The Indian Constitution establishes a democratic framework in which the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary perform distinct but interrelated functions. While the doctrine of separation of powers is not adopted in its absolute form in India, the Constitution clearly distinguishes between the legislative and executive organs and assigns them different constitutional responsibilities. This distinction is essential for maintaining checks and balances, preventing the concentration of power, and ensuring responsible government. At the same time, India’s parliamentary system requires a certain degree of overlap to promote cooperation and accountability. The interaction between distinction and overlap forms the foundation of India’s constitutional scheme.

The legislature is the law-making branch of the State. In India, the Union legislature consists of the Parliament, comprising the President, the Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha. At the State level, legislatures consist of the Governor and either a Legislative Assembly alone or both an Assembly and a Legislative Council, depending on the State. The legislature debates, discusses, and enacts laws on subjects enumerated in the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. In addition to passing laws, the legislature has functions such as overseeing the executive, controlling public finances, and representing the electorate. Legislative power flows from Articles 79 to 122 for Parliament and corresponding provisions for State legislatures.

The executive, by contrast, is responsible for implementing laws, administering public affairs, and managing day-to-day governance. Executive power at the Union level is vested in the President under Article 53, and at the State level in the Governor under Article 154. However, these constitutional heads act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, which holds real executive authority. The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are drawn from Parliament, and they remain collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This arrangement reflects the essence of parliamentary democracy, where the executive is accountable to the legislature and must maintain its confidence to continue in office.

Despite these clear roles, the legislative and executive functions are not rigidly separated. The framers of the Indian Constitution recognised that a strict separation of powers, like that found in the United States, would not suit India’s needs. India adopted the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, which allows the executive to be a part of the legislature. For example, ministers must be members of Parliament or must become members within six months of being appointed. They participate in legislative debates, introduce bills, and defend government policies. This overlap is intended to ensure executive accountability and prevent authoritarian tendencies.

However, the Constitution still draws an important theoretical and functional distinction between legislative and executive powers. Legislative power involves creating general rules governing society, while executive power involves implementing those rules. The Supreme Court has consistently stressed that essential legislative functions, such as determining fundamental policies or principles, cannot be delegated to the executive.

What can be delegated is only the power to fill in details or make rules necessary to implement the law. This distinction is particularly significant in the context of delegated legislation. Parliament may delegate rule-making authority to the executive because it cannot anticipate every detail, but it cannot delegate the essential legislative function of enacting policy. This principle ensures that ultimate law-making authority remains with the legislature.

The distinction also becomes clear through constitutional limitations placed on each branch. Articles 122 and 212 prevent courts from questioning the validity of legislative proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularity. This protection is available only to the legislature because legislative procedures must remain independent of judicial scrutiny. Similarly, Articles 121 and 211 prohibit discussion in Parliament or State legislatures on the conduct of judges, except during impeachment proceedings. These provisions safeguard the independence of the judiciary and reinforce the separation of functions.

While the legislature exercises law-making power, it also holds the executive accountable. This is one of the most important distinctions between the two branches. In India’s parliamentary system, the executive is answerable to the legislature through mechanisms such as question hour, debates, motions of no confidence, adjournment motions, and parliamentary committees. The legislature also controls the financial powers of the executive. The government cannot spend money without legislative approval, and the annual budget requires parliamentary sanction. This dependence ensures that the executive cannot function independently of legislation or legislative oversight.

The executive plays a significant role in the legislative process, which further illustrates the unique Indian model. Most bills introduced in Parliament are government bills, and the executive determines the legislative agenda. However, once a bill is passed, it becomes law only after receiving the assent of the President, who acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Yet, despite this involvement, the President cannot withhold assent indefinitely and has limited discretion. The executive’s role in law-making does not erase the distinction, because the authority to enact the law ultimately lies with the legislature.

The judiciary has played a vital role in maintaining the distinction between legislative and executive functions. Through judicial review, courts ensure that neither branch exceeds its constitutional competence. The Supreme Court has struck down executive actions that attempted to bypass legislative authority and has invalidated legislative actions that encroached upon judicial independence.

In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, the Court observed that though the Constitution does not draw rigid lines of separation, it clearly assigns different powers to the three branches. The Court clarified that the executive can act only when authorised by law and cannot interfere with legislative functions. Similarly, in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that separation of powers, though not explicitly stated, forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This means that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys the distinction between the branches or concentrates excessive power in one organ.

The distinction between legislative and executive powers becomes even more important in the context of federalism. The Union and State legislatures have law-making power over different subjects, and the corresponding executives implement those laws. Clear demarcation is necessary to maintain federal balance. The judiciary resolves disputes arising from overlapping powers and ensures that neither the Union nor the States trespass into each other’s legislative or administrative domain.

In conclusion, the distinction between legislative and executive functions under the Indian Constitution is both structural and functional. The legislature enacts laws, while the executive implements them. Despite the overlap inherent in the parliamentary system, the Constitution provides clear boundaries that prevent one branch from absorbing the functions of another. Judicial review, parliamentary oversight, constitutional checks, and democratic accountability all ensure that the distinction is maintained. The Indian constitutional framework blends separation of powers with coordination between branches, creating a balanced system that sustains democracy, prevents abuse of power, and ensures efficient governance.