GS Paper II 2019 · Q1
10 marks · 150 words Separation of powers & dispute redressal X-Ray · Core #32Do 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.
It asks 2 things — 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 · Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955): the Constitution has not recognised separation of powers 'in its absolute rigidity'; functions are differentiated, while organs overlap and check one another.
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 · NCERT sums it up: the Constitution rests on a 'delicate principle of limited separation of powers and checks and balances'; each organ's restraint within its sphere keeps that balance alive.
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.”
- Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955): the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not adopt separation of powers in absolute rigidity, though the functions of the organs are sufficiently differentiated.Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (Supreme Court, 1955), Indian Kanoon ↗“The Indian Constitution has not indeed recognised the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the Government have been sufficiently differentiated”
- Article 121 bars Parliament from discussing the conduct of a Supreme Court or High Court judge except on a motion for the judge's removal, a check that also protects judicial independence.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 121 ↗“No discussion shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties except upon a mot”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2019, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 223words · Minimalist IAS
In Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955) the Supreme Court held that the Constitution has not recognised separation of powers 'in its absolute rigidity'. I agree: functions are differentiated, but organs overlap and check one another.
Why the Constitution rejects strict separation
- Fused executive: ministers sit in Parliament and are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Articles 74–75).
- Executive legislates: the President and Governors issue ordinances (Articles 123, 213); departments frame delegated rules.
- Legislature judges: Parliament impeaches the President (Article 61) and punishes breach of privilege.
- Judiciary fills gaps: the Vishaka guidelines (1997) operated as law until Parliament acted.
How checks and balances operate
| Organ | Checked by | Instrument |
|---|---|---|
| Executive | Legislature | Questions, no-confidence motion |
| Legislature | Judiciary | Judicial review (Articles 13, 32, 226) |
| Judiciary | Legislature | Removal of judges (Article 124(4)) |
- Mutual restraint: Article 121 bars Parliament from discussing a judge's conduct except on a removal motion; Article 122 stops courts questioning parliamentary procedure.
- Core protected: Kesavananda (1973) counted separation of powers among basic features; Raj Narain (1975) struck down Parliament's attempt to decide an election dispute itself.
- Separation where vital: Article 50 directs separating the judiciary from the executive in public services; Article 125 protects judges' pay.
As NCERT puts it, the Constitution rests on a 'delicate principle of limited separation of powers and checks and balances'. Each organ's restraint within its sphere keeps that balance alive.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
