Comparative analysis of separation of powers: Theoretical and practical insights from India

Abstract

We have evolved from the concept of “Might is always right,” where all the powers and authority were vested in the monarch. In India's political and constitutional framework, responsibilities and roles are allocated among the different branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. The doctrine of separation of powers, a fundamental principle in free democracies, mandates that these organs operate independently and do not overlap or assume each other’s roles. While some constitutions, like the United States, explicitly enshrine this absolute separation, India’s Constitution adopts a more implicit approach, lacking specific provisions for separating powers. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the separation of powers within India, extending to other constitutional regimes. It highlights the theoretical foundations and practical applications of this doctrine. Various judicial decisions have also recognized the concept of separation of power in India. One of the first cases was “Golak Nath v. State of Punjab”, which was subsequently included as part of the basic structure in the case of “Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain”. This paper explores how these principles are interpreted and applied within India's legal framework. The findings aim to contribute to a nuanced understanding of how theoretical principles of governance are adapted in practice, reflecting both universal ideals and localized adaptations of separation of powers.