The doctrine of separation of powers is an essential principle in constitutional democracies across the world. At its core, the doctrine requires that the three main organs of the State, namely the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, perform distinct and independent functions. This separation is intended to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch of government, thereby protecting liberty, ensuring accountability, and maintaining the rule of law. Under the Indian Constitution, however, the doctrine of separation of powers is not adopted in its strict classical sense. Instead, India follows a model of functional separation combined with institutional independence and a carefully designed system of checks and balances. This approach allows flexibility in governance while protecting democratic values.

The framers of the Constitution did not explicitly incorporate the doctrine of separation of powers as found in the American Constitution. Instead, they designed an integrated government structure suited to India’s parliamentary system. Nevertheless, the Indian Constitution unmistakably distributes governmental functions among the three branches and establishes safeguards to preserve their respective spheres.

Articles 53 and 154 vest the executive powers of the Union and the States in the President and Governors, who exercise these powers through their respective councils of ministers. Articles 121 and 211 prohibit the legislature from discussing the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts except during impeachment proceedings. Articles 122 and 212 prevent the courts from inquiring into parliamentary procedures, thereby protecting legislative independence. These provisions, among others, reflect the constitutional intention to maintain a functional separation while allowing controlled interaction between the organs of government.

In practice, the Indian legislature is responsible for enacting laws, the executive administers these laws, and the judiciary interprets them. However, the functional overlap arises because of India’s parliamentary system, where the executive is drawn from the legislature. The Prime Minister and other ministers are members of Parliament, which blurs the line between executive and legislative functions.

This overlap is not a flaw but a conscious choice made by the Constituent Assembly, which believed that an accountable executive could be maintained more effectively through legislative responsibility. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, meaning that it must retain the confidence of the majority in the lower house. This system maintains stability while ensuring that the executive does not act independently of democratic oversight.

Despite this overlap, the Constitution places several limits on the executive’s authority. The President, though the constitutional head of the Union, cannot act independently and must follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Similarly, government departments and administrative bodies exercise delegated powers subject to judicial scrutiny. This prevents the executive from becoming overly dominant.

In the landmark case of Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court observed that although the Constitution does not fully recognize the doctrine of separation of powers, it does allocate powers in a manner that prevents any one branch from taking over the essential functions of another. The Court recognised that the executive can exercise legislative power only when authorized by law, and it cannot set aside or override statutory provisions.

The legislative branch, too, operates within constitutional boundaries. While Parliament and State Legislatures possess wide law-making authority, their powers are limited by the division of subjects under the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists, as well as by fundamental rights. Parliamentary supremacy is subject to constitutional supremacy in India. The Supreme Court has struck down laws that violate constitutional mandates, illustrating that legislative power is not absolute.

The judiciary’s power to review legislative actions ensures that the legislature does not encroach upon the functions of the other branches. In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court developed the basic structure doctrine, which holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, including separation of powers, cannot be altered even by constitutional amendment. This doctrine reinforces the idea that separation of powers is a foundational element of India’s constitutional identity.

Judicial review is one of the most significant mechanisms of checks and balances in the Indian constitutional framework. The judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution and ensures that both the legislature and the executive function within constitutional limits. The courts have not hesitated to intervene when the other branches exceed their authority. At the same time, the judiciary has often clarified that it does not seek to govern the country or interfere in policy matters. The separation of powers is respected when judges avoid stepping into executive or legislative domains unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

However, the increasing trend of judicial activism and public interest litigation has sometimes raised concerns about judicial overreach. Critics argue that courts occasionally issue directions that resemble executive policymaking, potentially disturbing the balance envisaged by the Constitution. The judiciary has responded to such criticisms by reiterating the importance of self-restraint and by limiting intervention to instances where constitutional rights or legal duties are at stake.

The judiciary itself enjoys strong constitutional protections to ensure independence. Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed through a consultative process involving the judiciary and the executive. They enjoy security of tenure and can be removed only through a rigorous impeachment process.

Their salaries and conditions of service are constitutionally protected, preventing interference from the executive or the legislature. These safeguards are integral to the separation of powers because they allow judges to decide disputes impartially, without fear of political pressure. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and later in the Second and Third Judges Cases, the Supreme Court affirmed the independence of the judiciary by holding that judicial primacy in appointments is essential for maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

The doctrine of separation of powers in India also plays an important role in federal relations. The Constitution divides legislative and executive authority between the Union and the States, creating an additional layer of functional separation. This ensures that governance remains decentralised and responsive to regional needs. The judiciary again acts as an impartial arbitrator in disputes between the Union and the States, preventing undue interference by one level of government in the affairs of another. This federal balance strengthens democratic governance and reflects the broader constitutional commitment to separation of powers.

In conclusion, the separation of powers under the Indian Constitution is not rigid but flexible, allowing for coordinated governance while maintaining institutional integrity. The doctrine is reflected in the distribution of powers among the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, the system of checks and balances, and the constitutional safeguards protecting judicial independence.

The Indian model recognises that strict separation is neither feasible nor desirable in a parliamentary democracy. Instead, it focuses on preventing concentration of power, promoting accountability, and preserving constitutional supremacy. As India continues to evolve, the judiciary, legislature, and executive must continue to respect each other’s domains while working together within the constitutional framework. The doctrine of separation of powers remains vital to maintaining democratic stability, protecting individual rights, and upholding the rule of law in the world’s largest democracy.