A study of parliamentary and Presidential form of Government ...researchjournal.co.in/upload/assignments/8_116-136.pdfdebates and discussions and parliamentary sessions. For the purpose

A study of parliamentary and Presidential form ofGovernment, recent trends in the Indian system ofGovernment and problems faced by the Indian JudicialSystem

Shriya Singh* and Mukund Sarda1

Department of Law, New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), PUNE (M.S.) INDIA1Faculty of Law, New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), PUNE (M.S.) INDIA

The article studies the oldest forms of Government in the world i.e. Parliamentary andPresidential form of Government. The article elaborates various features of both theforms. In addition to this, the article also brings about some light on the recent trendsin the Indian system of Governance detailing its various aspects. Throuhout the researchvarious cases have been discussed which elaborates the evolution of judicial systemof problems faced by the Indian judiciary in keeping trhe complexity of the largestdemocracy of the world.

HIND ARTS ACADEMY

Received : 04.03.2017Accepted : 28.05.2017

ARTICLE INFO :

KEY WORDS :

Parliamentary, Presidential, Indiansystem of Government, Indian Judicialsystem

ABSTRACT

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE :Singh, Shriya and Sarda, Mukund (2017).A study of parliamentary and Presidentialform of Government, recent trends in theIndian system of Government andproblems faced by the Indian JudicialSystem. Adv. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 8 (1) : 116-136, DOI: 10.15740/HAS/ARJSS/8.1/116-136.

INTRODUCTIONThe parliamentary and presidential form of

government is two most famous kind of governance formsin the world. USA has a presidential form of government.India has a parliamentary form of government. Both kindsof government have their own merits as well as demerits.The following is the description of the two forms ofgovernment.

AREVIEW

ADVANCE RESEARCH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCEVolume 8 | Issue 1 | June, 2017 | 116-136 e ISSN–2231–6418

DOI: 10.15740/HAS/ARJSS/8.1/116-136 Visit us : www.researchjournal.co.in

Practices in Parliamentary form of Government:The powers are distributed between the three organs

of the state in the parliamentary form of government.The parliament is supreme. The parliament is answerableto the people. In this system of governance the head ofthe state is not the same person who is the head of thegovernment. The countries with parliamentary form ofgovernment can be either: Constitutional Monarchies orParliamentary Republics.

*Author for correspondence

117H I N D A RT S A C AD E M YAdv. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 8(1); June, 2017 :

The modern system of parliamentarian system findsits origin to 1707 – 1800 in the Great Britain. Theparliamentary system can be with a bicameral legislatureor unicameral legislature. Bicameral means two houses.Unicameral means one house.

The parliamentary form of government can befurther divided into two Types:

– Westminster System.– Consensus System.The Westminster form of government can be seen

mostly in the Common wealth of Nations. This kind ofsystem is believed to have a more adversarial fashion ofdebates and discussions and parliamentary sessions. Forthe purpose of elections the elections are either singletransferable vote, instant runoff voting, proportionalrepresentation and plurality voting system. Some alsouse the Proportional representation system. The westernEuropean countries have Dualism as form of Separationof Power.

India is also one of the Commonwealth Nations.The countries which were once a colony of the Britishrule is called as the Commonwealth of Nations. In Indiathe legislature and the executive are interconnected toeach other. The period of emergency during the time ofMrs. Indira Gandhi was the turning point which forcedthe thinkers to re think if the parliamentary form ofgovernment is the best form of government.

India adopted this kind of government during the1947 as it was very much familiar with this kind ofgovernment. The drafters of the constitution of India weregreatly influenced by the English system of governance.Since India was a land of several varied groups it wasimportant that each of the group has a representation sothey do not feel left out. The presidential form ofgovernment was rejected was there was too exclusivenessin the functioning of Executive and Legislature. Whichmay further result in conflicts in the country.

Under the parliamentary form of government thehead of the state is the President nominally while theprime minister is the real head of the state. There areseveral powers given to the president but he merely getsa chance to exercise them. The real powers are exercisedby the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.Since India has a partial separation of powers betweenthe executive as well as the legislature, so they are nottotally independent of each other. They are mutuallydependent on each other.

The residuary power vests with the ExecutiveBranch of the government. In this kind of system theexecutive is more responsible to the legislature. Thecouncil of ministers has a collective responsibilitytowards the each other. Without giving any reasons theprime minister has the power to remove any minster fromthe office for the same.

The essential Features of parliamentary form ofgovernment will be:

– Presence of nominal head in the government.– Close nexus between the executive and

legislature.– Accountability of the executive.– Collective responsibility.– Leadership of prime Minister.Smooth Functioning, Quick Decision Making,

Flexible System, Open Administration are some of theadvantages of this system of government. The closenessbetween the executive and the legislature helps in thesmooth running of the country. If the party is in majoritywithout any kind of alliances then the decisions can betaken smoothly and quickly. In the Indian Constitution,the constituent Assembly had proposals to incorporatethe doctrine in the constitution, but they did not acceptthem. As the doctrine was absolutely rigid for provisionsof the constitution. The constitution did not make anyabsolute or rigid division of functions among the threebranches of the state. Often the Legislative and theJudicial functions are given to the Executive. There is afunctional separation in the constitution.

The Executive power of the union and the State isvested in the president and the Governors of the states.The president is the head of the Executive branch.. Heexercises his powers on the aid and advice of his primeMinister and his council of Ministers. The supreme courtis the highest court of appeal. The constitution recognizesthe three fold functional division of governmentalpowers. Article 50 expressly requires the state to applythe Doctrine of independence of Judiciary form theExecutive as a sign of Efficient Government.

Even the implementation of the changes does notbecome an issue in the parliament. Since this kind ofgovernment if flexible in nature they adapt to changesquickly.

In this kind there can be certain drawback of systemas well, like Absolute Majority, Politicization OfAdministration, Unsuitable For Multi-Party system,

SHRIYA SINGH AND MUKUND SARDA

116-136

118 H I N D A RT S A C AD E M YAdv. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 8(1); June, 2017 :

Emergencies and Mal- Administration . Theparliamentary form becomes a virtual dictatorship if theparty is in majority. Also they sometimes tend to becomeautocratic in their actions also. They sometimes also tendto have more politics than the welfare of the people.Parliamentary system has no qualifications to deal withsituations like Emergencies etc.

The men drafters of constitutions were people ofpractical and political experiences and it was theirpractical expedient that they opted the doctrine of theSeparation of Powers. But they did not believe in theair-tight separation that the doctrine of separation ofpower. They wanted to avoid the concentration of powerin any one department of government, as supported bythe doctrine, as that would enable that departments ororgans to become autocratic. This end could best beachieved not by a theoretical application of the pure formof separation of power among the three organs of thegovernment. But by a judicious mixing, blending andoverlapping of powers which would let them have a checkand balance on the other branches and avoid thetyrannical tendencies of the others. It is clear that theframers never intended to apply the doctrine in its strictestform. If they actually intended to adopt the doctrine theywould have done it by applying it in its totality.

Practice in Presidential form of Government :The presidential system is that form of government

where the head of government is also act as the head ofstates, not only this but he also leads the executive branchwhich is separated from legislative branch. The UnitedStates of America has a presidential system. Thelegislature may have the right, in rare most cases, todismiss the executive through impeachment.

In the Presidential form of government the executiveis led by the President. In this form of government thePresident act both as the head of the state and also thehead of the government. In this form of government thePresident takes up the charge in his own capacity ratherthan acting on the aid and advice of the Cabinet, as inthe form of Parliamentary Form of Government. ThePresident is elected directly by the people. The Presidents also the supreme commander of the Army and also hasthe power to carry on the Foreign Policies.

From gaining complete control of the government.It was hoped that by making each branch accountable todifferent groups a variety of interests would be reflected

hence compromises and a balancing of interests wouldresult.

The framers of the constitution of United States havestrictly adhered to the doctrine of Separation Of Powers.The drafters of the Constitution intended to have thebalance of powers which can be attained by checks andbalances between separate organs of government. Thepure doctrine of the Separation of Powers had to bemodified as it was not able to cope up with the changingdimensions of states responsibilities and changing in thecomplex politico-economic problems of democraticsocials. The doctrine is difficult to implement in the strictform as it will be impracticable.

Separation of powers finds its origin in the draft of1789 constitution of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.The powers of the government are vested in three organsof the government. The American system also acceptsseparation of power as for Authority. It means that noperson should hold office in more than one of threebranches of government. Section 6, Article 1 speciallysays that, “No person shall be a member of either Houseduring his convenience in office who is holding any officeunder the United States.” It is clear from the practice.Robert Kennedy resigned as Attorney General in orderto become senator to become Secretary of Defense. ByronWhite resigned from Assistant Attorney General in orderto become a Justice of the Supreme Court. ArthurGoldberg by resigning the post of Justiceships of theSupreme Court to become U.S Ambassador.

However, the American Constitution opted for adiluted version of the Separation Of Powers. A plainreading of the American Constitution of 1789 revealsthat this does not formulate doctrinaire or prohibitiveidea of the Separation of Powers. Further Holmes J. madeit clear that distinction between Legislative and Executiveactions cannot be carried out with mathematicalprecision. Neither can it be divided into watertightcompartments nor is it desirable to do so.

President has always been an active member in thepolitical processes. Although their level of participationwill depend upon the legislature in majority. It is difficultto make policies in the presidential form of governmentas there will be slow responses. But the presidential formof government is proved more efficient in largercountries. The president is always in a dominant positionin this type of government. But this does not mean thatthe separation of power is totally neglected or discarded.

