Separation of Powers in India: Doctrine, Debate, and Democratic Discipline.

Introduction

The doctrine of separation of powers is a key feature of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that the legislature, executive, and judiciary function within their own spheres. Recent remarks by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, questioning the judiciary's powers and calling it a "super Parliament," have sparked fresh debate on the balance between these three organs and the boundaries of judicial intervention in a constitutional democracy.

1. Constitutional Doctrine: Separation of Powers

Key Features

• A foundational principle of the Indian Constitution

• Ensures that the three organs of government — Legislature, Executive, Judiciary — operate independently within their defined roles

Points to Note

• Article 50 of the Directive Principles: Advocates separation of judiciary from the executive

• In L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review and independence form part of the basic structure

• Separation of powers is not rigid in India (as in the U.S.), but it ensures functional independence

• Violation of this balance leads to constitutional overreach and erosion of accountability

2. Supremacy of Constitution & Rule of Law

Constitutional Provisions

• The Constitution is supreme, not Parliament, Executive, or Judiciary

• Article 13: Any law inconsistent with the Constitution is void

• Rule of Law (basic structure doctrine): No one is above the law, not even high constitutional authorities

Points to Remember

• Even the President (Article 52) acts only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 74)

• Governors and Presidents are bound by constitutional norms — refusal or delay in assent to bills can face judicial review

• No authority can claim immunity if their actions violate constitutional boundaries

3. Analysis of Vice-President’s Remarks

Remarks Made

• Judges are acting like a “super Parliament”

• Judiciary has no authority to question the President or Governor’s discretion

• Judges are not accountable under existing laws

Constitutional Perspective

• Misleading Term - “Super Parliament”

  • Judiciary does not legislate but ensures laws do not violate the Constitution

  • Judicial review does not override Parliament; it upholds constitutional supremacy

• Presidential Assent & Judiciary

  • As per Articles 52, 74, 78, the President is a constitutional head and must act on advice

  • Courts may intervene in cases of undue delay to protect popular sovereignty

Implications

• Such remarks from the second-highest constitutional authority weaken public trust in institutions

• Questioning judicial accountability without proposing structured reforms reflects political overreach

4. Judicial Accountability & Checks and Balances

Constitutional Mechanisms

• Judges are accountable under the Constitution

• Article 124(4): A Supreme Court judge can be removed for “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”

• The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 governs the removal process

Role of Parliament

• Parliament can override judicial rulings by passing laws, if done constitutionally

• Balance of power is maintained through mutual checks — Judicial Review vs. Legislative Re-enactment

Points to Remember

• Judiciary is not above the Constitution, but not subordinate to Parliament or Executive either

• Judicial independence is essential to protect fundamental rights and uphold constitutional morality

5. Judicial Activism, Popular Sovereignty & Article 142

Article 142 – “Complete Justice”

• Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any case

• Often used in gaps or failures of legislative or executive action

Judicial Activism

• Criticized as judicial overreach, but justified in matters where:

  • Public interest is at stake

  • Constitutional machinery fails

• Used to ensure accountability when other organs are passive or politically motivated

Popular Sovereignty

• Judiciary defends the will of the people by upholding constitutional values

• Timely judicial interventions (e.g., fixing deadlines for gubernatorial assent) ensure functioning democracy

Conclusion

In a constitutional democracy like India, the separation of powers ensures that no organ of the State becomes omnipotent. The judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution, not a parallel legislature. Recent statements by the Vice-President challenge this balance and risk undermining public faith in institutions.

As per the UPSC syllabus (GS-II), this issue highlights:

• Importance of constitutional morality

• Need for institutional respect and cooperation

• Role of judiciary in democratic resilience

Way Forward

• All constitutional authorities must act responsibly and within their limits

• Emphasis must remain on rule of law, accountability, and respect for institutional roles

• Public discourse should be guided by constitutional literacy and not political posturing