A PROJECT ON:

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWER

SUBMITTED TO:
Mrs. Shraddha Rajput
(FACULTY OF LEGAL METHODS)

SUBMITTED BY:
Sanjay Sugumaran
Roll No.-128
Semester-I
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
31th of August, 2012

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR (C.G.)

Page
1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to show my sense of gratitude taking this opportunity to thank Mrs. Shraddha Rajput for
enriching me with adequate guidance throughout the project.
I would like to thank the University for Providing Internet and library facilities which was much
needed for reference during the course of the project.
Lastly, I would like to thank my seniors and my colleagues for supporting me with materials required
and correcting me throughout the course of the project.

Sanjay Sugumaran
B.A.L.L.B
First Semester
Hidayatullah National Law University

Page
2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVES

The project Doctrine of Separation of Power is non-empirical in nature and derives its data from
secondary data like books, journals and research paper websites
Objectives of the project:
1. To understand and analyze the reason for the separation of powers and their independence in
performance of their duties.
2. To learn about the various functions and duties of the respective divisions and their boundaries,
to compare them with other countries following different methods and to derive a conclusion.

Page
3

3. To know the need for the judiciary to be an independent division.

OF ACRONYMS
A.I.R- ALL INDIA REPORTER
S.C.C SUPREME COURT CASES
S.C- SUPREME COURT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
&
- AND
Subs. - SUBSTITUTED

TABLE OF CASES
LOCHNER v NEW YORK-1980 S.45 (1905)
GRISSWALD v CONNECTICUT- 381 U.S. 479,480(1965)
INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI v RAJ NARIAN- AIR 1975 SC 2299
KESHAVANANDA BHARATHI v STATE OF KERALA- AIR 1973 SC 1461
Page
4

LIST

RAM JAWAYA KAPOOR v STATE OF PUNJAB- AIR 19555 SC 549,1955

ASIF HAMEED v STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR- 1989 AIR 1899
GOLAKNATH v STATE OF PUNJAB- 1967 AIR 1643
SUMAN GUPTA v STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR -1983 AIR 1235
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,ARAVALI GOLF CLUB v CHANDER HASS &
ANOTHER 2008 SCC 683
MADHU HOLMAGI v UNION OF INDIA 1980 (41) FLR 213

P.N. KUMAR v MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI- 1987 SCC 604

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.7
2. THEORY OF DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWER...9
3. IDEAS OF MONTESQUIEU11
HISTORY OF SEPARATING THE POWERS
Page
5

DESCRIPTION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

SUPREME POWER TO THE PEOPLE

4. PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE THEORY13

5. COMPARITIVE PERSPECTIVE OF APPLICATION OF SEPARATION
OF POWERS WITH CRITICISM..15
BRITISH CONSTITUTION
CONSTITUTION OF U.S.A
INDIAN SCENARIO
6. CONCLUSION...19
7. BIBILOGRAPHY21

INTRODUCTION
There are two methods that may be employed for distributing governmental powers, the territorial and
functional. The territorial division relates to the splitting up of the territory of the state into political
divisions and the distribution of governmental powers among such divisions. Each of the political
divisions is provided with a governmental organization through which it performs its functions. But the
work of the government is so wide and complex that it is imperative to establish special organs for
performance of the several kinds of work to be done. This is necessary for two obvious reasons: first
that the benefits of specialization may be secured and, secondly, responsibility may be more definitely
located. When the work of the government is distributed to political organs in accordance with the
nature of function to be performed, it is functional distributional powers.
Carl J Friedrich says that true constitutional government does not exist unless procedural restraints
are established and effectively operating. Such restraints involve some division of power: for evidently
Page
6

some considerable power must be vested in those who are expected to do the restraining. Such a
division of governmental power under a constitution has largely taken two forms: the functional
division-such as that into legislative, executive, and judicial, and the spatial (territorial) division of
federalism1
All the powers of government have been long conceived as falling within one or another of the three
great classes;

Legislative- the enactment of making of law

Judicial-the interpretation of these laws
Executive-their enforcement
Structurally considered, government has been deemed to be made up of three branches having
for their functions the enactment, the adjudication and enforcement of law, and the branches to
which these functions belong are known as the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive
respectively.
The three fold division of governmental powers received such general recognition that it
became a classical division. But, some writers hold this to be unscientific.
Willoughby, for example says that attempts to act upon it lead not only to confusion of thought
but to serious difficulties in working out the practical problems of the distribution of
government powers functionally2 .
He suggests that electorate and administration are distinct branches of government and it is
important to recognize their distinct character in the practical work of organizing and operating
a government.
In Sweden the administrative power has been separated from the executive power and Carl
Friedrich says without any theoretical recognition of the fact, the American federal
government tends in the same direction of differentiating between strictly executive and purely
administrative functions3.

