Evolving Doctrine Of Separation Of Powers In India (2024–2025)

Abstract

The doctrine of separation of powers, a cornerstone of modern constitutionalism, is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution but forms its basic structure. Historically, the Indian model has been characterized as a "fine balance" rather than a rigid separation, fostering a system of checks and balances between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. However, the period of 2024–2025 has proven to be a critical juncture, witnessing a profound and accelerated evolution of this relationship. This article delves into the dynamic shifts occurring within the Indian constitutional framework, analyzing how the traditional equilibrium is being recalibrated. It examines the ascendancy of the executive and legislature, often functioning in a fused manner due to a dominant political mandate, and the consequential challenges faced by the judiciary as the primary counter-majoritarian institution. Key areas of analysis include the judiciary's assertive yet nuanced use of basic structure review, the contentious debate over legislative "nullification" of judicial rulings through constitutional amendments and new laws, the escalating tensions around judicial appointments via the Collegium system, and the emerging jurisprudence on electoral democracy and federalism. Through a detailed examination of landmark cases, parliamentary actions, and scholarly discourse, this article argues that the Indian separation of powers is evolving towards a model where inter-institutional dialogue is increasingly being replaced by a tense dialectic, testing the resilience of constitutional governance and the supremacy of the judiciary's role as the guardian of the Constitution.

Introduction

The doctrine of separation of powers, famously articulated by Montesquieu, is a fundamental principle designed to prevent the concentration of state power and safeguard individual liberty. It posits that the three primary organs of the state—the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary—should function independently within their designated spheres. The Indian Constitution, while not adopting a rigid tripartite separation, ingeniously embeds this principle within its scheme, creating a system of checks and balances. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly, confidently asserted that the Constitution’s structure provided a mechanism to avoid both the tyranny of the executive and the supremacy of any single organ.

For decades, this system witnessed ebbs and flows. The post-Emergency era saw a resurgent judiciary establishing the "basic structure" doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), carving out a paramount role for itself in constitutional adjudication. Subsequent years involved periodic friction, particularly over judicial appointments (the NJAC saga) and policy review. However, the period spanning 2024–2025 has marked a distinct and intensified phase in this evolutionary trajectory. The Indian political landscape, characterized by a sustained and decisive electoral mandate for the ruling dispensation, has created conditions for a more assertive executive and legislature. This has, in turn, triggered a complex response from the judiciary, leading to a redefinition of boundaries and a reassertion of constitutional morality.

This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of this evolution. It will proceed in several parts: First, it will revisit the foundational principles of the separation of powers in the Indian context. Second, it will analyze the contemporary dominance of the political executive and its impact on legislative processes. Third, it will scrutinize the judiciary's response, focusing on its use of the basic structure doctrine, its handling of executive accountability, and the ongoing crisis in judicial appointments. Fourth, it will explore specific flashpoints such as electoral bonds, Delhi’s statehood, and digital rights. Finally, the article will conclude by reflecting on the future of constitutional governance in India, assessing whether the current tensions represent a healthy recalibration or a concerning erosion of foundational checks and balances.

I. Foundational Framework: The Indian Model of Checks and Balances

The Indian Constitution does not adhere to a pure separation of powers. There is a deliberate functional overlap. The President, as the head of the executive, is an integral part of Parliament. The Council of Ministers, which forms the real executive, is drawn from the legislature and is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. The judiciary, while independent, has its judges appointed by the executive (in a complex process with the judiciary itself), and its decisions can be overridden by constitutional amendments passed by the legislature (subject to the basic structure limitation).

The Supreme Court, early in the republic, acknowledged this model. In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955), the Court held that the Indian Constitution does not recognize a rigid separation of powers but that the functions of the different organs are sufficiently differentiated. The watershed moment came with the Kesavananda Bharati case, where a thirteen-judge bench propounded that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited and cannot alter its "basic structure." This doctrine, which includes principles like democracy, federalism, secularism, and judicial review, became the judiciary’s ultimate shield against majoritarian overreach, firmly establishing the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution.

This foundational balance—a powerful executive-legislature combine checked by a judiciary armed with the power of judicial review—has defined Indian constitutionalism. The developments of 2024–2025 are testing the tensile strength of this very balance.

