The Implementation Of The Separation Of Powers Theory In India

 The Implementation Of The Separation Of Powers Theory In India

Introduction
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers is a foundational and pivotal concept in the governance structure of India. It holds a significant position within the sphere of administrative law and constitutional law in India. In democratic government, the separation of powers is a basic tenet that works to prevent the consolidation of power in the hands of one authority. It creates the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of government, each with unique duties and authority. It is, in essence, the guideline that all state governments must adhere to in order to pass legislation, carry it out, and apply it correctly in each unique situation. There will be a greater likelihood of corruption and the abuse of authority if this rule is not followed. Following this theory will reduce the likelihood of authoritarian laws being passed because they will be aware that they will be overturned by another branch.This doctrine, rooted in the ideas of political philosophers like Montesquieu, aims to prevent the concentration of power in any single institution and thereby ensures a system of checks and balances. In India, this doctrine plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and maintaining a robust democratic framework. This introduction will delve into the historical context and the practical implementation of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers in India, highlighting its significance in the nation's constitutional framework.

Historical Background
- The idea of the separation of powers was first proposed by Aristotle. In his work "The Politics", Aristotle discussed the many constitutional forms that were in place in Ancient Greece and introduced the concept of a mixed or hybrid type of governance.
- The foundational ideas of the notion of separation of powers were established by John Locke. In his "Two Treatises of Government," he distinguished between three departments of government: legislative, executive, and federal. He viewed these branches as being inherently unequal, with the legislative branch being the highest. His model lined up with the two-fold structure of the government.
- Finally, the principle of separation of powers was established by Montesquieu. French social and political philosopher Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, lived in the Eighteenth Century. The phrase "trias politica," or "separation of powers," was first used by Montesquieu, who explained this idea in his well-known book "The Spirit of the Laws" in a way that was accurate, systematic, and scientific. His concept divides the political system of the state into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. He claimed that these three powers needed to be distinct and function independently in order for liberty to be most successful. In his own words, Montesquieu continued to elaborate on the concept:-“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body or magistrates, there can be no liberty. Again, there is no liberty if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Where it joined with the legislative power, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the Judge would then be the legislator. Where it joined with the executive power, the Judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end to everything, were the same man or same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”
- Wade and Phillips characterize the separation of powers in three ways:

a. That one branch of government should not carry out the duties of another, such as giving ministers legislative authority;

b. That one branch of the government should not exert control over or interfere with another branch’s performance of its duties, such as when the judiciary is separate from the executive branch or when ministers are not answerable to Parliament;

c. That the same individuals should not serve in more than one of the three branches of government, such as sitting as Ministers in Parliament.

The Concept Of Separation Of Power

The concept of Separation Of Powers is a fundamental principle in political theory and governance, designed to ensure the effective and just operation of government by dividing its powers and functions among distinct branches or institutions. Various scholars define separation of powers in different ways.  However, there are three general characteristics that define what separation of powers means:
1. An individual who is a part of one organ shouldn't be a part of another
2. The operation of one organ shouldn't affect how the other organs work
3. An organ should never perform a duty that belongs to another organ.

The idea of trias politica serves as the foundation for the Separation of powers. This idea depicts a tripartite structure where authority is distributed among three organs, each of which has a defined jurisdiction. The concept typically entails the separation of government into three main branches:
a. Legislative Branch: Enacting laws is the major responsibility of the legislature. The act of passing laws limits the state's independence and declares its will. The judiciary and executive branches function from this fundamental basis. Of the three organs, it is assigned the highest position because implementation and application of the law can only occur once it has been framed. Although the judiciary cannot execute legislative duties, it can advise the legislature on how to design new laws and change current ones. This is because the judiciary serves as an advisory body.
b. Executive Branch: The executive branch is tasked with executing and administering the laws enacted by the legislative branch. It is headed by a chief executive, such as a president or prime minister, who oversees government agencies and departments responsible for policy implementation and day-to-day governance.

c.  Judicial Branch: The judiciary is made up of public servants whose main duty is to interpret and implement the laws passed by the legislature to specific situations. They respect the ideas of natural justice and fairness in doing so. To guarantee that laws are correctly enforced, disputes are settled, and justice is done, the judiciary functions impartially and independently.

