seperation of power

INTRODUCTION

The principle of separation of powers deals with the mutual relations among the three organs of  the government, namely legislature, executive and judiciary. This doctrine tries to bring exclusiveness in the functioning of the three organs and hence a strict demarcation of power is the aim sought to be achieved by this principle. This doctrine signifies the fact that one person or body of persons should not exercise all the three powers of the government. Montesquieu, a French scholar, found that concentration of power in one person or a group of   persons results in tyranny. tyranny. The principle implies that each organ should be independent of the other and that no organ should perform functions that belong to the other. MEANING OF THE DOCTRINE

The Separation of ower is a method of removing the amount of power in any group!s hands, ma"ing it more difficult to abuse. #ccord #ccording ing to the theory of separa separatio tion n of powers powers,, these these three three powers powers and functi functions ons of the $overnment must, in a free democracy, de mocracy, always always be "ept separate and exercised by separate organs of the $overnment. %efer to notes. IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE

The doctrine of separation of power in its true sense is very rigid and this is one of the reasons of  why it is not strictly accepted by a large number of countries in the world The &octrine of separation of power do plays a vital role in the creation of a fair government and also fair and proper justice is dispensed by the judiciary as there is independence of judiciary. #lso the importance of the above said doctrine can be traced bac" to as early as '()* where the constituent #ssembly of France in '()* was of the view that +there would be nothing li"e a onstitution in the country where the doctrine of separation of power is not accepted. MONTESQUIEU ON SOP

Montesquieu tried to explain that the union of the executive and the legislative power would lead to the despotism of the executive Similarly the union of the legislative power and the judiciary would provide no defence for the individual against the state. The importance of the doctrine lies in the fact that it see"s to preserve the human liberty by avoiding concentration of powers in one person or body of persons.

SEPARATION OF POWERS & THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The onstitutional history of -ndia reveals that the framers of the -ndian onstitution had no sympathy with the doctrine. -t even sheds no light to the application of the doctrine during the ritish %egime. The -ndian onstitution has indeed not recogni/ed the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity, but the functions of different parts or branches of the government have been sufficiently differentiated.  Refer to notes

-n Asif Hameed v. State of J & K, it has been held that0'1 +#lthough the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recogni/ed under the constitution in its absolute rigidity but the constitution ma"ers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the state. -n  Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,  it was held that it is the basic postulate under the -ndian onstitution that the legal sovereign power has been distributed between the legislature to ma"e the law, the executive to implement the law and the judiciary to interpret the law within the limits set down by the onstitution.

The S.. in  Keshavanand Bharti   held that amending power was now subject to the basic features of the constitution. eg. 2. added that separation of powers is a part of the basic structure of constitution. 3one of the three separate organs of the republic can ta"e over the functions assigned to the other. CONCLUSION It has been well sa! b" L#$! A%t#n' ―Power corrupts and absolute Power tends to corrupt  absolutely‖ . onferment of power in a single body leads to absolutism.

ut, even after distinguishing the functions, when an authority wields public power, it may also cause abuse of such power. Therefore, the doctrine of separation of powers is a theoretical concept and is impracticable to follow it absolutely. The S.. rulings also justify that the alternative system of chec"s and balances is the requirement, not the strict doctrine. 4ence, the conclusion drawn out of the study is that there is no strict separation of powers but the functions of the different branches of the government ha ve been sufficiently differentiated.