1 Carl J Friedrich, Constitutional Government and Democracy p.173

2 Willoughby, W.F., the government of modern states, p.227

3 Carl J .Friedrich, Constitutional Government and Democracy p.182

Page
7

Gladden, however, does not support this point of view and is of the opinion that administration
is subordinate to the main powers or branches of government.Gladdens opinion is
convincing and we adhere, to the three fold division. Political sovereign and legal sovereign are
the two aspects of the sovereignty of the state. The will of the electors is the controlling power
behind the legal sovereign and it is to their mandate that the legal sovereign must ultimately
bow.

THEORY OF DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWER

Only when the government is restrained and limited, political liberty becomes a possibility. The
theory that the functions of the government should be differentiated, and that they should be
performed by distinct organs consisting of different bodies of persons so the department should
be limited to its own sphere of action without encroaching upon the others, and that it should be
independent within the sphere, is called in its traditional form the theory of Separation of power.
Montesquieu, the celebrated French scholar, wrote in his famous book, the spirit of laws, that
constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to
carry his authority until he is confronted with limits.
He asserts that concentrated power is dangerous and it leads to situation causing political unrest.
One authority to make, interpret and exercise laws would create imbalance and lack of
efficiency. Improper functioning of the political system would lead to emergency and crisis.
How to avoid concentration of power?
By separating the functions of the executive, legislative and the judicial departments of
government so that one may operate as a balance against another and, thus, power should be a
check on power.
Page
8

Montesquieu said le pouvoir arte le pouvoir which means power halts power. A constitution
may be such that none shall be compelled to do things to which he is not obliged by law, or not
to do things which the law permits.4 The exposition given by him has now become classical.
The idea contained in the separation of powers was known even before Montesquieu. Its origin
can be traced to Aristotle, if not indeed to earlier writers. There were three branches of
government in the politics- the deliberative, the executive and judicial. Aristotle did not go into
details and only spoke about the personnel, organization and the functions without suggesting
their separation. Various political philosophers, from Marsigilo of Padua in the fourteenth
century gave some attention to the theory of separation of powers, but it did not gain
momentum until the issue of Political liberty became urgent.
In John Lockes civil government he distinguished to three powers namely legislative, executive
and federative (related to conduct of foreign affairs). The executive and federative as he pointed
out to be always united and had expressed no objection. But the legislative and the executive
must always be separate. The union of them would be tempting as the law makers can turn to
law breakers. In principle too Locke argued that they should be separate because it may be too
great temptation to human frailty, apt to grasp at power, for the same persons who have the
power of making laws to have also in their hands the power to execute them5.
This division of authority and the separation of executive and legislative power is justified and
explained by Locke on the ground that it is necessary for maintenance of liberty. Liberty suffers
when the same human beings make the laws and apply them.
Montesquieu and Blackstones view of the theory was such that if it was to be given a single
person or body to make and execute laws, then there would be no public liberty. The single
person or body will make tyrannical laws and enact it in a tyrannical manner.

4 Esprit des Lois, Book XI, Chap. 4

5 (Second) Treatise of Civil Government, Chap. 12, Secs. 143-148

Page
9

IDEAS OF MONTESQUIEU
HISTORY OF SEPARATING THE POWERS
Montesquieu lived in the time of Louis XIV, the author of the famous dictum I am the State6.
The monarch combined of all the three powers. His word was the authority and it was
unquestionable. There was no liberty for the people under such oppressive government.
Montesquieu happened to visit Great Britain and was tremendously impressed by the freedom
prevailing there. He compared the independence of the judges and the strength of the parliament
there with subordination of the judiciary to the French monarchy and the virtual extinction of
the Estates-General. Not foreseeing the rise of cabinet system of government in Britain and
keenly desiring political liberty for royal absolutism in France, he advocated separation of
powers as a device to make government safe for the governed.
The division of powers that he suggested was similar to Locke, except for renaming Lockes
executive power and calling it judicial power. The executive function as described by Locke had
been to execute the laws in any case. He also changed Lockes terminology and named
federative power as executive power.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS

