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.
Approach · directive: “do you think ... explain”
What it asks · Agree or disagree with the proposition, using provisions and cases to show that India follows a functional separation with mutual checks, not a rigid, watertight scheme.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Take a position: does the Constitution reject strict separation of powers? Show the overlap of organs and functions
- Explain how checks and balances operate among the three organs, with provisions and cases
Open with · The Constitution vests legislative, executive and judicial power in separate organs but keeps them connected through overlap and control, a scheme the Supreme Court recognised as early as 1955.
Cover
- Overlap by design: ministers sit in Parliament and answer to the Lok Sabha (Articles 74–75); the executive also issues ordinances (Articles 123, 213) and rules.
- Legislature's other functions: Parliament impeaches the President (Article 61), removes judges (Article 124(4)), punishes breach of privilege and amends the Constitution.
- Judiciary's wider role: judicial review of laws and executive acts (Articles 13, 32, 226), rule-making, and directions filling legislative gaps, as in Vishaka (1997).
- Checks and balances: questions and no-confidence motions, presidential assent, judicial review, impeachment, and safeguards for judges' independence (Articles 121, 124(4), 125).
- Strict separation where needed: Article 50 separates judiciary from executive in public services, and Article 122 bars courts from questioning parliamentary proceedings for procedural irregularity.
- Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955) rejected absolute rigidity; Kesavananda (1973) counted separation of powers among basic features; Raj Narain (1975) stopped Parliament deciding a specific dispute.
- Limit to overlap: no organ may take over another's essential function; Parliament cannot adjudicate disputes, and courts should avoid substituting their own policy.
Close with · India follows a functional separation with checks and balances, a flexible scheme suited to parliamentary democracy, and the basic-structure doctrine guards its core against overreach.
Add value (verified)
- Article 50, a Directive Principle, directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services, a limited, service-level separation and not a general doctrine. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 50 - Legislative Department ↗“The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2019, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 226 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
The Constitution assigns legislative, executive and judicial functions to separate organs but does not seal them off from one another; in Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955) the Supreme Court held that it does not adopt a rigid separation of powers. I agree with the proposition.
No strict separation
- Executive drawn from the legislature: ministers sit in Parliament and are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Articles 74–75).
- Executive legislates: ordinances (Articles 123, 213) and delegated rule-making.
- Legislature adjudicates: impeachment of the President (Article 61), removal of judges (Article 124(4)), punishment for breach of privilege.
- Judiciary fills legislative gaps: the Vishaka guidelines (1997) operated as law until Parliament acted.
Checks and balances
- Parliament checks the executive through questions, no-confidence motions and control of the purse; the President's assent checks Parliament.
- Courts check both through judicial review (Articles 13, 32, 226); Kesavananda (1973) made separation of powers a basic feature, and Raj Narain (1975) struck down an amendment by which Parliament decided a specific election dispute.
- The other organs appoint and remove judges, yet Articles 121, 124(4) and 125 protect judicial independence.
- Where separation matters, the text provides it: Article 50 separates the judiciary from the executive, and Article 122 keeps courts out of parliamentary procedure.
India follows a functional separation in which no organ may usurp another's essential function, and the basic-structure doctrine guards this balance against overreach.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.