STUDY OF PARLIAMENTARY & PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT

116-136


The process of impeachment by the Legislative bodymay be termed as judicial function. But it does forms apart of the system of checks and balances which ispeculiar trend. The three branches of the government arenot at all totally isolated from one another. Each of it hasa sufficiently engraved system of checks and balancesso that whenever required they can check each other.The congress may keep checks on other departments inmany ways in which it alone may propose. The househas the power to impeach and the senate will try theimpeachment proceedings of Executive and Judicialofficers. This is how their removal from the office is done.The Congress through legislation establishes, regulate,limit or abolish inferior courts and Executive governingbody. The Congress acts as a treasury for all. The Senatehas the power control the Executive and the courts. Theexecutive can also reject the nomination of the President.Congress may refuse the bill to pass which presidentrequires passing.

The congress has the power to limit the appellatejurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Similarly, there areother ways through which other branches might bechecked by the president. The president has the powerto veto through which he can keep a check on thecongress. But this veto can be overridden by a 2/3 vote.He can keep a check on the courts though his power toappoint judges.

Similarly, the courts can check the other departmentsby interpreting and applying acts of congress and treatiesof the United States. This gives them the power to havea check on both congress and the president. The courtsmay also declare acts of congress to be unconstitutionaland thus prevent enforcement. The courts also controlExecutive and administrative actions though entertainingsuits and issuing court orders against public officers.

Presidential form of government cannot be treatedas a sufficient cause for the failure of democracy. Thepresidential system has its own ways to keep checks oneach other. There is less danger of oppression in thepresidential form of government. Since the president iselected directly is it is easy to make him accountable.

Even in the presidential form of government peoplecan be called as sovereign authority. The powers of thestate are limited. The president holds the office for a fixedterm. The other procedure to remove the president isthrough impeachment.

The basic Features of a Presidential form of

government are:– President is the real head.– Separation of power.– Ministers are accountable to the President.People directly elect the President. So the congress

as well as the president is not a part of the legislature.Neither have they held the offices like monarchs. Theybecome accountable to the people and not to thelegislature. The powers of the president are very realthough the exercise of it varies greatly with thepersonality of the President, and it is the presidentsbusiness to execute the Laws passed by Congress, in itslegislation he can and does influence the actions ofCongress. When he gives his speech he influences thecongress up to a greater extent. Even the president hasno powers to dissolve the congress. The independenceof judiciary can be clearly seen. So a system of checksand balances can be seen in the residential form ofgovernment. The doctrine did not give the Supreme Courtthe power to decide political questions, because it wantedto avoid interference with the exercise of power of theexecutive. The power to override judicial reviews wasnot given to Supreme Court. The president has the rightto co-exercise the powers of the congress through hisvetoes. The president also exercises the law makingpower through his treaty making decisions. When thepresident appoints the judges it can be seen as hinderingwith the judicial decisions also.

The presidential form of government has its ownmerits and demerits. More Democratic, Stability andContinuity of Government, People Choose President,More Efficient in Working, Prompt Decisions, Best Dealswith Emergencies, More Suitable for Multi-Party Systemand More Unity Can Be Seen are some of the merits ofthe presidential form of government.

The powers of executive include veto over the bills,making of treaties appointments of judges and otherofficial. But the chief function of executive remains tobe the enforcement of law. The president, executive head,is the commander- in- chief of the military. He also haspardoning powers. The judiciary has the power tointerpret the laws in federal cases and try them. There isa system of checks and balances by the legislative andjudiciary so that the executive does not exceeds its ambitof work. The legislative power includes the law makingpower establishment of lower federal courts andenactment of all federal laws. The powers regarding


116-136


president is overriding of Presidential veto andimpeachment of president. The checks and balances aredone by the executive and judiciary so that there is nohindrance with the rights of the people. The additionalpower vested with the courts is declaring any law orexecutive action as unconstitutional. The checks andbalance system by the executive and legislative works inthe same way.

The framers of the constitution of United States havestrictly adhered to the doctrine of Separation of Powers.The drafters of the Constitution intended to have thebalance of powers which can be completed by checksand balances between separate organs of government.The pure doctrine of the Separation of Powers had to bemodified as it was not able to cope up with the changingdimensions of states responsibilities and changing in thecomplex politico-economic problems of democraticsocials. In the strict form it is very difficult to apply thedoctrine as it will be impracticable.

The doctrine of separation of power that attractedthe framers of U.S. constitution was designed to preventthe majority from being dictator. From their pastexperiences, the framers wanted to be sure that no newgovernment has too much power, rather a system ofchecks and balances. Article 1 of the constitution providefor a legislative comprising of the house and the senate.Article 2 provides for the executive, which includes thePresident, the Vice-president and the departments. Article3 provides for the judiciary comprising of the federalcourts and the Supreme Court. With a system of checksand balances each branch has their own powers and theirown ambit. The system of checks and balances wasdesigned rather than evolved by an accident. This systemmakes each branch accountable and responsible to eachother, which helps any of the branches from becomingdominant.

Conflicts and deadlock, absence of accountabilityto people, rigidity, weak foreign policy can be termed assome of the demerits of this form of government. Thisform of government is less accountable to people ascompared to the parliamentary form of government. Inthe Indian Constitution, the constituent Assembly hadproposals to incorporate the doctrine in the constitution,but they did not accept them. As the doctrine wasabsolutely rigid for provisions of the constitution. Theconstitution did not make any absolute or rigid divisionof functions among the three branches of the state. Often

the Legislative and the judicial functions are given tothe Executive. There is a functional separation in theconstitution. The Executive power of the union and theState is vested in the president and in the Governors ofthe states. The president is the head of the Executivebranch. He exercises his powers on the aid and advice ofhis prime Minister and his council of Ministers. TheSupreme Court is the highest court of appeal. Theconstitution recognizes the three fold functional divisionof governmental powers. Article 50 expressly requiresthe state to apply the Doctrine of independence ofJudiciary form the Executive as a sign of EfficientGovernment

Although there have been controversies that thepresidential form of government is not much appreciationto this form and is seen mostly in United States OfAmerica, it is important to note that every form has theirown merits and demerits. They have been running sincea longer time. As a matter of fact they still run with allthe glory and success.

Recent trends in The Doctrine under the Indiansystem :

The doctrine of Separation Of Powers is a strictand absolute doctrine. But it has been modified to meetthe challenges of different societies. The IndianParliamentary system has its own systems ofmodifications. From the “Pure Doctrine” of theSeparation of Powers there is a little divergence and eventhe American model has made a lot of modifications.We have adopted the doctrine from the constitution ofAmerica. The modifications have been made due tochanges in the present day requirements in whichisolation of the organs will not work. The system ofchecks and balances have been established to preventthe government from becoming Despotic.

The following heads will discuss the latestapplication of the doctrine of separation of power in TheIndian Parliamentary set up:

Accountability of Executive to Parliament :The Indian parliament has been facing challenges

regarding the accountability of executive to theparliament. It is believed that the decline in theeffectiveness is caused by the lack of accountability ofthe executive to the legislature. Globalization has alsoeroded the powers of the parliament. Firstly the economic


116-136


decisions are taken keeping in mind the globalprospective. Secondly by the restructuring of theregulatory framework which has to be given to a lot ofnon elected institutions. The weakness of the IndianParliament has also give a slow pace to the formationand implementation of legislations. Even the politicalleaders do not have the caliber of person who should beentering the parliament. The lack in their educational andprofessional background has affected the executivenegatively. Although the constitution of India has alwaysaimed at the democratic accountability it has to someextent lagged behind in parliamentary accountability.Looking at the recent past India has widened the scopeof democratic participation to a greater extent. India hasalso gained a lot of significance in the economic area.India always had a bicameral legislature. India also hasa concept of universal adult franchise. The Lok Sabhaand the Rajya Sabha are the two houses where as themembers of Lok Sabha are directly elected but this kindof election is more of a favoritism banned the actualassessment of the work of the leaders. The authority inaccountability of parliament is limited by the system ofchecks and balances exercised by the other organs. Therewas a time when there was a perfect balance betweenthe legislature and the executive but the two organs nowhave been losing this balance lately.

Although parliament is not the supreme authoritybut it has been controlling the other two organs eitherdirectly or indirectly. In India the will of the people isembodied the parliament, so it is the duty of theparliament that the people are their prime importance.The executive accountability will ensure the publiccharacter of the organ and also will prove that there is nodespotism or corruption or any other kind of inappropriatebehaviour.

The accountability will also promote performanceleading to setting standards and norms which areimportant for the public welfare. The accountability ofthe executive will also lead to easy access to thegovernment. The three organs have to work in co-ordination with each other for the smooth running of thecountry. The council of ministers is accountable to theparliament for their actions, but there is no legal duty onthe parliament to enforce the accountability to theexecutive. A good responsible government alwaysfollows the guiding principles of the constitution.

The constitution of India speaks about the

parliamentary form of government which means that theParliament is supreme. Certain provisions givesparliament to have a control over the government. Thecouncil of ministers are collectively responsible to theRajya Sabha as per Article 75(3). According to this articleindividual minister is accountable for his respectivedepartment. For the executive to declare emergency atthe state level, the power is subjected to parliamentarycontrol.

For the money matters it is important to obtain grantfrom the Lok Sabha for which the government has toshow the need and spending amount. It is evident withthe present working of the executive and the legislaturethat the executive has a control over the parliament andnot vice versa. Also there is a lack of accountability onthe part of executive.

