However, Article 50 of the Constitution of India provides that the separation of the executive and the judiciary is a guiding principle of State policy that is not applicable. Certain privileges, powers and immunities shall be accorded to Members of Parliament in accordance with Rule 105. This provision makes the legislator independent. Executive power is exercised by the President and the Governor and is exempt from civil and criminal liability. In India, there is no separation of powers, but there is a separation of powers. Therefore, the Indian people are not bound by principle by their rigidity. For example, the minister has executive and administrative functions. Article 74, paragraph 1, stipulates that the executive head is obliged to follow the recommendations of ministers. In Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, it was decided that the executive branch was part of the legislative branch and was responsible. Although there is an explicit provision in the Constitution, as in the Constitution of the United States, that executive power is vested in the President under section 53, paragraph 1, and on the Governor under section 154, paragraph 1, there is no provision for the transfer of legislative and judicial power to any body.

We can conclude that there is no rigid separation of powers. There is no strict separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, but the judiciary is independent. Basically, the government is divided into three branches, and it is the judiciary that will implicitly define the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Although the France is credited with establishing the doctrine of separation of powers, it flexibly recognizes the separation of powers in its constitution. [68] Articles 1 and 2 of the document set out legislative power separately from the executive. [69] An important feature that ensures the separation of powers is the dual judicial system. The France has one type of court that deals with all civil cases and another that deals with administrative matters. [70] The strict separation of powers envisaged in the classical sense is no longer feasible, but the logic behind this doctrine is still valid.

The logic behind this doctrine is polarity rather than strict classification, meaning that the center of authority must be dispersed to avoid absolutism. Therefore, the doctrine can be better evaluated as a doctrine of checks and balances. Justice Chandrachud stated that no constitution can survive without the doctrine of separation of powers and that this doctrine is a politically useful advantage for any democracy. He explained that the doctrine is rooted in the articles of the Indian Constitution. The doctrine of separation of powers in the strict sense means that if there is a correct distinction between three organs and their functions, there should also be a system of control and balance. Similarly, the judicial conduct of a judge of the Court cannot be discussed in Parliament and the State Legislature under sections 121 and 211. In addition, article 361 grants immunity from civil and criminal liability to the President and the Governor, who hold the executive power of the country. Before we move on to relationships, let`s briefly look at what the functions of each government agency are. Although the strict separation of powers in India is not followed like the US Constitution, the system of control and balance is followed. However, no body may take over the essential functions of other organs, which are part of the basic structure, even by amendment, and if amended, such an amendment is declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly been accused of pronouncing judgments often referred to as judicial laws.

This happens when, under the pretext of establishing guidelines and creating principles, they seize the powers of Parliament, for example by establishing the basic structural doctrine, the Supreme Court has limited Parliament`s power to legislate and amend laws. Justice through the collegiate system has also been accused of violating the powers of other branches. The essential function of the judiciary is to interpret the law, rather than to be harsh in the appointment of judges. After all, our parliamentary form of democracy, in which parliamentarians are elected by the people and face the people, fulfills the slogan “We the people”; In comparison, judges have a permanent position. They are not accountable to anyone as such and should focus on the judiciary rather than appointments. It can be concluded that the doctrine of separation of powers in the strict sense is undesirable and impracticable and has therefore not yet been fully accepted in any country. Theoretically, under the U.S. Constitution, the doctrine of separation of powers has been strictly adopted, but even there, the Supreme Court is gradually relaxing its policy. In India, even if you look casually at the constitution, you can say that India has adopted the doctrine of separation of powers, but in reality that is not the case.