II. The Ascendant Executive-Legislature Combine and the Principle of Accountability

The period under review has been characterized by an unprecedented synergy between the executive and the legislature, driven by a strong parliamentary majority. While this has led to efficient law-making, it has also raised critical questions about the depth of parliamentary scrutiny and the effectiveness of the legislature as a check on the executive.

A. Legislative Override and the Sovereignty Debate

A prominent feature of this era has been the practice of the government responding to adverse judicial verdicts not merely by filing appeals, but by enacting new legislation or issuing ordinances that effectively nullify the core of the judicial ruling.

» The Electoral Bonds Saga: The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), which struck down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional for violating the right to information and fostering quid pro quo, was a monumental assertion of judicial power. The Court mandated full disclosure of donor-recipient details by the State Bank of India. The government’s compliance, while technically adhering to the directive, was followed by a strong political narrative criticizing judicial overreach into policy matters. While no legislative override was attempted to resurrect the scheme directly, the episode sparked a intense debate on whether a democratically elected government, claiming a popular mandate, should be constrained by the judiciary on issues it frames as "policy decisions." This has led to a lingering tension, with the executive exploring alternative funding mechanisms, keeping the door open for future legislative challenges that might test the boundaries of the ADR verdict.

» The Delhi Services Act, 2023: Although passed in 2023, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023, gained full operational significance in 2024. This Act effectively nullified the Supreme Court’s judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2023), which had held that the elected government of Delhi must have control over services, excluding public order, police, and land. The Act handed control over bureaucrats in Delhi to a committee headed by the Lieutenant Governor, a central government appointee. This is a quintessential example of a legislative body using its plenary power to reverse the practical outcome of a judicial pronouncement. While the judiciary upheld the validity of the Amendment Act in a subsequent challenge, the sequence of events—court judgment, legislative nullification, judicial deference on the amendment's validity—highlights a new dynamic where the legislature, backed by a majority, feels empowered to directly counter judicial interpretations of governance.

B. The Dilution of Parliamentary Scrutiny

The efficiency of a parliamentary majority often comes at the cost of robust debate. The passage of complex and far-reaching legislation with minimal discussion in parliamentary committees has become a norm. Significant bills, involving crucial sectors like digital data protection, criminal law reforms, and environmental regulations, have been passed with limited technical scrutiny. The role of the legislature as a deliberative body that refines and improves legislation is diminished when it functions primarily as a ratifying body for the executive’s agenda. This fusion erodes the internal separation between the executive and the legislature, concentrating power in the hands of the ruling party’s leadership and reducing the Parliament to a site for formal approval rather than substantive negotiation.

III. The Judiciary’s Response: Assertion, Nuance, and Retreat

Faced with an assertive political branch, the Indian judiciary’s response in 2024–2025 has been multifaceted, marked by moments of profound courage, strategic nuance, and occasional deference.

A. The Basic Structure Doctrine as the Bulwark

The basic structure doctrine remains the judiciary's most potent weapon. Its application and reaffirmation have been central to maintaining constitutional boundaries.

» Electoral Bonds Judgment: The ADR case is arguably the most significant application of the basic structure doctrine in recent years. The Court did not merely engage in a proportionality analysis; it rooted its reasoning in the fundamental principles of democracy and free and fair elections, which are integral to the basic structure. By holding that unchecked, anonymous corporate funding corrupts the electoral process, the Court positioned itself as the guardian of democratic integrity against majoritarian and monetary influence.

» Indirect Challenges to Basic Structure: The judiciary has been vigilant in identifying laws and amendments that, while not explicitly altering the Constitution's text, have the effect of undermining its basic features. For instance, in ongoing challenges to laws that potentially alter the federal balance or dilute the rights of minority communities, the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to examine the "purpose and effect" of the legislation, going beyond a literal interpretation. This teleological approach ensures that the basic structure is protected not just from formal amendments but also from legislative subterfuge.

B. The Collegium System and the Ongoing Tug-of-War

The appointment of judges remains the most persistent flashpoint in executive-judiciary relations. The Collegium system, whereby a body of senior judges selects judges for the higher judiciary, has been a source of contention since its inception. The period of 2024–2025 saw this conflict intensify.