The Objective Of Separation Of Power
Separation of powers aim to achieve several fundamental objectives that are essential for the proper functioning of a democratic society. Those objectives are included below:
- One of the primary objectives of the separation of powers is to prevent the concentration of power in a single individual or institution, which could lead to authoritarianism or tyranny. By distributing power across multiple branches of government, this system creates a series of checks and balances that limit the potential for abuse of authority.

- Protection of Individual Rights is another objective of the separation of powers. This concept helps safeguard individual rights and liberties.
- The separation of powers reinforces the rule of law by establishing a clear legal framework that governs the relationship between the government and its citizens.
- While preventing the abuse of power, the separation of powers also aims to promote efficient and effective governance. Each branch can focus on its specific functions, resulting in specialized expertise and smoother decision-making processes.
- The system of checks and balances inherent in the separation of powers makes it easier to hold government officials accountable for their actions. If one branch oversteps its authority or acts inappropriately, the other branches can act as a check and ensure that corrective measures are taken.

- In a democratic society with diverse interests and values, the separation of powers allows for a balance of competing interests.
- Prevention of conflicts of interest within government is one of the core objectives of separation of power. This separation reduces the risk of self-serving or biased decisions.

Three Fundamental Foundations Of The Government

1. Executive
a. President: Members of the electoral college, who are chosen by a single transferable vote from among elected members of the state legislative assemblies and both houses of parliament, elect the president in accordance with the proportional representation system. The President, in conformity with the Constitution, is vested with the executive power of the Union, which he may wield himself or through subordinate officers. Additionally, the President has ultimate authority over the Union's Defence Forces.

b. Vice President: In accordance with the proportional representation system, members of an electoral college made up of representatives from both houses of Parliament elect the Vice President with a single transferable vote. In order to be eligible for election as a Rajya Sabha member, he must be an Indian citizen who is at least 35 years old. He is up for reelection after serving a five-year term in office. Additionally, he or she serves as the Rajya Sabha's ex-officio chairman and presides over the body until a new president is elected in the event that the current president is unable to carry out their duties because of illness or other absences.

c. Prime Minister: The President appoints the Prime Minister and, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the other ministers. The Prime Minister has a responsibility to inform the President of all Council of Ministers decisions pertaining to the management of union affairs, as well as any associated information and bill suggestions.
d. Council Of Ministers (COM): The Prime Minister leads it, providing guidance and support to the President as he performs his duties. The Lok Sabha holds the council collectively accountable. Three types of ministers make up the COM: ministers of state, deputy ministers, and cabinet ministers. The Prime Minister is the highest ranking of all these ministers.

2. Legislature (The Indian Parliament)
- The parliament is India's highest legislative body. Like in other parliamentary democracies, its primary duties include passing laws, supervising the administration, hearing public grievances, and debating a range of issues including national policies, development plans, and international relations. It is a place where laws are drafted, the future of the nation is discussed, and the representatives of the people are held responsible. It is the embodiment of Indian sovereignty and freedom in action. It holds a prominent and crucial place in the country's constitutional framework.

- The Parliament has the authority to dismiss the President and the Chief Election Commissioner, the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, and the Comptroller and Auditor General in compliance with the procedures outlined in the Constitution.
Parliament is made up of the President and the two houses of the legislature, the House of the People (also known as the Lok Sabha) and the Rajya Sabha (also known as the Council of States).

Rajya Sabha: With a maximum membership of 250, the Rajya Sabha is composed of 12 presidential nominees and 238 indirectly elected representatives of the states and Union Territories.

Lok Sabha: The Lok Sabha may have up to 552 members, according to the Indian Constitution. Of these, 530 represent the States, 20 represent the Union Territories, and two are appointed by the President from the Anglo-Indian Community.

3. Judiciary
- One cohesive legal system exists in India. With the Supreme Court (SC) at its apex, the Indian judiciary is organised in a pyramidal fashion. District and subordinate courts are ranked below the Supreme Court (SC) and the High Courts (HC) respectively. Subordinate courts operate directly under the higher courts' supervision.

- The appointment of judges to the SC and HC is governed by Articles 124(2) and 217 of the constitution.

- Protecting the rule of law and ensuring the supremacy of the law is the primary responsibility of the judiciary. It guarantees that democracy does not give way to individual or collective dictatorship, protects individual rights, and resolves conflicts in line with the law.