His most famous statement runs thus When the legislative and executive powers are united in
the same person or in the same body of Magistrates, there can be no liberty; because
apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, and
execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there is no liberty if the judicial power be not
separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and
liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be
legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and
oppression. There would an end of everything, were the same man or same bodyto exercise

6 Refer to Carl Friedrichs Constitutional Government and Democracy, p.177

Page
10

those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying
the cases of individuals7.
To explain briefly and in simple language: Montesquieu says that if the three divisions of
powers are to be united as one power, there would not be any liberty to the public. That is
because one power will make the law, interpret the law and enact the law. This gives the
authority a chance to exercise tyrannical laws and execute them in tyrannical manner. The main
aim of ensuring public liberty would be null. If the judicial and the legislative were to be
combined then the maker of law, is also the interpreter. If the judicial functions combine with
the executive, the same agency is the prosecutor as well as the judge. If all three powers were
combined then the laws would be tyrannical with absolutely no liberty. Montesquieu says the
three powers are to be functioned independently within their boundaries such that the other
powers dont interfere with their execution of powers directly.

SUPREME POWER TO THE PEOPLE

There was a controversy among students of Political science whether Montesquieu
contemplated limited separation or complete separation of the Powers.
Herman Finer without finding a need to know which side Montesquieu contemplated observes
that Montesquieu was searching for means to limit the crown; to make a constitution; to build
canals through which, but not over which, power should stream; to create intermediary bodies;
to check and balance probable despotism and yet he did not wish to fly to the extreme of
democracy8. For him the executive convenes the legislature, fixes its duration, and votes
legislation. The legislature has the right of impeachment. This was to show that the executive
was also subjected to punishment and the ultimate authority or supreme power was always the
public. He made them dependant to the supreme power of the people, the executive functioned
in subordination to the legislature; and the judiciary worked as a part and parcel of the
executive.

7 Spirit of Laws, Book VI, p.6 ed. Franz Neumann, trans. Thomas Nugent(1949), pp.151-52
8 Finer,H.,The Theory and Practics of Modern Government Ibid p.99

Page
11

PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE THEORY

The theory of separation of power had a great democratic appeal and it soon became a political
dogma. The famous declaration of rights, issued after revolution, laid down that every society
in which the separation of powers in not determined has no constitution.The constitution of
1791 made the executive and legislature independent of each other, and the judges elective and
independent. During the time of Napoleon the doctrine was defied but was still in the minds of
people.
In United States, Montesquieu theory found its best expression. Herman Finer says We shall
never know, whether the Fathers of the American Constitution established the separation of
powers from the influence of the theory, or to accomplish the immediately practical task of
safeguarding liberty and property9 . They definitely desired liberty and limits upon despotism.
A short experience with legislative supremacy, after declaration of Philadelphia, had convinced
them that concentration of power was fraught with abuse. While writing about the constitution
of Virginia Jefferson wrote all the powers of the government, legislative, executive and
judicial, result to the legislative body. The concentrating of these in the same hands will be the
definition of despotic government. It will no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a
plurality of hands and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy three despots would surely
be oppressive as one10.
Whatever be the respective weights of influence in the Philadelphia Convention, the American
Constitution, as Finer observes. Was consciously and elaborately made an essay in the
separation of powers and is today the most important polity in the world which operated upon
that principal.17
But the American Constitution did not explicitly state that powers ought to be separate. It
simply distributed the powers; legislative powers were vested in Congress, the executive
powers in the president, and the judicial in the Courts. While apportioning the lions share of
powers to one department of government the Constitution gave smaller slices to each of other
departments. This was to avoid concentration and consequent abuse of power. If power is not
to be abused then it is necessary, in the nature of things, that power be made to check to
9
10 As quoted in Lipsons Great Issues of Politics, p.277

Page
12

power. In the field of legislation, for example, the bulk of the law making power was placed in
Congress, but the President received his share in his powers to recommend measures, to
summon Congress in special session, and to the veto bills. Similarly, the Senate shared with the
President his power to make appointments, declare war and ratify treaties. The Supreme Court,
by exercising the power of judicial review, asserted its claim to a portion of the legislation
function. Congress too acted in a judicial capacity in cases of impeachment where the house
was empowered to prosecute and the senate sat in judgment. The President could intervene in
the business of the courts through his power of pardon for all offences except treason.