The government has repeatedly expressed its dissatisfaction with the Collegium system, advocating for a greater role for the executive, as envisioned in the failed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act. The current strategy appears to be one of delay and selective approval. Sitting on Collegium recommendations for prolonged periods, seeking reconsideration, and occasionally refusing to clear names without explicit reasons have become common practices. This creates a pressure point on the judiciary, leading to vacancies and potential delays in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court, for its part, has repeatedly hauled up the government for these delays, with judges making strong observations from the bench. However, short of initiating contempt proceedings, the judiciary’s tools to enforce timely appointments are limited. This stalemate represents a critical failure in the collaborative process envisioned for appointments and signifies a deep-seated institutional distrust.

C. Judicial Deference in Policy and National Security Matters

Despite its assertiveness in certain domains, the Supreme Court has demonstrated significant deference to the executive in matters broadly classified as "policy" or "national security."

» Challenge to the Abrogation of Article 370: The Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict in In Re: Article 370 (2023), which was fully absorbed into the political and legal discourse of 2024, upheld the central government’s decision to abrogate the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The Court exhibited a high degree of deference to the executive’s assessment of the situation in the region, accepting the government's argument that statehood would be restored at an appropriate time. This judgment was seen by many constitutional experts as a retreat from a more searching review of executive action in a sensitive, federal context.

Adjudication in the Digital Age: Cases involving surveillance, data privacy, and the regulation of social media present new challenges. While the Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), its subsequent interventions in matters like the constitutionality of the Pegasus spyware allegations or the broad powers under the Information Technology Rules have been cautious. The Court often balances individual rights against the state’s claim of national security, frequently opting for executive-constituted committees or urging parliamentary action rather than delivering strong, rights-based verdicts that would clearly delineate the boundaries of state power in the digital sphere.

IV. Specific Flashpoints and Emerging Jurisprudence

Several specific issues have crystallized the evolving dynamics of separation of powers.

A. Federalism as a Site of Contestation

The Indian model of separation of powers has a strong federal component, involving the distribution of power between the Union and the States. The relationship between the Union and states governed by opposition parties has been strained. The use of central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against political leaders in these states is frequently alleged to be a tool for political coercion. While the judiciary has intervened in specific cases to grant bail or monitor investigations, a broader pattern perceived as the use of investigative agencies to undermine political federalism challenges the concept of a neutral executive. This adds a political dimension to the constitutional separation of powers, where administrative and investigative authority can be leveraged to alter the political balance.

B. The Rise of Tribunals and the Executive's Role in Adjudication

The proliferation of tribunals, which are quasi-judicial bodies often under the administrative control of the parent ministry, represents a blurring of the line between the executive and the judiciary. Concerns about the independence of these tribunals, including the process of appointing members and their terms of service, have been raised repeatedly. The Supreme Court, in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020) and other cases, has emphasized the need to ensure the independence of tribunals. In 2024–2025, the government's push to bring certain tribunals under greater executive influence through legislation and rules has been a subject of legal challenge, highlighting a continuing struggle over control of the adjudicative process outside the traditional court system.

C. The President's Role and the Question of Assent

While largely a formal head, the President’s power to withhold assent to bills passed by the legislature is a constitutional check. In a situation where the government commands a majority, this power is rarely exercised. However, in the context of states with opposition governments, the role of the Governor (as the President's representative) in withholding assent to bills passed by the state legislature has become highly contentious. This has led to multiple Supreme Court cases where the Court has had to direct Governors to act, reinforcing the principle that the Governor’s power cannot be used to frustrate the legislative will of a duly elected state government. This underscores how the separation of powers at the state level is intrinsically linked to the larger federal balance.

V. Conclusion: Towards a New Constitutional Equilibrium?

The doctrine of separation of powers in India is in a state of vigorous, and at times, precarious, evolution. The period of 2024–2025 has demonstrated that the traditional balance is being recalibrated under the weight of a sustained political majority. The executive-legislature combine has become more assertive, using its democratic mandate to push through a transformative agenda and, at times, directly counter judicial pronouncements through legislative means.

The judiciary, in response, has not been a passive observer. It has wielded the basic structure doctrine with powerful effect in areas core to democratic integrity, as seen in the electoral bonds case. Yet, it has also shown strategic deference in matters of high policy, national security, and federal reorganization, acknowledging the limits of judicial wisdom in complex socio-political terrains.