The Democratic theory provides that since powergenerates from the people within the government, eachlevel of the Executive authority is accountable to next,running on up to the cabinet or the president. TheExecutive authority is accountable to the legislature. Thethree important conditions which determines theeffectiveness of the Legislative control overadministrative actions. First of all, as a matter of principlelegislatures can be effective in its control over theExecutive only in proportion to the strength and appealto the electorate, expects that someday it would have achance to a cabinet of the future.

There is an opposition party which tends to work asa barrier for the present government if they try to actdespotic. Not only this but the strength and quality ofpublic opinion also affects the functioning of theparliament. Strong opinion of public which supports thelegislature can effectively retain Executive andadministrative action. Public opinion controls theExecutive both through independent expression ofopinion on public issues, supporting or opposing thelegislature in its attitude towards the Executive and alsoduring the time of elections by choosing such people whowould be honest and fearless in criticizing actions of theGovernment. Moreover, the effectiveness of Legislativecontrol over the Executive also depends upon the devicesand procedures installed by the legislature in carryingout its functions to meet the changing needs of the modernsociety.

Groups in the Parliament of India and the statelegislature are such that they cannot end winding counter


116-136


weight to the powerful Executive. So, in the matter ofpower the role of the parliamentary party assumes specialsignificance. The control of parliament is weakened upto a great extent because of the incapability of theopposition to present a complete, effective andconstructive challenge to the party in power.

The efficiency of parliament lies in its mastery ofdetails and the unwinding attention it pays to aspects ofimplementation of policy. It has no voice in the layingdown of policy except in so far as its work is influencedby the majority party. But its control can be more effectiveif the members are alert to the way the policies areintroduced and implemented and point out competenceto understand the contents of policy over themaccordingly on the floor of the house.

Administrative pronouncements :Administrative Adjudication is the process by which

an administrative agency issues an affirmative, negative,inactive or declaratory order. The formal proceedingsbefore an administrative agency adopt the process ofrulemaking or adjudication. In recent times, theadministration has obtained powers of adjudication overdisputes between itself and private individuals inter alia,and has emerged with a plethora of tribunals. Theadministration has secured detailed powers to grant,refuse or revoke licenses, impose sanctions and takeactions of various kinds in its discretion or subjectivesatisfaction. Proceeding to this, it has been given vastpowers of inquiry, analysis, investigation, search andrelinquishment and surveillance.

For determination of major policies a Legislativebody is best suited in the given setup, but it also lackstime, technique and expertise to handle it. Therefore, thelegislature has to be satisfied by laying down broadpolicies and leave the rest to the administration, thus hasresulted in delegated legislation. In support of this,administrative adjudication has arisen largely becauseof the multitude of cases arising for adjudication underthe modern legislation that need to be decided sweepinglywithout much formal and technical delays, and with thespecial persons with the specialized skills. The courtsare not in a position to fulfill these conditions and so theadministrative tribunals have come into picture.

Administrative adjudication is the power of anadministrative agency of judicial powers which have beengiven to them by a legislative body. These Agencies

typically possess both legislative and judicial powers.The legislative power gives this administrativeadjudicatory body an authority to issue regulations,whereas the judicial power gives this administrativeadjudicatory body an authority to adjudicate cases. Thecurrent distinction was not made historically betweenadjudication in courts of law and within administrativeagencies.

Administrative courts mostly work for determiningthe rights of the individuals against other individuals andtheir duties. They also entertain the cases that are againstthe government. This function mainly distinguishesadministrative tribunals from civil courts. Theadministrative tribunals are having the power to assessvarious penalties, like forfeiture of licenses for violatinga statutory or administrative regulation. Manyadministrative bodies are not vested with adjudicativepowers and they must proceed through the regular courtsof law for civil or criminal sanctions.

Adjudication can also be in the competitions, like itcan also be the process, at dancing competitions, intelevision, game shows and at other competitive forums,according to which competitors are evaluated and rankedand a winner is found. But we are talking about theAdjudication in the legal terms which is a legal procedureto resolve a dispute. The academic giving or uttering ofa judgment or decree in a proceeding of court, also thejudgment or decision given. The entry of the decree by acourt in respect to the parties involved in the case. Itimplies a hearing by a court, after a notice of legalevidence on the factual issue involved. The equivalentof a determination which indicates that the claims of allthe parties thereto have been considered and set at rest.Adjudication is a process by which an arbiter ora judge analysis evidence and disputation, includinglegal reasoning set forth by opposition partiesor offender to come to a decision which determines rightsand obligations between the parties involved in it. Threetypes of disputes are resolved through adjudication:Disputes between the private parties, which may beindividuals or corporations, disputes between the privateparties and public officials and public bodies or publicofficials.

Another point of difference between administrativetribunals and regular courts is nature of subject matter.The subject matter of an administrative tribunal is a singleeconomic activity, or a set of densely related economic


116-136


activities, or specific benefits conferred by government.The administrative tribunals are mostly the quasi judicialbodies. They are established either through a law or byany act of delegation by the legislature to executive. Theexecutive has a jurisdiction over the administrativetribunals.

Administrative adjudication has been gaining a lotof importance in the recent past. It is a new branch oflaw that finds its origin in the Droit Administratiff ofFrance. Administrative law has gained its importance inthe whole world. Administrative law deals with theprinciples that govern the governmental agencies bothof the state or union as well as that of the federal. Thebasic aim is to see that the government acts within itslimits of jurisdiction. They should not violate the rightsof the people. Administrative law is one of the branch ofPublic law. This branch of law was popularised in the20th Century. The administrative law has been an outcomeof the socio-economic functions of the state that havebeen increasing at a very fast pace. Due to this reasonthere has been an increase in the administrative functionsas well as powers.

Judicial review :The countries with common law system have the

method of judicial review, which is embodied in theirconstitutions or any source of the same. Any law whichis passed by the legislature or executive, the power toreview that law is vested in the High Courts and SupremeCourt. It is important as it the measure through whichlegislative and executive remains under the surveillance.The system of the checks and balances has made it easyso that they can check other branches.

For the judicial review of legislations The IndianConstitution has some provisions. This concept has takenfrom the constitution of United States Of America. whichmakes the judiciary empower to make decisions andreview the laws passed by the legislature. If any part ofthe legislation is in coercion with the constitution of Indiathen it can also be rendered as unconstitutional.

This power conferred on the Judiciary has a lot ofsignificance as it has to deal directly with people andprotect the rights of people against the tyranny of theother two organs. It is however important to see that theprocedure of judicial review forms a part of the systemof checks and balances.

In Union Of India v. Satish Chandra1, Krishna Iyer,

J. observed that: “Neither we are in the mood to condonewillful procrastination nor suffer wanton stagnation inadministration in obeying order of courts as a groundfor default. The law does not respect lazy bosses norcheeky evaders. Nevertheless, behaving in a pragmaticmanner and taking into consideration on the paperlogged procedure, millions of people and miles of redtape in governmental functioning, the court stressed thatcontempt power must be used sparingly if it is conceivedthat there has been willful defiance or disobedience.Court has now developed the concept of ‘ContinuousMandamus’ to monitor compliance of its direction.”

The Judicial Review has been controlling the powersof the government over the years. It has acted as acontrolling mechanism so that the government does notbecome autocratic. It is necessary to control thegovernment because otherwise it will be hindering therights of the people. The welfare of the people is theprime aim of the people.

As we have a written constitution, there have beenseveral situations when it had become necessary to decidewhether Acts passed by the parliament had adverselyaffected the fundamental rights guaranteed under theConstitution. In this context the principle of judicialreview has played a very important role.

Judicial review is the doctrine under which actionsof legislative and executive are subject to review bythe judiciary. With a judicial review power a court mayoverrule laws and decisions that are inappropriate witha higher authority, such as the terms of a writtenconstitution. In the separation of powers the term is oneof the checks and balances: the power of the judiciary toadminister the legislative and executive branches whenthe latter exceed their authority. The agenda and scopeof judicial review may differ between and withincountries because the doctrine varies betweenjurisdictions.

Civil law and Common law are two distinct butparallel legal systems in the context of which the termJudicial review can be appreciated, and also by twodistinct theories of democracy with reference to themanner in which government should be formulated withrespect to the principles and doctrines of the separationof powers and legislative supremacy.

One more reason why the judicial review should beunderstood in the situation of both the development oftwo distinct legal systems(common law and civil law)


116-136


and two theories of democracy (legislative supremacyand separation of powers) is that some countries don’thave any type of judicial review of the primary legislationwith common law systems. Still in the United Kingdoma common law system is presented, the country still hasa strong attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy;consequently, judges do not have the power to shoot downprimary legislation in the United Kingdom.Nonetheless, there has been tension between unitedkingdom’s propensity toward legislative supremacy andthe EU’s legal system since the United Kingdom becamea member of European Union, which categoricallyprovides the power of judicial review to the Court ofJustice of the European Union.

The courts is granted to review administrative actsby the most modernized legal systems (individualdecisions of a public body, such as a decision to assist asubsidy or to withdraw a permit of residence). In mostof the systems, review of secondary legislation are alsoincluded (legally enforceable rules of generalappropriateness approved by administrative bodies).Some countries, markedly France and Germany, haveenforced a system of administrative courts which arecharged with resolving disputes between administrationand the members of the public. In other countriescounting the United States and the United Kingdom, thejudicial review carried out by the regular civil courts,although it may be assigned to specialized panels withinthese courts.

