Skip to main content

Doctrine of separation of power

 DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWER


Doctrine of separation of power is a key feature of a democratic and constitutional government.

This doctrine prevents accumulation of power in the hands of any single government entity, and

divides them between different organs of the government while defining their powers and functions,

the role of these organs is to essentially keep a check on each other and prevent any one from

exercising arbitrary power.

In India, there are three organs of the government namely legislature, executive and judiciary and

their roles, functions, powers and scope are laid down in the constitution. The role of the legislature

is to make laws, role of executive is to implement and execute these laws and lastly, role of

judiciary is to interpret these laws and administer justice. These three organs cannot overstep their

authority and interfere in the workings of each others’ domain.

India is a common law country i.e. the power of the judges is not only limited to interpreting laws

but also to making and shaping them. The supreme authority to make laws lies with the legislature

or the parliament but the judgements given by the judges in courts have a binding effect and

becomes law of the land. The judges while deciding cases not only refer to the constitution but to

the prior judgements given by other judges which are known as precedents.

The doctrine of separation of power is asymmetric with India’s common law history. As discussed

above, it can be seen that the main aim of the doctrine is to draw boundaries between the

functioning of these three organs, but when we talk about the common law system, it can be seen

how Judiciary by making laws is clearly stepping in the shoes of Legislature. Judges in India have

given numerous judgements which have taken the shape of laws for example, in Keshavananda

Bharti vs. State of Kerala, the judiciary claimed that the parliament cannot amend the basic

structure of the constitution, which restricted the power of the legislature to carry out its functions.


In a country that follows the principle of parliamentary supremacy, it is the parliament which is the

sole authority vested with the power to make laws, it can amend any law and no court can overrule

any legislation made by the parliament. United Kingdom follows such system. Whereas India

follows the constitutional law model, according to which Constitution is the supreme law of the

country and it also limits the powers of the government to ensure that it cannot violate the

fundamental rights of its citizens. If India had adopted parliamentary supremacy, there would not

have been the problem of so many loopholes that exist in the laws right now. Because the law

making power is vested with the legislature as well as the judiciary, there are multiple

interpretations of a single law, there are more than required legislations on a single issue which

leads to inefficient governance and allows individuals to find loopholes to evade law.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more