Separation Of Powers In Ancient India
It should be mentioned that although Montesquieu and Locke are credited with discovering it, the Vedas are the source of this concept. In the unlikely event that we examine the Smritis, which are ancient sources of law like Dharma, we discover this kind of division. We adhere to the principle of separation of powers in Narad Smriti. At that time, Kaji headed the legal department, Senapati made a significant contribution to maintaining peace, and Deewan headed the executive branch of any heritage. At the same time, we must keep in mind that they are all under the Ruler. The King was the supreme authority who enacted the laws, making him similar to the current form of government. Consequently, it becomes apparent that there was once an intensity divide in a certain area or inheritance. With the exception of the forces and capacities, which have been segregated, the King is viewed as the ultimate authority in everything.

Separation Of Power In Indian Context
The Indian Constitution does not expressly contain the theory of separation of powers, but it does provide enough distinction between the roles played by the various government organisations to prevent one from taking over the responsibilities of another. During the Constituent Assembly Debates, Prof. K.T. Shah, a member of the Assembly, emphasised the need to revise Article 40-A to include a new clause pertaining to the idea of separation of powers.  The modification proposed by Prof. K.T. Shah was fully approved by Constituent Assembly member Kazi Syed Karimuddin.
One Constituent Assembly member, Shri K. Hanumanthiya, disagreed with Prof. K.T. Shah's proposal. According to him, the Drafting Committee approved the Parliamentary system of government as appropriate for our nation, and Prof. Shah supported the modification that would have changed the Presidential Executive. His next statement was, “Instead of having a conflicting trinity it is better to have a harmonious governmental structure. If we completely separate the executive, judiciary and the legislature conflicts are bound to arise between these three departments of Government. In any country or in any government, conflicts are suicidal to the peace and progress of the country..... Therefore in a governmental structure it is necessary to have what is called “harmony” and not this threefold conflict.” Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena agreed with the opinion of Shri K. Hanumanthaiya. But Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a significant contributor to the Indian Constitution, disagreed with Prof. K.T. Shah's position.
In light of the aforementioned considerations, the move to add a new Article 40-A pertaining to the division of powers was negatived, or rejected.

Important Clauses Promoting The Separation Of Powers
- The President and Governors are given executive authority for the Union and the States, respectively, according to Articles 53(1) and 154. They may personally use these abilities or delegate them to officers in lower positions.
- In order to prevent the judiciary from interfering with legislative processes, Articles 122 and 212 prohibit courts from looking into the activities of the State Legislature and Parliament.

- Legislative Assembly (MLA) and Parliamentary (MP) members are prohibited from being summoned before a court for remarks they make during sessions, as stated in Articles 105 and 194.
- Article 50 promotes the state-level division of the executive and judicial branches.

- Lawmaking authority for the entire nation and its individual states is granted to Parliament and State Legislatures by Article 245.

- Parliament and State Legislatures are prohibited from debating the judicial behaviour of judges of the Supreme Court and High Court, respectively, according to Articles 121 and 211.

- Article 361 states that the President and Governors may execute their powers and duties without being held accountable to any court.

Crossing Out Clauses

- The President may enact ordinances when neither chamber is in session, according to Article 123.

- When the state legislature is not in session, the Governor may enact ordinances pursuant to Article 213.

- In the event of a state of emergency, the President's Rule may be imposed pursuant to Article 356.

- According to Article 73, the executive and legislative branches have equal authority.

- Article 74 stipulates that the President is assisted by the Council of Ministers in carrying out his executive duties.
- The Council of Ministers is held jointly accountable to the House of People under Article 75(3).
- Article 61 describes how the President can be removed through the impeachment procedure, which requires a resolution approved by both chambers.

-  According to Article 66, members of both chambers elect the vice president.

- The President's consent is required for the Supreme Court to establish regulations governing court procedures and practises, as stated in Article 145.

- Under Article 146, the Chief Justice of India, in collaboration with the President and the Union Public Service Commission, appoints employees and officials of the Supreme Court.

- The procedures for the nomination of High Court officials and employees are outlined in Article 229, with input from the State Public Service Commission and the Governor.
- The President may designate justices to the Supreme Court under Article 124.

- The President may pardon or postpone the sentences of those found guilty by the Supreme Court under Article 72.