The United States employed a mixed system inwhich the district courts of the United States review someadministrative decisions, some decisions are directlyreviewed by the courts of appeals of the United Statesand the specialized tribunals like the United States Courtof Appeals, for Veterans Claims which is not technicallypart of the federal judicial branch despite its name, reviewother decisions . It is quite common that such preliminaryconditions like a complaint to the authority must befulfilled before a request for judicial review of anadministrative act filed with a court. In most of thecountries, the courts apply such special procedures inadministrative cases.

Civil law and common law are the two distinct legalsystems of the starting, which have contrasting viewsabout judicial review. The Common law judges are seenas sources of law, skilful in innovating new legalprinciples, not only this but also experienced in rejecting

legal principles that are no longer lawful. Who apply thelaw are seen as judges, having no power to destroy legalprinciples according to the tradition of civil law. Not onlythis but the idea of separation of powers is also a differenttheory about how the government of a democratic societyshould be organized. In comparison with the legislativesupremacy, Montesquieu was the first to introduced theidea of separation of powers.

In Marbury v. Madison2 case the Supreme Courtruled under the court of John Marshall in the UnitedStates. “The Separation of powers is based on the ideaaccording to which, without any due process of law nowing of government should be able to drill power overany other branch, there should be a check on power witheach branch of the government, so that it could checkthe other branches of government, thus creating abureaucratic balance among all the branches of thegovernment. checks and balances is a key to this idea.On the powers of the other two branches of thegovernment by the judiciary, judicial review is treatedas a key check in the US.”

Regarding judicial review, along with the societiesbased on common law and those underscoring thedoctrine, differences in constructing such democraticsocieties led to different views being the most likely toutilize judicial review. Still, many countries, whose legalsystems are stationed on the idea of legislative supremacy,have learned the possible dangers and limitations ofassigning power absolutely to the legislative branch ofthe government. To branch the tyranny of the majoritywith the civil law system many countries have adopted aform of judicial review.

Nullification of Judicial decisions :All the organs of the government get their powers

from the constitution. To enact laws the legislature hasresiduary power. Articles 245 and 246 of our constitutionread with three lists of 7th Schedule distributes theLegislative powers between the state legislatures and theparliament both territorially and on the basis of subjectmatters. Within the sphere allotted to the legislature, it issupreme.

The legislature can enjoy the constitution power ofmaking laws both eventually and retrospectively. Thelegislature enacted the law, the defects are identified bythe Judiciary. Then it is legislature again which amendsthe law and abolishes defects pointed out by Judiciary.


116-136


Validating laws can also be passed by it. The power oflegislature to validate invalid laws by makingretrospective enactments has been admitted by theSupreme Court. If a law is not valid for the reason thatwithout Legislative competence the legislature has passedit and action is taken under its provisions, if thesubsequent law passed by the same legislature then thesaid action can be validated, after it is covered with thenecessary Legislative power. The power to validate aninvalidate law is a also included with the power to makelaws. By changing the basis of decision retrospectivelythe legislature can abolish the effect of a decision. Thecourts have maintained distinction between two sorts ofLegislative abolition of judicial decision; first of allabolishing the effect of a judicial decision by changinglaw retrospectively and then, making encroachment withjudicial process. The former is allowed but the latter isnot. However, during the emergency of 1975, when mostof the dissenters were interned and truncated parliamentmutilated the constitution through various constitutionalamendments, the possibility of abuse of power no longerremained imaginary. The Supreme Court itself faced thatreality in Indira Gandhi case, where Iyer. J., held thatshe could not vote in parliament or perform any suchduty which was associated with her membership ofparliament. Hence, the promulgation of emergency in1975 came soon after the above decision of the SupremeCourt. After the promulgation, the Gandhi governmentenacted a number of constitutional amendments. But theconstitutional harmony between the legislature andJudiciary is fundamental for constitutional peace andgood government. it is not enough in the constitutionallaw to separate the two “In water-tight compartments”.Though the separation is no doubt necessary but what ismore essential is an active and dynamic co-operationbetween the two.

The theory of abolition is based on a view that theStates formed the Union by an agreement (or “compact”)among the States, and that as founder of the federalgovernment, the final authority to determine the limitsof the power of that government vested in the hands ofstate. Under this, the compact theory, the States and notthe federal courts are the eventual interpreters of theextent of the power of the federal government. Underthis theory, the States therefore may reject, or abolish,federal laws that the States admit are beyond theconstitutional powers of the federal government. The

related idea of interposition is a theory that when thefederal government enacts laws a state has the right andthe duty to arbitrate itself that the state believes to beunconstitutional. The theories of nullification andinterposition was boosted by Thomas Jefferson and JamesMadison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in1798.

In a verdict that could influence the pending inter-state water disputes, the Supreme Court ruled thatParliament and Assemblies have no power to enact lawsthat abolish the judicial verdicts based on facts andfindings. Because of this pretension of power, legislaturehas no power to neutralize the effect of any judgmentwhich is given after scrutinising the facts by means ofevidence or materials placed by the parties before thecourt of law.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that thelegislature has the power to make judicial decisions asineffective by enacting a law which validates thelegislative field by fundamentally altering or changingthe character even retrospectively.

This power has not much application where ajudicial decision has been given by recording the findingof facts. A Judicial decision, which of the matter by givingfindings upon the facts, should not be changed bylegislature. A final judgment should operate and remainin force until it is altered by the court in appropriateproceedings.

Thus, judicial review is a weapon to check whetherthe Legislative and Executive are in their ambit of workor not. It is important to keep them in check as it will beleading to chaos and confusions. This will also lead tothem becoming autocratic. The character of thegovernment which is democratic should not be changedbecause of this to despotic. The framers of ourConstitution drafted it so flawlessly that it aims for anindependent and impartial Judiciary as the interpretercustodian and guardian of the Constitution and alsoprotector of the rights of the citizens by the process ofJudicial Review. This makes it mandatory for theJudiciary to interpret the laws but not to make them.The Supreme Court is the apex court of the country. Thereis a hierarchy of courts in India.

There has been a lot of dissatisfaction regarding thefailure of Judiciary, it has been felt that an independentmachinery like the NJC which, would have helped inachieving the accountability which is much desirable


116-136


these days. The suggestions that were made for a NJCformed the part of the Report of the Law Commission ofIndia.

As Judiciary is one of the three crucial pillars ofIndian democracy. Judiciary is the final interpreter ofthe Constitution of India and laws. It helps in maintainingthe social order by dealing with the ones in the oppositionof the law. It has been an upholder of the Rule of Lawand has enforced of the right to liberty, the role of theJudiciary is incomparable. The people have faith andconfidence in the Judiciary. This is an evidence of thefact that the Judiciary has responded to the needs of thehour. Justice is best accepted when it is much in the accessof the people.

The Maintenance of the Rule of law is an importantattribute of the judicial branch in every democracy. TheConstitution of India sets out the noble objective ofsecuring justice of social, economic or political natureto all the citizens of India. In ancient times too, the ruleof law was more about the sustenance and holdingtogether the human society through the norms which arethe moral command of the consensus.

If the poorest of the poor has an Access to justicethis would Mean Justice for All. An independent andcompassionate judicial system is a must for a countrywhich has a lot of poor citizens in the country. Article39A of the Constitution provides for a free legal aidservice to all. This means that the one who is not in aposition to afford the legal expenses must not be deniedof the legal aid service. They should be able to have afee access to the services of the lawyers. Voluntary effortsby all those who are concerned with his provision arerequired to make this provision a celebrated truth. It isrequired to educate the people leally. Imparting thepositive and good values in the young lawyers and isimportant. The Legal Services Authorities Act wasenacted in 1987 to give a static base to the uniform legalaid programmes in the country. The Judges have playedan important role in enforcement of the Act. Provisionof free legal service to the weaker sections would providea strong impetus to the cause of ‘Justice for all.

The Constitution in India is a written constitution.The provisions are recorded in a single document. It canbe termed as Magana Carat of India. The Supreme Courthas been interpreting the importance of good governmentas enshrined in the Constitution of India continuously.

Judicial accountability as sn exception :Independence of the Judiciary is a one of the basic

structure of the Indian democracy as well as theconstitutional culture under this constitutional systembeing equally important as the guarantee of the libertieswhich are given to every person in the country but arekept in check by the judiciary. It is important to keep acheck because this ensure lawfulness in the country.

The three organs of the government – Legislature,Executive and Judiciary perform the three most importantfunctions i.e. law making, enforcement of the law andinterpretation of the laws. The basic agenda behind thisis separation of powers. This brings accountability alsokeeps the government in check and also the rights andliberties guaranteed to us are safeguarded.

The another principle that has been working withthe separation or balance of power is the system of checksand balances. In simple words the principle of checksand balances means that no organ of the governmentshould be have unchecked powers. The power of oneorgan should be checked and balanced by the other two.So in this way the balance is also achieved. In India theexecutive is answerable and accountable to bothlegislature as well as the judiciary. Because of the anti-defection law there has been a decrease in accountability.The parliament also is answerable and accountable tothe people and also the other two branches.

Independence is an embankment of the rule of law.It is equally important that Judges should be independentin implementing law and rendering judicial decisions, ifthe law, which is to be applied to all citizens in thecountry, is equal to all. Judges can be subject tointimidation and pressures from litigants, includingcriminal element of society. Independence of judiciaryis accepted principle adopted by most of the democraticcountries. With the history of judicial independence inUnited Kingdom, United States the history of judicialindependence in India has been provided.

