.
• There have been instances where the courts have issued laws and policies through judgements. For example, the Vishakha Guidelines where the SC issued guidelines on sexual harassment.
• In 2010, the SC directed the government to undertake the distribution of food grains.
• If the judiciary oversteps its mandate and crosses over into the territory of the legislature or the executive, it is called judicial overreach.

Judicial Supremacy and Parliamentary Sovereignty

To strike a balance between the judiciary and the legislature, the Indian constitution uses the following principles:

• The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty has been adapted from the British Constitution.
• The doctrine of Judicial Supremacy has been adapted from the American Constitution.
• The power of judicial review of the Supreme Court of India is narrower in scope than the Supreme Court of the USA.
• The Constitution of India guarantees ‘established procedure by law’ in Article 21 instead of the ‘due process of law’ provided in the American Constitution.
• The Indian Constitution has opted for an amalgamation of Britain’s principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the judicial supremacy of the USA.
• The Supreme Court, on the one hand, can declare the parliamentary enactments as unconstitutional using the power of judicial review.
• The Parliament, on the other hand, can amend a large chunk of the Constitution using its constituent power.

Relationship between Legislature and Executive

The Constitution states that the executive branch of the State (Council of Ministers) shall be collectively responsible to the Legislature (Lok Sabha). This implies that the Parliament should supervise the work of the government and hold it accountable for its actions.

• In a parliamentary form of government, the executive is not separated from the legislature in that the members of the council of ministers are members of the legislature.
• The executive loses power when it loses the confidence of the legislature. The executive/council of ministers is dismissed if it loses the legislature’s confidence before its tenure is over. So, the legislature controls the executive through a vote of no-confidence.
• The head of government and head of state are different. The head of the government is the Prime Minister while the head of state is the President.
• The parliament makes laws in general broad terms and delegates the powers to the executive to formulate detailed policy and implement them.
• In a presidential form of government, the executive is not accountable to the legislature. One person is the heads of both the State as well as the government. A minister need not be from the legislature.

Relationship between Executive and Judiciary

There are several provisions in the Constitution that make the judiciary independent. This is because, it is believed that for a democracy to remain efficient and effective, the judiciary must be independent. The judiciary is said to be the guardian of the constitution. If the executive also assumes judicial powers, that sort of a government tends to become oppressive.

However, there are some judicial functions which are performed by the executive as well. They are:

1. The appointments of the judges are made by the executive.
2. The President and the Governors also enjoy the power to pardon, reprieve, etc. These are direct judicial functions.
3. Under the system of administrative adjudication, the executive agencies have the power to hear and decide cases involving particular fields of administrative activity.

The judiciary also performs some executive functions. It can review the actions of the executive and declare them void if found unconstitutional.