- The Supreme Court has the authority to conduct judicial reviews under Article 32, 226, and 136, which gives it the jurisdiction to overturn any legislation passed by Parliament and any unlawful administrative action.

These sections of the Indian Constitution outline the corresponding authorities and duties of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches at the federal and state levels, demonstrating the principles of separation of powers even in a parliamentary system of government.

Judicial Opinion In Relation With Separation Of Power
In a number of significant decisions, Indian courts have interpreted the concept of separation of powers. Some of those cases are discussed below-
1. The first major reading of the theory was given by the ruling in the case of Ram Jamaya Kapur v. State of Punjab. It acknowledged that the Indian Constitution clearly delineates the roles and authorities of every branch of government, even in the absence of explicit endorsement of the doctrine. Legislative and judicial authority may be used by the executive branch within certain bounds, but no branch may go beyond what the constitution specifies.

2. The case of I.C. Golakhnath v. State of Punjab highlights how the Constitution actually establishes the three separate constitutional entities—the Union, the State, and the Union territories. It also has the three main branches of government—legislature, executive, and judiciary. It precisely defines their sphere of influence and requires them to carry out their duties without interfering with those of others. They ought to operate within their purview.
3. In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, it was made clear that India did not precisely adhere to the rigorous concept of separation of powers inherent in the American and Australian constitutions. The division of powers, however, is regarded as a fundamental component of the Indian Constitution and cannot be changed by amending the document.
4. In the case of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, it was recognised that although the constitution places restrictions on the three branches of government, it gives the legislature the highest authority and permits the courts to review laws only for reasons related to those restrictions.

5. As the Supreme Court noted in Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir the constitution expressly outlines the authorities and duties of each organ, even though it does not accept the theory of separation of powers in its entirety. Without invading one another's areas of responsibility, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are supposed to carry out their respective roles.
6. The case of P. Kannadasan v. State of Tamil Nadu established that the Constitution confers the authority on Constitutional Courts to nullify laws passed by Parliament and state legislatures that exceed constitutional bounds. The legislature cannot pass a statute saying that the court's ruling will not be implemented or that it will be overturned in the event that a court rules that an act passed by the legislature is invalidated due to legislative incompetence. However, this does not preclude the legislature, which possesses the authority to enact legislation, from doing so. In a similar vein, the legislature has the option to change the judgment's foundation. The new law or the amended law may be challenged on other grounds, but not on the claim that it aims to override or avoid the court's ruling. What is meant by the "checks and balances" that are a part of a government that incorporates the division of powers is this.

Worldwide Viewpoint
Separation of powers has been embraced and implemented around the world. The following are a few well-known countries that have adopted this concept:

United states
- The US Constitution makes the idea of the separation of powers quite clear. The U.S. Congress consists of two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate, and is responsible for making laws. It also has the power to declare war, raise and allocate funds, and oversee the executive branch.

- The President is the head of the executive branch and is responsible for enforcing and executing the laws passed by Congress. This branch includes various federal agencies and departments.

- The federal judiciary, headed by the Supreme Court, interprets and applies the laws. It ensures that laws and government actions adhere to the U.S. Constitution and protects individual rights.

United Kingdom
- The United Kingdom follows a parliamentary system, which differs from a strict separation of powers as seen in some other countries, such as the United States. 

- The UK Parliament is bicameral, consisting of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The executive branch is headed by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, who are typically members of the House of Commons. This fusion of legislative and executive powers allows the ruling political party in the House of Commons to form the government. The Prime Minister is both the head of government and the leader of the majority party in Parliament, creating a close relationship between these two branches.

- The judiciary in the UK remains separate from the legislative and executive branches. The UK has an independent court system, with the Supreme Court serving as the highest court of appeal. The judiciary interprets and applies the law, ensuring that it complies with the UK's constitution and international treaties.

Australia
- In Australia, the separation of powers is based on the Westminster system, similar to the United Kingdom. It involves a fusion of powers between the executive and legislative branches and a separate judicial branch. 

- The Australian Parliament consists of two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. The executive branch is headed by the Prime Minister, who is typically the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives. This fusion of powers means that the executive government is drawn from and accountable to the legislature.

- The judicial branch in Australia is separate and independent. It includes the High Court of Australia, which is the country's highest court. The judiciary interprets and applies the law, ensuring that it is consistent with the Australian Constitution and protecting individual rights.