Judges were appointed by the Crown beforeindependence, yet they are independent from it. Thisprinciple was taken seriously after independence and itbecame a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution,which cannot be amended. The independence of judiciaryis given by the Constitution to the judges of the SupremeCourt and the High Court will hold office till they attains65 and 62 years of age. The parliament is authorized todetermine the privileges, allowance, leave and pension


116-136


of the judges of the Supreme Court. High qualificationsfor the judges is prescribed by the constitution

President cannot remove any judge from his officeexcept upon the presentation of him of an address byboth the houses of the parliament for such removal onthe grounds of misbehavior and incapability. ThePresident of India appoints the judges of supreme courtand high court in consultation with the CJ of India andsuch judges of the supreme court and High Court as hemay deem necessary. The SC is also treated as the courtof record. However many people have misused thisindependence and it has also been the reason for thegrowth of colossal power. The problem actually lies inthe understanding of the independence. It has to beunderstood as independence from legislature andexecutive and not as independence from beingaccountable. The spirit of independence has beencaptured very aptly, the independence of the Judiciary isnot the property of Judiciary, but a commodity to be heldby the Judiciary in faith for the public.

The need for the independence of the Judiciary isessentially imminent. In order that the justices administerjustice freely, without any fear and favor, fairly, It isimperative that their tenure is not depend upon thepleasure of the president who is the appointing authority.They are servant to the law not to the President.Therefore, their tenure has been made dependent uponthe pleasure of good behavior so that there is no internalconsequence and this is secured by an express provisionin the Indian Constitution that Judges of SC and of HCshall not be removable except by an address by both theHouses of the Parliament to the president, passed by aspecial majority and on the ground of proved misbehavioror disqualification. The independence of the Judiciary isthe basic and essential feature of the constitution. It is anintegral part of our constitutional system and withoutthe rule of law would become an illusion and animpractical promise.

A democracy republic is one where the governmentif of the people, for the people and by the people alsobecause of the democracy they also become answerableto the people. The accountability includes not only thepoliticians, but everybody who are called as publicservants like the bureaucrats, judges and everyone inwhom the power is vested. The person who has beenassigned some power by the government becomesaccountable to the people. Through the judicial system,

the agency of courts, deals with the administration ofjustice. Judges are the human stuff who presides overthe courts. They are not simply visible symbols of courts,in the flesh and blood they are actually theirrepresentatives. The image of courts determined by themanners in which judge’s discharge their duties and thecreditability of judicial system itself. From the ancienttime the judges have been held in high venerate andrevered as super humans in India but coming across recentincidents in Bihar represent that disheartened by thefailure to get justice (like killing of an under trial in thecourt itself and execution a suspected thief to death),faith of people in judiciary is going downward slowlyand are taking law into their hands. This is highlydisastrous. A need absolutely is there to make judiciaryaccountable, because judiciary has to act as the guardianof our constitution so denigration of values is far moredangerous in judiciary than in any other wing of thegovernment. Judicial accountability and liability of thejudges is an old concept. Several countries have alreadyprovided for ensuring accountability of judiciary in theirconstitutions. This is to prevent concentration of powerin the hands of a single organ of the state especially incountries where judicial activism interferes with andravage into the domain of other organs. But at the sametime oath of the office of every judge requires him to actwithout fear or favor judicial independence is a pre-requisite, closeness of ill-will and to vindicate theconstitution and laws of the country

The only available mechanism, that is impeachment,is too impractical. The only way through which themembers of the higher judiciary that are the Chief Justicesand Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts areaccountable or can be removed is through impeachmentaccording to the Indian Constitution. Many regardimpeachments as a failure, but before moving into that,is far-reaching to see the constitutional provisions. UnderArticle 124(4), only on the grounds of provenmisbehaviour or incapacity the process of impeachmentis carried out. The Judges Inquiry Act 1968 says that acomplaint against a judge is to be made by a resolutionsigned either by 100 members of the Lok Sabha or bythe 50 members of the Rajya Sabha to their respectivepresiding officers. Comprising two judges one fromSupreme Court there is a three member committeeincluding Chief Justice of India if it is against the judgeof a high court and two Supreme Court judges if it is


116-136


against a sitting judge at the Supreme Court. Beforemaking a recommendation Investigations are carried outto the house. If the committee concludes in favor of theimpeachment process it takes place. The matter is thendiscussed in both houses of the parliament. The accusedjudge is also given a chance to speak in his favor. Afterthe discussion is over and the judge is heard, the houseput the motion for vote. A resolution then passed by bothhouses with 2/3rds majority. This whole process shouldbe completed within a single session. Once the resolutionis passed it is sent to the President for his assent.

According to the Oxford Dictionary ‘Accountable’means ‘to be responsible and answerable for your ownactions. Being able to explain the reason those actions’.Accountability is the precondition of democracy.Transparency promotes accountability. All the publicservants and departments are accountable. But theremanner of being accountable may differ from departmentto department. Judiciary is also answerable to bothlegislature as well as executive. Although theaccountability meter differs for judiciary also incomparison to legislature and executive. Howeverbecause of various social problems like corruption it is asevere blow to the government. This has shaken up thefaith of the people.

The superior court have been a great organ whichhas exercised its powers variedly and also one of thestrongest organ of the government. The executive activityas well as he legislation can be struck down by thejudiciary. It is beyond imagination that even the judicialsystem which has all the burden of saving the rights ofthe people has gone wrong at many points.

The Judiciary in the present days has been giventhe function of expanding the laws and their scope butalso the function of protecting the rights of the people.The courts should not only on answering the questionsof law but also of the people.

The framers of the Constitution have not imaginedthat within a small period the Judiciary would becomethe most powerful organ in the State. The Constitution hasestablished the High Courts and the Supreme Court aswatchdog, independence of the executive and thelegislature for not only giving justice but also to keep acheck on the legislature as well as the executive. TheJudiciary has the powers to interpret the Constitution andquash any executive activity that hinder any law or therights of citizens. It also checks the laws framed by

Parliament that they are within the limits of constitutionof India. Where the supreme court has been given powerto check legislature and executive also empowering theexecutive and legislature to make law, the judiciary haalso curtailed them by keeping a check on them. Manyacts, regulations, laws and constitutional amendmentshave been turned down by the Courts.

Since the courts are the most important organ thelegislature has found a way to curtail its limits by thecollegiums that was earlier to be made but later wasturned down because it was hampering the independenceof the judiciary which was the basic structure of theconstitution. No system as such is followed in theselection of judges and there is no transparency is therein the system. There is no much importance is given toexamining of the records and credentials of a judges oftheir ideology and adherence to the constitutional idealsof a socialist, secular and democratic republic or theirunderstanding of sensitivity towards the common peopleof the country who cannot afford much legal services orpoor, unable to fight for their rights in the courts or aremarginalized.

The courts in India enjoy absolute and uncheckedpower unequalled by any Court in the world. These daysit is very much vital that the judges of the supreme courtbe more accountable for their performances and theirconducts be it for corruption or the disregard of theconstitutional values and hindering the rights of citizens.Sadly, there is no law that can measure the performanceof a judge or his attitude towards the same. Impeachmentis the only removal procedure of the High Court andSupreme Court judges. This process is long and requiressignatures of the MPs of the House of People and of theCouncil of States for it to initiate. An Inquiry Committeeof 3 judges is constituted for the trial of the judge. If amotion consisting the charges about the misconduct withthe requisite signatures is submitted.

Justice is denied when it is delayed. Justice shouldbe affordable, accessible and speedy. In today’s time OurCourts are overburdened on account of the large numberof cases pending before them. The number of vacanciesis the basis for the pending cases in the courts. The judgeshave to keep a check on the legislature and the executiveso they do not violate the rights of the people. This isone of the main aim of judiciary.

The judiciary has widened the ambit of justice to agreater extent. Locus standi has been widened by the


116-136


Supreme Court through judicial activism. Anyone canfile a suit who is having a bonafide intention for filingthe suit. The courts have tried to make it comfortable forthe common man to reach the courts. Even a letter writtento a supreme court judge may act as a PIL. These aresome of the new inventions.

The time is now correct to make the Judiciary as amore accountable organ. Democratic and transparentmethods to be used for removal, transfer, appointmentof the judges. It is also necessary that proper mechanismis there in the constitution to punish the judges who hasacted maliciously.

The judiciary needs to be independent of outsideinfluence like of political and economic persons likegovernment parties or industrial associations. This doesnot make the judges autocratic they have a set standardin which they have to behave. The basis of Judicialindependence is public trust and judges must have thehighest of standards of answerability and accountabilityin them. If the judges or court officials are suspected ofany activity which s not pleasant then strict actions areto be taken against them.

Accountability is the ability to hold anybodyresponsible for their actions. The judiciary should beaccountable towards the law like the decisions madeshould be in accordance with the law and should not bearbitrary. The judiciary should be accountable to thegeneral people it serves.

The judiciary is more independent, impartial whichgives it a new way to lead in the organs. There should bemore of accountability than that of the other branches.There should be code of conduct for the judiciary as wellas others so the accountability and the independence arenot hampered. As they serve as a guide to and also ameasure for the judicial conduct. The judges shouldinteract more often so that they can impart true values oflaw under the law graduates and also they can developmore ways if they are allowed to speak their mind out.Even though there is judicial accountability even thepublic should act properly so that they can help thejudiciary to maintain the la and order situation in thecountry.

