DAW 2nd December 2025, Mains Answer Writting 2026

DAW 2nd December 2025, Mains Answer Writting 2026

Question

Do you think that Constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain. (150 Words, 10 Marks). 

Model Answer

Approach: Introduction:  

  • State that India does not follow a strict separation of powers; instead, it follows a functional separation backed by checks and balances.  

Body: 

  • Briefly show that the Constitution provides functional, not absolute, separation through key Articles like 50, 121–122, 211–212, 53–54, 361 which safeguard independence and restrict interference among organs. 

  • Checks and Balances Mechanisms: 

  • Legislature → Executive: Art. 75(3), Question Hour, No-confidence. 

  • Executive → Legislature: Art. 85, 111, 123. 

  • Judiciary → Both: Judicial Review (Arts. 13, 32, 226), Art. 142. 

  • Why Not Strict Separation? 

  • Highlight India’s parliamentary fusion of powers, need for coordination, avoiding governance gridlock, and examples of overlap like delegated legislation and judicial guidelines. 

  • Challenges/Limitations: 

  • List key issues briefly: judicial overreach, executive dominance, legislative inefficiency, and political influence on judiciary. 

Conclusion: 

  • Conclude that India follows a balanced fusion of powers with checks and balances, not rigid separation. 

  • Emphasize cooperation + accountability → essential for a diverse parliamentary democracy. 

   

        Introduction: 

  • The Constitution of India does not follow a strict separation of powers; rather, it is built on a flexible system of checks and balances. While the doctrine is not explicitly stated, the Constitution provides a functional separation among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary, ensuring mutual control and preventing concentration of power. 

 Body: Separation of powers: Constitution of India lays down a functional separation of the organs of the State in the following manner: 

  • Legislative-Executive Link: In India, the Executive (Council of Ministers) is part of the Legislature. The Prime Minister and other Ministers are members of the Parliament (Article 75).  

  • This structure means that the Executive and Legislature are interconnected, which is characteristic of a parliamentary system rather than a strict separation of powers. 

  • Legislative Checks on Executive: 

  • Collective responsibility of Council of Ministers to Lok Sabha – Art. 75(3). 

  • Question Hour, debates, motions, Parliamentary Committees (PAC, Estimates). 

  • No-Confidence Motion → removal of government. 

  • Budget control & taxation only by law – Art. 265. 

  • Judicial Independence: While the Judiciary is separate, the Constitution ensures its independence (Article 50), but it is also part of the checks and balances system.  

  • The Judiciary can review laws made by the Legislature (Judicial Review under Articles 13, 32, and 226). 

  • Executive checks: The President has specific powers like summoning, proroguing, and dissolving the Lok Sabha (Article 85).  

  • The Executive also holds the power to promulgate Ordinances (Article 123) when Parliament is not in session. 

  • Executive Checks on Legislature: 

  • President summons, prorogues, dissolves Lok Sabha – Art. 85. 

  • Executive dominates legislative proposals (majority of bills). 

  • President can return non-money bills – Art. 111. 

  • Ordinance power when Parliament not in session – Art. 123. 

  • Legislative Oversight on the Executive: Parliament can hold the Executive accountable through mechanisms like Question Hour, No-Confidence Motions, and Budget control (Article 265). The system also allows Parliament to impeach judges (Article 124(4)). 

 Mechanisms of Checks and Balances in the Indian Constitution: 

  • Judicial Checks on Legislature & Executive: 

  • Judicial Review of laws & actions – Arts. 13, 32, 226, 131–136. 

  • Basic Structure doctrine limits Parliament’s amending power (Kesavananda Bharati). 

  • Writ jurisdiction (Habeas Corpus etc.) – Arts. 32 & 226. 

  • Art. 142 → Supreme Court ensures “complete justice.” 

  • Executive Checks on Judiciary: 

  • Appointment of judges by President – Arts. 124, 217. 

  • Executive formalizes removal once Parliament impeaches. 

  • Legislative Checks on Judiciary: 

  • Parliament may alter court jurisdiction – Arts. 131–142 (within Basic Structure). 

  • Impeachment of judges – Art. 124(4), Art. 217. 

  • Can make laws on powers/structure of judiciary. 

 Why India Does NOT Follow Strict Separation of Powers: 

  • Executive is part of Legislature (parliamentary form → no strict separation). 

  • Parliament exercises judicial functions in exceptional cases (e.g., impeachment of President/judges). 

  • Judiciary issues guidelines and enters policy domain (e.g., Vishaka guidelines). 

  • Delegated legislation allows executive to make rules → quasi-legislative role. 

  • Need for coordinated governance among all organs. 

  • Strict separation may create gridlock in a developing democracy. 

  • Harmonious functioning essential for citizen welfare. 

  • Parliamentary democracy naturally blends powers of executive and legislature. 

 Indian System Emphasises Checks and Balances: 

  • Judges’ appointment & removal involve Executive + Parliament. 

  • Parliament controls Executive through Question Hour, Zero Hour, No-Confidence Motion, committees. 

  • Judiciary checks Executive via writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc.). 

  • Judicial Review (Art. 13) allows courts to strike down unconstitutional laws. 

 Challenges to Checks and Balances: 

  • Judicial Overreach 

  • Judiciary sometimes enters executive/legislative domains. 

  • NJAC (99th Amendment) struck down, raising concerns of judicial supremacy. 

  • Executive Dominance 

  • Strong executives can influence legislative functioning. 

  • Emergency powers (Art. 352, 356) may bypass legislative control. 

  • Legislative Inefficacy 

  • Frequent disruptions, low attendance, and polarization weaken scrutiny. 

  • Important laws often passed without adequate debate. 

  • Political Influence on Judiciary 

  • Allegations over politicized appointments undermine independence. 

  • Public trust in judiciary affected, weakening its checking function. 

 Conclusion: 

  • India, as a parliamentary democracy, does not follow a strict separation of powers but a purposeful fusion of powers with functional overlap among the three organs. This judicious coordination and mutual cooperation are essential for effective and equitable governance. In a diverse democratic polity, rigid separation is impracticable, while a balanced system of checks and balances ensures smooth and accountable functioning.