Concept Of Checks And Balances
The way the three branches of government are arranged to operate properly is reflected in the norms of governance. It guarantees that no aspect of public authority is unduly fantastic. As an example, the legislative branch enacts laws, the executive branch enacts valid laws, and the judiciary branch has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional, guaranteeing that it is not a law at all. It is also within the legislative branch's power to remove a judge who is not carrying out their duties properly. Judges are delegated by the executive branch, and the presidential branch's decision is supported by the authoritative branch. Again, the branches work together to counterbalance each other such that neither branch is very intense. This is what exemplifies the theory of checks and balances. In the unlikely event that we examine it in the context of a basic Indian environment, three offices of government are granted different authorities but not a clear organisational framework. Every one of the three have unique abilities and potential, but if one violates established norms or established arrangements, another may impede the progress of the first.

The Applicability Of The Separation Of Powers In The Modern Era

The idea of separation of powers is still relevant even though it may not be strictly followed in the present day. Maintaining checks and balances between the three parts of government is the core goal of this philosophy, which is essential for efficient governance. The idea tries to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of one person or organisation rather than advocating strict classification. It can be quite helpful when applied in a correlated way, even though it might not be used in an absolute sense. As such, the essential spirit of the idea is found in the mutual constraint that the three parts of government apply in the exercise of their respective powers, as opposed to the imposition of impenetrable barriers and unchangeable borders.

The Intricacy of Administrative Law In The Separation Of Power
Administrative law is challenged by the idea of separation of powers, which divides the three parts of government. The organisation, authority, and responsibilities of administrative authorities are governed by administrative law, which today faces a conflict with the idea of separation of powers. Administrative agencies now perform a wider range of tasks in today's linked and globalised environment. They frequently act in a quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative capacity, which is against the separation of powers premise. In order to provide effective and efficient governance and guarantee adequate implementation of the law, administrative bodies now need to be granted increased legislative and judicial powers. In order to relieve the strain on the legislative and judicial branches and speed up the processes of lawmaking and justice administration with specialised knowledge, administrative tribunals and delegated legislation have been established. Nevertheless, these objectives are hampered by the rigorous application of the theory of separation of powers. As a result, the growth and operation of administrative law are limited by the division of authorities.

Advantages Of Separation Of Power
In its strictest form, the principle of separation of powers is seen as undesirable and unfeasible. Because of this, it is not fully accepted in any country on earth. Its significance, though, comes from highlighting the safeguards against misuse of the extensive executive authority.
Checks and Balances: Each branch of government acts as a check on the other branches, creating a system of checks and balances. This means that one branch can monitor and limit the actions of the others, ensuring that they remain within the bounds of their authority.

Protection of Individual Rights: The separation of powers, particularly with an independent judiciary, protects individual rights and civil liberties. Courts can review and strike down laws or government actions that violate the constitution or infringe on the rights of citizens.

Rule of Law: It reinforces the rule of law by ensuring that government actions are conducted in accordance with established laws and are subject to legal scrutiny. This promotes a culture of legality and accountability within the government.

Efficient Governance: Each branch can focus on its specific functions, resulting in specialized expertise and efficient decision-making. This specialization contributes to the effective functioning of government and the delivery of public services.

Accountability: The separation of powers makes it easier to hold government officials accountable for their actions. If a branch oversteps its authority or engages in misconduct, the other branches can act as a check and provide oversight.

Balancing Competing Interests: In a diverse and pluralistic society, the separation of powers allows for a balance of competing interests. It ensures that policies and decisions are debated, scrutinized, and, when necessary, adjusted to reflect the broader needs and perspectives of the population.

Disadvantages Of Separation Of Power
While the separation of powers has many advantages in democratic governance, it is not without its potential disadvantages and challenges. Here are some of the key disadvantages associated with the separation of powers:

Potential for Gridlock: One of the most commonly cited disadvantages is the potential for gridlock and inefficiency. When different branches of government have distinct powers and responsibilities, it can be challenging to reach consensus and make decisions. This can lead to delays in enacting legislation and addressing important issues.

Lack of Accountability: In some cases, the separation of powers can lead to a lack of clear accountability. When multiple branches share responsibility, it may become unclear which branch should be held accountable for specific outcomes or decisions, making it difficult for the public to assign responsibility..

