EVALUATING THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IN INDIA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH THE US SUPREME COURT
Keywords:
Separation of powers, judicial review, judicial activism, constitutional law, India, United States, constitutional supremacyAbstract
One of the fundamental tenets of constitutional governance is the separation of powers doctrine, which guarantees that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government stay separate in order to avert tyranny and protect liberty . India uses a modified version of the doctrine that reflects its parliamentary system of government and constitutional architecture, even though Montesquieu's political philosophy provides its classical articulation and the US Constitution provides its strongest institutional realization . Using a comparison analysis with the US Supreme Court, this paper critically assesses India's philosophy of separation of powers. In order to determine whether Indian constitutional practice maintains a suitable balance between institutional independence and functional overlap, it looks at constitutional provisions, judicial interpretation, significant case law, and recent changes. The development of judicial activism and claims of judicial overreach in India are further examined in this paper, which contrasts them with the American concept of judicial restraint and organized checks and balances. It contends that although the Indian court has significantly contributed to the defense of fundamental rights and constitutional ideals, increasing judicial intervention poses serious questions regarding institutional competence and democratic legitimacy.
References
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 55 (8th ed. 2018).
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 302 (4th ed. 1996).
V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India 78 (13th ed. 2017).
Upendra Baxi, The Indian Supreme Court and Politics, 8 E.P.W. 1607 (1980).
S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India 89 (2002).
Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws 151 (1748).
Id.
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government 182 (1690).
Montesquieu, supra note 6.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law 38 (5th ed. 2015).
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 549.
S.P. Sathe, supra note 5.
Upendra Baxi, supra note 4.
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 56 (8th ed. 2018).
INDIA CONST. art. 245.
INDIA CONST. art. 246.
Id.
INDIA CONST. art. 53.
INDIA CONST. arts. 74–75.
INDIA CONST. arts. 124, 214.
INDIA CONST. arts. 32, 226.
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 312 (4th ed. 1996).
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 549.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2299.
INDIA CONST. art. 13.
INDIA CONST. arts. 32, 226.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 S.C.C. 261.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461.
Id.
INDIA CONST. arts. 124(4), 217.
Id.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Ass’n v. Union of India, (1993) 4 S.C.C. 441.
INDIA CONST. art. 123.
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 602 (8th ed. 2018).
INDIA CONST. arts. 13, 32, 226.
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1643.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1789.
S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India 89 (2002).
Upendra Baxi, Taking Suffering Seriously, 4 Third World Legal Stud. 107 (1985).
Id.
S.P. Sathe, supra note 39.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Ass’n v. Union of India, (2016) 5 S.C.C. 1.
Id.
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 315 (4th ed. 1996).
Upendra Baxi, supra note 40.
Id.
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 683.
U.S. CONST. arts. I–III.
U.S. CONST. art. I.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 42 (5th ed. 2015).
U.S. CONST. art. II.
U.S. CONST. art. III.
M.J.C. Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers 196 (2d ed. 1998)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
Id. at 177.
Id.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
Id. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7.
U.S. CONST. art. I, §§ 2–3.
Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137.
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 58 (8th ed. 2018).
U.S. CONST. art. II.
Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law 44 (5th ed. 2015).
INDIA CONST. arts. 74–75.
Id.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
INDIA CONST. arts. 13, 32, 226.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461.
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 318 (4th ed. 1996).
Upendra Baxi, Taking Suffering Seriously, 4 Third World Legal Stud. 107 (1985).
Erwin Chemerinsky, supra note 66.
U.S. CONST. arts. I–III.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 S.C.C. 261.
M.P. Jain, supra note 64.
M.J.C. Vile, Constitutionalism and Separation of Powers 198 (2d ed. 1998).
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 620 (8th ed. 2018).
Upendra Baxi, The Indian Supreme Court and Politics, 8 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 1607 (1980).
S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India 242 (2002).
Id.
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 683.
Upendra Baxi, Taking Suffering Seriously, 4 Third World Legal Stud. 107 (1985).
S.P. Sathe, supra note 81.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Ass’n v. Union of India, (1993) 4 S.C.C. 441.
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 320 (4th ed. 1996).
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Ass’n v. Union of India, (2016) 5 S.C.C. 1.
M.P. Jain, supra note 79.
Id
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Ass’n v. Union of India, (2016) 5 S.C.C. 1