The judges are the true interpreters of theconstitution and they know exactly from where it shouldbegin. Since ancient ages various laws have been enforceto govern the country. Sometimes it was the Muslim legalcourt while the other time it was about the criminal

justice. Indian judiciary is the most powerful judiciaryafter USA in the world. Since India is a democraticcountry judiciary has the highest place it is consideredto be the most vital and crucial organ of the government.These days there are many questions that arise on thejudiciary and its accountability. The judges enquiry act1968 has replaced by the judicial standards andaccountability bill 2010. This act has enforced certainstandards for the conduct of the judges of the high courtand the Supreme Court.

The Judicial Standards are set by Accountability Billand the judicial standards and make judges accountablefor their lapses. It will also instruct that judges of theSupreme Court and High Court to declare their assetsand liabilities having in mind those of their dependentsand spouses. The draft Judicial Standards andAccountability Bill 2010 has approved by The UnionCabinet that provides for setting up an oversightcommittee office members to deal with complaintsagainst members of the higher judiciary. These detailswill be put up on the websites of the Supreme Court andhigh courts. It will further require judges that they shouldnot have close relation with any member of the Barespecially with those members who practice in the samecourt. the growing concerns regarding the need to ensuregreater accountability of the higher judiciary will addressby the enactment of the Bill by bringing in moretransparency, and it will further build up theindependence of the judiciary and credibility. The formerchief justice of India headed the proposed oversightcommittee which includes the attorney general, a chiefjustice of a high court, a Supreme Court judge and aneminent person nominated by the President.

For this it is imperative for the parliament to amendthe law in this respect. The present laws are either provingto be inadequate or have become abortive and obsoleteto cure the miscarriage of Justice. But again the delicatemethods of removing a Judge posses a threat to theindependence of the Judiciary vis-à-vis abdicating thedoctrine of Separation of Powers implicit in theconstitution. At present, the Executive and the legislatureare subject to heavy criticisms at the hands of both publicand media. But where should an aggrieved person so ifthe protector becomes destroyer. Let us not get stuck intothe old well settled laws or doctrines. Judicialaccountability can be an exception to the rule ofindependence of Judiciary. In present scenario what is


116-136


at stake is not the independence of Judiciary but the veryexistence of rule of law and constitutional values,elements and culture. It is high time now to demarcatethe arena of judicial independence and secure itsaccountability.

The judiciary and the judges are associated withthe higher cause of truth and justice are given a distinctposition. The constitution of India calls for an impartialand independent judiciary. No authority in India can beabsolute and unaccountable. They should be accountableeither to its origin or to the organ and most importantlyto the people. All the organs of the government have thepeople a sovereign. Nobody is above the law and also noinstitution no matter how high can claim to beunanswerable. So every organ is accountable to thepeople of the country in every democratic constitution.Many countries already have the accountability ofjudiciary. This prevents the concentration of power in asingle hand. Also it is important to have Judicial Activism.The Judicial independence is a pre-condition for all thejudges whose office wants him to act without fear orfavors, attraction towards the ill- will and who has touplift the constitution and other laws of the country. Thismay sometimes lead to tension between JudicialIndependence and Judicial Accountability.

The powers are not to be allowed to be absolutecan be seen from the powers of judges which are verywide. One of the constitutional limitations on the judgesis the ‘removal’ of judges of the High Courts and SupremeCourt by addressing by the Houses of Parliament to thePresident on the basis of proved misbehavior orincapacity. Article 124 (2) and (4)talks about the removalof the judges of the Supreme Court Article 217 providesfor the procedure removal of judges of the High Court.

The judges of the high court and supreme court havetheir own ambit of powers which is checked by thelegislature as well as the executive. No organ hasimmense power that they become not answerable toanybody.

Democracy is a mirror of rule of law and theforemost duty of the government to make sure that therule of law is obeyed by the people. When the rule oflaw is broken, corruption and injustice will come intopicture. If a crime goes unpunished then it will hinderthe rule of law. The law should not be too liberal.Corruption erodes the values that people cherish andprojects the State as rude and unjust organ. Corruption

tends to decrease the decency of the State and makes ajoke out of the rule of law. Corruption comes from thehuman beings.

The basic deficiency in the manner in which thecandidates are elected to the legislature has its brunt onthe law making. Only the composition of the legislaturesis broken by the corruption but also the process of lawmaking and application.

The constitutional organs which are supposed toprotect and uphold freedom and rule of law turn againstthem because of corruption. The only way left is bringinto play the local mafia to the majority of Indians, whoare more than wanting to allocate rough and ready justicefor a price, outstanding to criminalization of Indiansociety. The very aspect of a modern democracy areaccess to justice and Rule of Law and we cannot callourselves a great democracy in any sense without bothof them.

Global Corruption Report 2007 is a report byTransparency International. This report was built on 2005survey conducted in the whole country of publicsperceptions and experiences about the corruption in thelower judiciary area, manipulated by the Centre for MediaStudies, found that a very high percentage of respondentsbelieve the Indian judiciary is corrupt. It says that bribeseems to be petitioned as for the price of getting the thingsdone. The estimated amount paid for bribe in a period of12 month was around 580 million dollars.

So the predator kills the pray and Corruption killsRule of Law therefore wherever there is corruption thereis no Rule of law.

Our constitution is a very comprehensive document.Different roles are assigned by it to all the three wings ofgovernance that are the executive, judiciary and thelegislature. There is no confusion about powers of eachwing, duties and privileges. Parliament makes law,Executive executes these laws and the judiciary interpretsthem. Overstepping is supposed to be there.

Battle of Judiciary versus the Executive orlegislature is not new but in recent times the battle isunprecedented with both the executive and judiciarytaking the separation of powers to a next level. The LokSabha Speaker fired the first salvo as there are manywho accuse the Judiciary for hindering with thelegislative matters and stated publicly that everyoneshould remain within the boundary of the Constitution.The conflict sometimes arises in practical application of


116-136


law that sometimes oversteps. Finally, it is for thejudiciary to decide if there has been a hindrance withlaw in each other’s ambit. The judiciary should be in thelimits of the Constitution.

Article 121 of the Constitution of India speaks thatthe conduct of a judge should not be discussed in theParliament. There is a separate and comprehensiveprocedure for impeachment of judges which was theintention to secure the impartiality and independence ofthe judiciary. Also Article 122 talks about the proceedingsof the parliament which cannot be questioned by thejudiciary. This is indirectly anticipated about thesupremacy of the legislature for making laws that arebased on ample policies that should not be questioned.

Nations like India are excited to incorporateinternational treaties and even traditional internationallaw into the municipal or local laws where there is noexclusive confusion. They, contribute for the cooperationwhich is necessary and certainly inevitable in differentlegal systems so that they make sure that society and theState and the economy are not hindered by differencesof legal systems. The conviction of cooperation in thenations and all the legal systems wants sightedness byboth the Courts and legislature of the globalized worldwe are living in.

So thinking that any one branch is superior to theother is wrong on the part of people. It is good to knowthat the three organs try to keep each other’s dignitysaved. And also work with coordination and cooperation.

India is a democracy and should be governed onlyby elected representatives and not just the judges, orvarious committees and some commission that areanswerable to the Supreme Court. The judiciary shouldbarge upon the wrongs instead of going after theenforcement. The friction of the organs until solved willresult in problems in governance.

In The doctrine of Separation of Power judicialreview is important. There are three organs of the stateExecutive, Legislature and Judiciary with their functionclearly jotted down in the constitution of India. Article13 of the constitution states that the State should not makeany law which violates, hinders or abridges or takes awayrights given by Part III’. This means that the Judiciaryand the Legislature can make a Laws. But with the systemof checks and balances, the judiciary has been given thepowers to keep a check on the rules made by thelegislature. This is how it exercises the judicial review.

The judicial accountability of a judicial review isstill questioned. The Judges are accountable anyone noteven to the other judge then question of legislature andexecutive has no meaning at all. The supremacy of theconstitution always prevails, but the limit has been leftfor judges to decide.

All the amendment and ordinary laws are goingbeyond the examination of judicial review. Frictionsbetween the three organs of the state are not new. Everydepartment clarifies saying that it is as per the provisionsof the constitution. It is the judiciary that has a firmfooting in the interpretation of the constitution.

The Supreme Court of India has gained a globalrecognition for its high standards and great ideals.Landmark are passed by this Court which have not onlystrengthened the legal and constitutional framework ofIndia but are also widely quoted by the Judiciary in manyother nations which seek to build progressive mark. Thejudges of the Supreme Court are known for their intellect,wisdom and legal attitude. The Supreme Court has overthe years been serving the vigor, vitality and intellectualdepth which is necessary to create a globalised institution.

The judiciary and legal system of India has reacheda stage now where the public openly criticize the judiciaryand debate of the News Channels even the judgmentsdelivered by the Constitutional Courts. It is an open factin the opinion of author that the public opinion in thelegal system in India and as to how the judiciary is notable to deliver results meeting the desires of the public,has taken away the caution to be enjoyed while referringto the legal system. The respect can never effectively bereceived and it should come voluntarily. The functioningof the legal system has a direct effect on the society andthe rights of the people. If a criminal could manage amagistrate or dealing of court with his case, then whowill protect the people from the evil forces? In the Indianpolitical system we cannot expect the government to bevery clean and conscious given the complications. Assuch the legal system has played a vital role in protectingthe rights of the people, ensuring systemization in thesystem and even making a judgment on the actions ofthe executive when those are not in conformity with thepublic interest. There are critics on the allegations ofcorruption and scarcity of transparency in the judicialsystem. Accordingly many people talk about the judiciaryand the judicial reforms only because of the people whohave the hope that Judiciary can protect their rights and


116-136


ensures their right to life as enshrined under Article 21of Constitution of India and further widened.