Inefficiencies in Implementation: The strict division of powers may lead to inefficiencies in implementing government policies. For example, when the executive branch is responsible for implementing laws created by the legislative branch, delays or mismanagement can occur, impacting the effectiveness of government programs.

Difficulty in Responding to Emergencies: During times of crisis or emergencies, the separation of powers can slow down the government's response. Quick decision-making may be hindered by the need for multiple branches to coordinate their actions and approve necessary measures.

Complexity and Bureaucracy: The separation of powers can contribute to the complexity and bureaucracy of government. Multiple branches and agencies can lead to duplicative efforts, red tape, and increased administrative costs.
Interference with Administrative Efficiency: While specialization can enhance decision-making, it may also interfere with administrative efficiency. For instance, if the executive branch is overly concerned with following legal procedures, it can slow down government actions.

Criticism
The concept of the separation of powers has been subject to criticism and debate, with some scholars and political thinkers highlighting potential drawbacks and limitations of this governance model. While the separation of powers has many advantages, it is important to consider the following criticisms:

- Critics argue that the rigid separation of powers can lead to inefficiency and a lack of adaptability. The strict divisions between branches can make it challenging to respond quickly to changing circumstances or emerging issues. In times of crisis or rapidly evolving situations, the system may be seen as slow and unresponsive.

- The division of powers can sometimes make it difficult to assign clear accountability for government actions and decisions. Citizens may be unsure which branch or level of government should be held responsible for specific outcomes, which can lead to a lack of transparency and accountability.

- Effective governance often requires coordination between different branches of government. Critics argue that the separation of powers can impede this coordination, making it challenging to address complex and interconnected issues that span multiple policy areas.

- While the separation of powers is intended to create checks and balances among branches, it may not provide sufficient oversight of the bureaucracy. Administrative agencies and civil servants may have significant power and discretion, and there can be limited mechanisms to hold them accountable.

Conclusion
According to Lord Action, “Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely”.
The greatest way to approach the concept of the division of powers is to be adaptable. A broader understanding of the concept of separation of powers is necessary in light of globalisation, privatisation, and liberalisation. It should not be limited to strict classification or harsh constraints, but rather encompass a collective use of power that promotes coordination and cooperation and advances the objectives of the state. Even though its rigorous articulation may not be feasible, the idea's effectiveness lies in its focus on the necessity of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power by various government departments and ineffectual governance.
In modern nations like the United States, Nepal, France, and others, the idea of separation power cannot be strictly enforced. Nonetheless, this theory is still relevant today. It is quite difficult to separate our government into impenetrable sections because it is a well-organized system. Ultimately, the success of the separation of powers model lies in its proper implementation and adaptation to the unique needs of each nation. The specific division of powers, the relationships between branches, and the mechanisms for resolving conflicts can vary widely, reflecting the diverse political and cultural contexts in which they operate. As such, the Doctrine of Separation of Powers remains a cornerstone of democratic governance, promoting both liberty and accountability, while continually evolving to meet the ever-changing demands of the societies it serves.

References
1. I.P Massey (2022) Administrative Law 10th Edn.
2. C K Takwani (2021) Administrative law 7th Edn.
3. Bhansali SR (2015) Textbook on The constitution of India 1st Edn.
4. Srivastav S (1964) Separation of Judiciary from Executive In India with Particular Reference to the State of Uttar Pradesh. IJPS.

5. Vile MJ (2012) Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers. Liberty Fund 2nd Edn.

6. Nivetha N (2015) Doctrine Of Separation Of Power.

7. Harrison J (1997) The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts and the Text of Article III.

8. Nagel RF (1994) Judicial power and American character: Censoring ourselves in an anxious age.

9. Bakshi PM, Kashyap SC (2012) The constitution of India. Univ Law Publish.

10. Pandya K (2013) Separation of Powers-An Indian Perspective.
11.Upadhyaya: Administrative law,(Central Law Agency,8th edition).
12.https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/separation-power-indian-constitution/

13.http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1878/Administrative-Law-Separation-of-Powers.html.

14.https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-separation-of-power/Constituent Assembly Debates Book No.2, Vol. No. VII Second Print 1989.

AUTHOR CREDENTIALS

NAME: FARJANA AKTER

COURSE: LL.B

UNIVERSITY: LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 12202691

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF: JASDEEP KAUR