COMPARITIVE PERSPECTIVE OF APPLICATION OF SEPARATION OF

POWERS WITH CRITICISM
Page
13

British Constitution
It can be seen from British constitutional convention that, the king who is an executive head is
also an integral part of the legislature and all his ministers are members of parliament. The Lord
Chancellor is a member of the House of Lords, member of the Govt. and at the same time a senior most
member of the judiciary. The judiciary is independent, but the judges of the superior courts can be
removed on an address from both the houses of parliament. The House of Lords exercises both judicial
and legislative functions where the courts can apply and interpret the laws made by legislature. Thus,
we can say that there is no effective separation of powers between the three organs of the Government.

Constitution of U.S.A
According to U.S constitution all legislative powers vest in congress, all executive powers vest in
the president, and all judicial powers vest in the Supreme Court. However still there is no separation of
powers, because o the following features like,

President has the power to override the legislation passed by the congress by veto.

The power of the senate to confirm the appointments made by the president or to reject the
same.

Power of the Supreme Court to review the act of the congress and the president.

Therefore in the above context to secure the independence of the judiciary it is necessary to remove it
from the political or administrative process. However the constitutional trade-off for independence is
that judges must restrain themselves from the areas reserved for other branches. Thus judicial restraint
contemplates the twin overreaching values of the separation of powers and independence of judiciary.
In Lochner v. New York Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court in his dissenting judgment criticized
the majority of the court for becoming a super legislature by intervening in to policy decision of the
Govt. similarly in his dissenting judgment in Grisswold v. Connecttcut Mr. Justice Hugo Black warned
that unbounded judicial authority would make of these courts members day-to-day constitutional
conventions.
During the era of Franklin Roosevelt when he was the president, the country was passing
through terrible economic crises; to overcome this, President Roosevelt initiated a series of legislation
called the New Deal, which were mainly economic regulatory measures. When these were challenged
in the US Supreme Court the courts begins striking them down on the ground that they violated the due
process clause in the U.S Constitution. As a reaction, President Roosevelt proposes to reconstitute the
court with six more judges to be nominated by him. This threat was found to be enough and it was not
necessary to carry it out. The court thereafter suddenly changed its approach and began upholding the
laws. The moral of this story is if the judiciary does not exercise restraint and overstretches its limits
there is bound to be a reaction from politician and others. The politician will then step in and curtail the
powers, or even the independence, of the judiciary. The judiciary should, therefore confine itself to its
Page
14