Indian Judiciary and the acceptance of the Doctrinein its practice :

The President being the executive head is alsoempowered to exercise legislative powers. He maypromulgate ordinances in his capacity of legislative inorder to meet the situation as Article 123(1) says “If atany time president is satisfied the circumstances that existwhich render it necessary for him to take immediateaction, he may promulgate such ordinances as thecircumstances appear to him to require except when bothhouses of parliament are in session,”. Due to failure ofconstitutional machinery, when president declares theproclamation of emergency, the legislative power underArticle 357 of our constitution has been given to ThePresident to make any laws in order to meet the situations.Under article 372 and 372A, a power has also beenconferred on the president of India to adapt any law inthe country by making such accommodations andadjustments whether by way of repeal or amendment asmay be necessary or expedient for the purpose or to bringthe provisions of such law in accordance with theprovisions of the constitution.

Judicial function under Article 103(1) of theconstitution exercised by the president of India is notablein connection. According to this article of the constitution“As mentioned in Article 102(1)If any question arises asto whether a member of either house of the parliamenthas become subject to disqualification, the question shallbe referred for the decisions of the president and hisdecision shall be final. Pg. no. 41 Bare Act. Article 50lays emphasis to separate the judiciary from theexecutive. But in practice we find that the powers ofjudiciary also exercised by the executive as inappointment of judges under Article 124, 126, and 127.The legislature also exercises the judicial function inremoval of president under Article 56 in a prescribedmanner. Judiciary also exercises legislative power; highcourt and Supreme Court are empowered to make certainrules in legislative character. Whenever a certainprovision of law against the constitution or public policyfound by the high court and the Supreme Court it declaresthe same null and void, and then in the legal system theamendments may be incorporated. Sometimes high courtsand Supreme Court formulate the principle on the point

where law is silent. The power is also legislative incharacter.

Case laws explaining separation of power prevailingin India :

The Supreme Court has never devoid itself of theexistence of the application of doctrine although it doesnot form the very base of our constitution. But it makesa founding stone in the United States of America.However, the separation of powers of the Governmentinto Legislative Executive and judicial powers is presentImpliedly present in the provisions of the constitution.

In Kesavananda Bharti v. State Of Kerala3, Hon’bleChief Justice Sikri observed:“Any form of amendmentcannot destroy Separation of powers among thelegislature, the executive and judiciary that are a part ofthe basic structure.”

In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab4,TheSupreme Court held that “The doctrine of Separation OfPowers has not indeed recognized by the IndianConstitution in its absolute rigidity but the functions ofthe different branches or parts of the government havebeen adequately differentiated and consequently it canbe very well said that constitution of our country doesnot consider assumption by one organ or part of the stateof functions that essentially belong to any other”.

In Re Delhi Laws Act Cas5, Chief Justice Kaniyaobserved; “Although there is no express separation ofpower in the constitution of India. It is clear that theconstitution created the legislature and for making thatlegislature which passes the laws detailed provisions aremade. It is then too much to say that under theconstitution the duty to make laws, the duty to exerciseits own judgment, patriotism and wisdom in making lawis primarily cast on the legislature. Does it not implythat unless it can be gathered from the other provisionsof the constitution, other bodies executive or judicial arenot intended to discharge legislative functions.”

In Chandra Mohan v. State Of U.P6, the SupremeCourt held: “The Indian constitution provides for anindependent judiciary in the state but at the time the directcontrol of the executive, though the strict doctrine ofseparation of powers does not accepted by it. In preindependent India, truly it is common knowledge thatthere was a strong agitation that the executive should beseparated from the judiciary and that agitation was basedon the assumption that unless they were separated, the


116-136


independence of judiciary at the power levels would bea mockery.”

In Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan7, thepetitioner was one of the candidates along with therespondent Raj Narayan Seeking election from theRaebareli Parliamentary Constituency in the state of UttarPradesh, she was declared elected on March 1, 1971.The respondent was the nearest rival defeated candidate.He challenged the validity of the petitioner’s election onvarious grounds including on the ground of commissionof corruption election practices in the election. In 1951,He moved the Allahabad High Court by an electionpetition under the provisions of the Representation ofthe peoples Art. The petition allowed by the High Courtand declared by the judgment of June 12, 1975, thepetitioner’s election to be void. The content also declaredher to be disqualified for a period of six years from thecandidature for and membership of any House ofParliament as also of any of the state legislature. Thepetitioner, who was at the time the prime minister askedfor a stay of the order of the High Court, and thenpreferred on appeal the judgment of the High Court.While this appeal was still pending parliament passed,with unchaste haste before the appeal came up for hearingin the supreme Court the election laws Amendment Act,1975; and further immediately thereafter passed theconstitution’s thirty-Ninth amendment Act, 1975. Theamending election law retrospectively removed thegrounds. On which the petitioner’s election had beendeclared to be void and provided the manner of conferringimmunity from the consequential disqualifications underthe unlamented election Law. As if this was not enoughthe said constitutional amendment further declared thatthe petitioner’s elector would not be deemed to be validon any of the grounds on which the High Court haddecided against her. The constitutional amendmentdeclared the petitioner’s election not be void… Furtherthe amendment laid down that any appeal including onefiled by the petitioner in the supreme court would abateand shall be disposed of in conformity with the provisionsof clauses (4) set out above. Further Ray, C.J. observedin the same case that, in the Indian Constitution there isSeparation of Power in a broad sense only. As under theAmerican or Under the Australian Constitution a rigidSeparation of Powers does not apply to India. Hon’bleJustice Chanadrachud observed: “A rigid separation ofthe powers of government provided by the American

Constitution into three basic divisions the executive, thelegislative and the judicial. It is essential principle ofthat constitution whose powers entrusted to anydepartment should not be exercised by any otherdepartment. The constitution of Australia follows the twinpattern of power distribution. Unlike these constitutions,the three kinds of powers do not expressly vest in threeorgans of the state by the Indian constitution. For keepingthe three organs of the government within the strictconfines of their functions the principle of separation ofpowers is not a mythical formula.”

In Asif Hamid v. State Of Jammu & Kashmir8, Thesupreme court observed: “Although the doctrine ofseparation of power has not been recognized under theconstitution in its absolute rigidity but the functions ofvarious organs of the state have meticulously definedbythe constitution makers. Legislature, Executive andJudiciary have to function within their own spheresmarked off under the constitution that no organ can usurpthe functions assigned to another. To function andexercise their discretion the constitution trusts to thejudgment of these organs by strictly following theprocedure prescribed there in. the functioning ofdemocracy depends upon the strength and independenceof each of its organs.”

In Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar9,Hon’ble Chief justice SR Das opined that: “In the absencespecific provisions for the separation of power in ourconstitution, such as there is under the Americanconstitutions, some such divisions of power legislative,executive and judicial is nevertheless implicit in ourconstitution.”

In Uday Ram Sharma v. Union of India10, It washeld by the Supreme Court that: “The American doctrineof well defined separation of legislative and judicialpower has no application to India.”

In Sita Ram v. State Of U.P.11, Hon’ble Hedge J.expressed the attitude of the court regarding delegationof legislative powers in the following words; “Howevermuch one might mourn the new satrapy of the executive,the very complexity of the modern society and the demandit makes on its government have set in motion forceswhich have made it thoroughly necessary for thelegislature to entrust more and more power to theexecutive. Text book doctrines emerged in the nineteenthcentury have become out of date. Present position asregards delegation of legislative powers may not be ideal,


116-136


but there is no escape from it in the absence of any betteralternative.”

In Hari Shankar Nagla v. State of M.P.12, it wasobserved that: “In respect of a major and its formulationas a rule of conduct the legislature cannot delegate itsfunctions of laying down legislative policy. Thelegislature must declare the policy of law and the legalprinciple which are to supervise any given cases andmust provide a standard to guide the body in power toexecute the law or the officials. The essential legislaturefunction consists in the determination of the preferenceof the legislative policy and regularly enacting that policyinto a binding rule of conduct.”

In S.P. Gupta v. Union Of India13: it was held by thesupreme court that;“Appointment of judges was not anexecutive act but in spirit and word the result ofconsultation process must be noticed.”

Chief Justice Subba Rao in Golak Nath v. State ofPunjab14: “The Constitution marks off their jurisdictionminutely and hope them to exercise their respectivepowers without violating their limits. There is a sphereallotted to them and they should function within the limitsof the sphere allotted to them. …..No authority createdunder the Constitution; the Constitution is supreme lawof land and all the authorities function under the supremelaw of the land.”

Conclusion :The constitution of India is the Lex Loci. The role

which constitution assigned to the organ they should notgo beyond the roles. It is the obligation of the three organsof the government to strictly stick to one of the mostfundamental features of the Constitution that is separationof powers. It is not required to criticize the ConstitutionalPlan of Separation Of Powers if the existing provisionsare not being religiously observed. Beyond the doubtsthere is a need for a more booming interpretation andour dynamic Constitution has enough space to includethe same. There is a vast gap between the Constitutionalplan and practice of the doctrine of Separation Of Powers.India also has a concept of universal adult franchise. TheLok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha are the two houses whereas the members of Lok Sabha are directly elected butthis kind of election is more of a favoritism banned theactual assessment of the work of the leaders. It can onlybe bridged when all the executive, the legislative andthe judiciary move a step towards all the other

democracies of the world by working in peace. Theposition and the powers of the three organs of the statedefined by the founding framers of the constitution. Theyfelt that the government would never be able toaccomplish the complete Separation of Powers. But, itdoes not mean that each branch has absolute powers, butthey have limits according to the Constitution to beadhered to. The spirit of the Constitution is not onexplicitly but on shared cooperation.