proper sphere, realizing that in a democracy many matters and controversies are best resolved in nonjudicial setting.
INDIAN SCENARIO
Apart from the directive principles laid down in Part-IV of the constitution which provides for
separation of judiciary from the executive, the constitutional scheme does not provide any formalistic
division of powers. The Supreme Court observed that the Indian constitution has not recognized the
doctrine of separation of powers. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narian chief Justice Ray observed
that, Indian constitution recognizes the theory of separation of powers in broad sense only. however
prior to that In Keshvananda Bharthi v. State of Kerala out of thirteen judges justice Beg held that
separation of power is a part of basic structure of the constitution, however it was not approved by the
other judges or in subsequent cases by the Supreme Court.
In Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab the Indian constitution had not indeed recognized the
doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of different parts or branches
of the Govt. have been sufficiently differentiated and consequently it can very well be said that our
constitution does not contemplate assumption, by one organ or part of the state, of functions that
essentially belongs to another. Similarly in Asif hameed v. state of Jammu & Kashmir Legislature,
executive and judiciary have to function within their own sphere as demarcated under the constitution.
No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The functioning of the democracy depends upon
the strength and independence of each of its organs. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain
unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. However the only check on judicial
power is the self-imposed discipline of judicial restraint. Therefore this doctrine cannot be liberally
applied to any modern government, because neither the powers can be kept in water tight
compartments nor can any government can run on strict separation of powers. Nowadays this doctrine
is shaken by the judicial review and judicial activism. Recently the Maharashtra government passed a
regulation for the increase of result of S.S.C. students and to curb the menace of students suicide in the
wake of unexpected results, it provides for the Best of five formula according to which the percentage
of the students are to be calculated on the basis of only those five subjects in which the students have
secured the maximum marks. This regulation was challenged by the parents of the student who were
studying in the C.B.S.E. and I.C.S.E. Boards, providing education in Maharashtra state in the High
court of Bombay on the ground of violation of fundamental rights i.e. right to equality. High court
rejected the formula of best of five holding the classification between students of S.S.C. and C.B.S.E.
as unreasonable and contrary to the principle of equality here court intervene in the policy decision of
the government, government again approached to the supreme court for appeal against the order of high
court and the supreme court modified the order of High court and in its interim order and directed the
Government to apply the alleged rule for both the students of S.S.C. and I.C.S.E. such kind of cases
court must have to exercise a self imposed restraint. Because the statement of marks are already
distributed among the students and now it is not practically possible to deduct those marks or to prepare
a fresh statement of marks, therefore High court ought to have apply the doctrine of prospective
overruling. Which was earlier applied by the supreme court in Golaknath v.State of punjab in this case
the policy of the govt. to distribute the lands under land reform scheme was challenged before the
supreme court on the ground of violation of fundamental right Justice Subba Rao of the supreme court
Page
15

held such distribution of land as unconstitutional but apply its decision prospectively and stated that it
is not practically possible to collect the land which are already distributed to the farmers or for the
welfare of the state therefore it is desirable in the interest of justice to apply the decision with
prospective effect and held that after the date of this decision government cannot acquire the property
of any person and parliament doesnt have the power to amend the fundamental right. Similarly
in Suman Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir The respective state government reserved certain
seats in medical colleges for the students residing in the particular state on reciprocal basis, this policy
of state was challenged on the ground that it discriminate among the students on the ground of place of
birth. The supreme court rejected the policy on the ground of discrimination but meanwhile the students
who are the beneficiaries of this policy had completed their substantial education, and now it is not in
the interest of justice to cancelled their admission, therefore here also supreme court applied the
doctrine of prospective overruling and held that the government must not apply the impugned policy
from next academic year.
Therefore by using the doctrine of prospective overruling in the above to cases Supreme Court
maintained the balance between judiciary and other organs of the government. It can also be
maintained by using the self restraint by the judges. In Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf club v.
Chander Hass and Another Supreme Court warned the High court for its over activism. The appellant
in the present case appointed the respondents as malice on daily wages, subsequently they were asked
to perform the duties of tractor drivers, though there was no post of tractor drivers in the establishment.
They were continued to be paid wages for the post of mail .after A few years appellant started paying
them wages of tractor driver on daily wage basis. Though they continued to work for about a decade as
tractor drivers, their services were regularized against the post of mail and not as tractor driver. The
respondents then filed a civil suit claiming regularization against the post of tractor driver. The
appellant contested the suit on the ground inter alia; that there was no sanctioned post off tractor driver
hence there was no question of appointing the plaintiff on the post of tractor driver accepting that plea
the trial court dismissed the suit.
However the first appellate court reversed the order of trial court and directed the defendants to get the
post of tractor driver sanctioned and to regularize the plaintiff on that post. A single judge of high court
upheld the judgment of the first appellate court. The appellant club then filed the appeal before
Supreme Court by special leave before the Supreme Court the club submitted that there was no post of
tractor driver, and therefore, there was no question of regularizing the respondents in the said post.
Allowing the appeal the Supreme Court held that since there was no sectioned post of tractor driver
against which the respondents could be regularized as tractor driver, the direction of the first appellate
court and the single judge to create the post of tractor driver and regularizing he services was
completely beyond their jurisdiction. The court cannot direct the creation of post. Creation and sanction
of post is a prerogative of the executive or legislative authorities and the court cannot arrogate to itself
this purely executive or legislative function, and direct creation of posts in any organization. The court
further said that the creation of a post is an executive or legislative function and it involves economic
factors. Hence, the courts cannot take upon themselves the power of creation of post. Similarly in
Madhu Holmagi v. Union of India wherein one Advocate filed a public interest litigation challenging
the Agreement 123 i.e. Indo-US nuclear treaty proposed to be entered by the Indian government,
petitioner contended that court must have to scrutinize the all documents relating to the agreement123
Page
16