The constitution of India was framed after apresenting many draft constitutions, as the constitutionof India is the combination of government of India actand the borrowings from the other countries. As we tookmany concepts from many countries like, UK, USA,Ireland, Canada, South Africa etc. the constitution wasframed by the constituent assembly, election for whichwas held in 1946. The members of the constituentassembly were elected by the provisional assembly bythe method of single transferable vote system ofproportional representation. The first session ofconstituent assembly was held on 9th of December in 1946and Dr. Sachidanand Sinha presided over the inauguralsession.

Constitution was finalized after some draftingconstitution drafted by the drafting committee. Draftingcommittee was appointed by the constituent assemblyon 29th of august and Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar wasappointed as the chairman of drafting committee, who isalso known as the Father Of Our Indian Constitution.

The Executive has grown very powerful in thecurrent time that has certainly led them towards a widemisuse of powers. In India, we do not follow SeparationOf Powers but we follows separation of functions. Andso we do not abide by the principle in its concrete. Theprinciple of the checks and balances remains like a partof this doctrine. So, the essential functions of the organscan be usurped by then one of the three organs.Constitution is the supreme Lax Loci. No organ shouldexceed the limit of the role as given to it by theConstitution. It is the obligation of the three organs ofthe constitution to strictly stick to one of the mostimportant pillar of the Constitution that is Separation ofPowers. There is no need to criticize the ConstitutionalPlan of separation of powers when the existing provisionsare not being religiously observed.

The Indian parliament has been facing challengesregarding the accountability of executive to the


116-136


parliament. It is believed that the decline in theeffectiveness is caused by the lack of accountability ofthe executive to the legislature. Globalization has alsoeroded the powers of the parliament. Looking at therecent past India has widened the scope of democraticparticipation to a greater extent. India has also gained alot of significance in the economic area. India alwayshad a bicameral legislature. Firstly the economicdecisions are taken keeping in mind the global mindset.Secondly by the reconstruction of the regulatoryframework which has to be given to a lot of non electedinstitutions. The weakness of the Indian Parliament hasalso give a slow pace to the formation and implementationof legislations.

Even the political leaders do not have the caliber ofperson who should be entering the parliament. The lackin their educational and professional background hasaffected the executive negatively. Although theconstitution of India has always aimed at the democraticaccountability it has to some extent lagged behind inparliamentary accountability. The authority inaccountability of parliament is limited by the system ofchecks and balances exercised by the other organs. Therewas a time when there was a perfect balance betweenthe legislature and the executive but the two organs nowhave been losing this balance lately.

Beyond the doubts, there is a need of a morebooming interpretation and our ever changingConstitution has enough space to accommodate the same.The towering ideal of the Constitutional system needs tobe guarded which can be kept only when brought intopractice. There is a huge gap between the Constitutionalplan and practice of the doctrine of Separation of powers.It can only be successful when the three organs of thegovernment take a step towards all the other democraciesof the world by working in sheer peace and coordination.

They are discouraging the rights of the people bynot doing so. The position and the powers of the threeorgans of the state is defined by the framers of theconstitution. They knew it will be impractical to achievethe doctrine in its strictest sense. The efficiency ofparliament lies in its mastery of details and the unwindingattention it pays to aspects of implementation of policy.It has no voice in the laying down of policy except in sofar as its work is influenced by the majority party. Butits control can be more effective if the members are alertto the way the policies are introduced and implemented

and point out competence to understand the contents ofpolicy over them accordingly on the floor of the house.

So talking in vacuum is equivalent to aiming for acomplete separation of powers. The idea that thegovernmental functions must be based on a tripartitedivision of three organs of the government is excogitatedby the doctrine of Separation of Powers.

When it is referred to as tripartite division it meansthree divisions or branches. Separation of Power refersto the idea that the governmental organs of the stateshould be functionally independent of each other. TheLegislative organ of the state makes laws, the Executiveenforces them and the Judiciary applies them to thespecial cases occurring out of the breach of law. Eachorgan should perform the activities intends to interferein the ambit of work of another organ because a stringentdemarcation of functions is not possible when they aredealing with the public at large.

The three organs should be distinct sovereign andseparate in their own premises or area of functions, sothat they do not overstep the authority of the other, whichin turn will also keep away the ambiguity. There are threedifferent functions in every government through whichthe will of the people is verbalized. Thus, overlappingfunctions tend to appear amongst these organs even whileacting in ambit of their own power. Which means thatthere should not watertight compartment in the functionsalthough they are divided. The Judiciary keeps a checkon both Legislative and Executive..

It does not means that each branch will have explicitpowers rather they have their Constitutional limits to stickto. The spirit of the Constitution is not on arbitrarinessbut on mutual co-ordination.

The Executive is very powerful in the recently thathas certainly led them to a big misuse of powers. Alooffrom the check kept on them by the Legislature andJudiciary, NGOs and the media have played a vital rolein revealing the misconducts of Government. If thelegislature makes any law which is not in harmony withthe law of the land ‘Constitutional Law’, it is quasheddown by the Judiciary. Also if the Executive tries to workbeyond its ambit the Judiciary plays a watchdog andkeeps it in its area of work. So it can be said as Judiciaryis one of the branches of the government where peoplego and seek remedy for the wrongs of legislature as wellas Executive.

Finally, the objective of the three organs of the


116-136


government is to protect the rights of the people. Vigilantattitude of the people can help ensuring a properfunctioning in a democracy and keep away arbitrary useof the power. The three organs have to be at peace forour accomplishment.

We do not follow Separation of powers in India butwe follow the separation of functions. And now we donot stick to the principle in its rigidity. A Democraticcountry is one where the people have a right to choosethe leaders. It generates a feeling of common good andlarger satisfaction of the needs of the people.Democracies make the leaders responsible andanswerable to the public at large. When the people areunsatisfied by one government they may opt to vote itout of the majority in the other tenure.

A democracy is a system of government in whichall the people of the state are involved in making decisionsabout its affairs typically through voting for the electedrepresentatives to a parliament or similar assembly.Though strict separation of powers is not followed inIndia like in American sense but the principle of checksand balances exists as a part of this doctrine. So no organscan conflict the functions of the organs, which constitutea part of the basic structure doctrine. Even by amendingthe Constitution any such amendment is made then thecourt will strike it down as unconstitutional.

The countries with common law system have themethod of judicial review, which is embodied in theirconstitutions or any source of the same. Any law whichis passed by the legislature or executive, the power toreview that law is vested in the High Courts and SupremeCourt. It is important as if the measure through whichlegislative and executive remains under the surveillance.The system of the checks and balances has made it easyso that they can check other branches.

For the judicial review of legislations The IndianConstitution has some provisions. This concept has takenfrom the constitution of United States of America. Whichmakes the judiciary empower to make decisions andreview the laws passed by the legislature. If any part ofthe legislation is in coercion with the constitution of Indiathen it can also be rendered as unconstitutional.

The doctrine of separation of power is one of the

basic structures of the constitution which aims at keepingthe country under the law and order situation. It isimportant for the judiciary, a\executive and legislatureto be in the limits prescribed to them by the constitution.

The doctrine has made the government moreaccountable and answerable to the people. It aims to treatthe people as the sovereign authority in the country. TheRule of law is the most important aspect of the judiciaryin a democracy. The Constitution has recognized and hasalso set some of the noble objective as securing justiceto all the citizens and cheaper justice in terms of moneywhich can be social, economical or political. In ancienttimes also, the rule of law was there retain and holdtogether the human society through the norms which arethe moral and command the consensus of the good menin the whole community.

REFERENCES1. AIR 1973 SC 1461, Pg. No. 369, Constitution of India,

A.K .Ranjan, Ambition Law publishing house, 2015

2. AIR 1955 SC 549, Pg. No. 368, Ibid

3. AIR 1951 SC 332, Pg. No. 367, Ibid

4. AIR 1966 SC 1987 @ Pg. No. 1993, Pg. No. 368,Constitution of India, A.K .Ranjan, Ambition Lawpublishing house, 2015

5. AIR 1975 SC 2299, Pg. No. 369, Ibid

6. AIR 1989 S.C. Pg. No. 370, Constitution of India, A.K.Ranjan, Ambition Law publishing house, 2015

7. AIR 1958 SC 538, Pg. No. 368, Constitution of India,A.K .Ranjan, Ambition Law publishing house, 2015

8. AIR1968 SC 1138, Pg. No. 369, Ibid

9. AIR 1972 Sc 1168, Ibid

10. AIR 1954 SC 468, Ibid

11. AIR 1982 SC 149, Pg. No. 369, Constitution of India,A.K .Ranjan, Ambition Law publishing house, 2015

12. AIR 1967 SC 1643, Ibid.

13. 1980 2 SCC144, Pg. No. 389, Constitution of India, A.K.Ranjan, Ambition Law publishing house, 2015

14. 5 U.S. 137 (1803).


116-136

8 th of Excellence

Year

Documents

A study of parliamentary and Presidential form of Government ...researchjournal.co.in/upload/assignments/8_116-136.pdfdebates and discussions and parliamentary sessions. For the purpose