and must have to prevent the Indian government from entering in to the nuclear deal. In this court
dismissed the petition and also imposed a cost of Rs 5000 on the petitioner stating that it is an abuse of
court proceeding. Because the question raised by the petitioner is a question of policy decision, which
is to be decided by the parliament and not by the judiciary.

CONCLUSION
The doctrine of the separation of powers can be criticized as well as appreciated. In order to
divide the functions to generate more efficiency of a person or body of persons within their
limits is a valid note on why we should support the cause. It widens the growth or the
development of that specific area therefore favoring for the good.
If we take the structural functional approach to view politics, we can understand the concept of
the separation of powers. Each organ needs specific functions to remain mandatory such that
the main cause of the organ does not die i.e. each organ should maintain certain set of duties
which may be ideal to avoid collapse of that organ. The traditional approaches were discarded
because of their lack of stability and use of sophisticated methods to run the body. So, the
separation the body can use scientific methods which are sophisticated in nature, technology,
mechanisms etc to ensure the good of the people. We can take the example of the three organs;
the legislative, executive and the judiciary. If each one is not separated then the maker of the
law can become the interpreter. There would be tyrannical laws executed in a tyrannical
manner. The most important duty of ensuring public liberty will not be ensured and the type of a
dictatorship rule would be practiced. If a single ruler or body of people taken the head of all the
three organs, then chaos would be everywhere. The needs and deeds of the society will not be
Page
17

recognized and the tyrannical laws will be enforced. The mentality of a single person or single
body of persons making and executing laws and interpreting them will change into a partial rule
favoring him or them in every possible way. The law makers would become law breakers.
The negatives found out from application of doctrine of separation of powers is that the
judiciary, an organ known for its independence in deciding about the case is lagging behind
with many cases for judgment.
This court has not time today even to dispose of cases which have to be
decided by it alone and by no other authority. Large number of cases is
Pending from 10 to 15 years. Even if no new case is filed in this Court
Hereafter, with the present strength of Judges it may take more than 15 years to
Dispose of all the pending cases.
This is a quote from the order passed in 1987 by a bench of the Supreme Court of
India by Justice E.S. Venkataramiah in P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (1987) 4 SCC 609 wherein the Court relegated the writ petitioner under Article
32 to the High Court, without deciding whether fundamental rights were violated or not;
Another comment criticizing the judiciary is by Shri.T.T.Krishnamachari who said
It might be that by giving the judiciary an enormous amount of power a
Judiciary which may not be controlled by any legislature in any manner except
By the means of ultimate removal we may perhaps be creating a Frankenstein
Monster which could nullify the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. I
Have in mind the difference that was experienced in another country.
The methods adopted by the British constitution do not completely involve separation of powers and so
is the constitution of U.S.A. The problems still persist as one of the cases at the time of Roosevelt
where he reformed the judiciary by bringing the new ideal and the judges filed a suite for going
against the rules.
Montesquieu implanted the separation of powers to ensure public liberty and yes, to an extinct it did
work well. It depends on various countries and the types of the societies to adapt to the separation of
powers. If the aim of giving public liberty is ensured with any other method, the debate of better
governance ends there.
Therefore, whatever the pros and cons of the doctrine of separation, Montesquieu ideas revolutionized
todays political scenario and has brought about enormous changes with respect to the freedom to
function within the limits. It brought about political liberty and criticized a single power leading from
the front. India being quasi federal in nature follows the doctrine and is divided into legislature,
executive and judiciary. They have co equal functions and the legislation is divided into the central and
the state.

Page
18

BIBLIOGRAPHY
LIST OF BOOKS REFFERED:
Kapur A.C, Principles of Political Theory
Johari J.C, Principles of modern Political Science

LIST OF WEBSITES
http://airwebworld.com

Page
19