This new equilibrium is not a stable one. It is characterized by tension, dialogue-through-conflict, and a testing of institutional boundaries. The health of this system depends on several factors:

» Judicial Self-Restraint and Courage: The judiciary must continue to be courageous in protecting fundamental rights and the basic structure, while exercising restraint in areas where it lacks institutional competence. Striking this balance is its greatest challenge.

» Legislative Responsibility: The legislature must reclaim its role as a deliberative body. A strong majority should empower deeper scrutiny, not bypass it, for the long-term health of democracy.

» Executive Constitutionalism: The executive must internalize the spirit of the Constitution. A democratic mandate is a license to govern within the constitutional framework, not a carte blanche to override its foundational principles.

» Civic Vigilance: Ultimately, the preservation of the separation of powers rests on an informed and vigilant citizenry that values constitutional morality over majoritarian efficiency.

The evolving doctrine in India is a live experiment in constitutional governance. The events of 2024–2025 suggest a movement towards a model where the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guarantor of the Constitution is being fundamentally challenged. Whether this leads to a stronger, more dialogic constitutional culture or a gradual dilution of checks and balances will depend on the wisdom, restraint, and constitutional commitment exhibited by all three organs of the Indian state in the years to come. The separation of powers is no longer a static doctrine from a civics textbook; it is the dynamic and contested arena where India’ democratic future is being shaped.

Here are some questions and answers on the topic:

1. How has the relationship between the executive/legislature and the judiciary evolved in India during 2024-2025, moving beyond mere tension?

The relationship has evolved from one of periodic tension to a more fundamental recalibration of constitutional boundaries, characterized by a pattern of assertive action and counter-action. The executive and legislature, fortified by a strong and sustained political mandate, have increasingly operated in a fused manner, leading to the efficient passage of legislation but often at the cost of deep parliamentary scrutiny. This has been accompanied by a trend of legislative nullification, where the government responds to adverse judicial rulings not just by appealing them but by enacting new laws or constitutional amendments that effectively overturn the core of the judicial decision, as seen with the Delhi Services Act following the Supreme Court's verdict on control of services. The judiciary, in response, has not been passive. It has met this assertiveness with its own powerful counter-assertions, most notably in the Electoral Bonds case, where it struck down a key government policy as unconstitutional, firmly reinforcing its role as the guardian of democratic principles. However, this assertiveness is nuanced, as the court has also shown significant deference in other domains, such as national security and high policy, exemplified by its verdict on the abrogation of Article 370. Thus, the evolution is not a simple power struggle but a shift towards a more direct dialectic, where the traditional system of checks and balances is being tested through a series of concrete actions and reactions, moving beyond theoretical tension into a practical redefinition of institutional authority.

2. The "Basic Structure Doctrine" was established decades ago. How has its application and significance been reinforced or challenged in the recent context?

The Basic Structure Doctrine has transitioned from a theoretical safeguard to a actively deployed instrument in the constitutional conflicts of 2024-2025, reinforcing its critical significance while simultaneously facing its most potent challenges. Its reinforcement is most vividly seen in the Supreme Court's landmark judgment on the Electoral Bonds scheme. The Court did not merely engage in a routine legal analysis; it anchored its reasoning squarely in the basic structure principles of democracy, free and fair elections, and the right to information. By declaring the scheme unconstitutional for fostering quid pro quo and opaqueness, the Court powerfully demonstrated the doctrine's living force as a bulwark against majoritarian overreach that could corrupt the very foundations of democratic governance. However, the doctrine's efficacy and authority have been challenged indirectly through legislative and executive actions. The passage of the Delhi Services Act, which effectively nullified a Supreme Court judgment on the powers of the Delhi government, represents a challenge where the legislature uses its plenary power to circumvent the practical effect of a judicial interpretation, testing the limits of the doctrine's enforceability in the political arena. Furthermore, the government's persistent criticism of judicial overreach into policy matters, coupled with delays in judicial appointments, creates a political and institutional environment that challenges the judiciary's moral and practical authority to be the sole arbiter of the basic structure. Therefore, the doctrine remains paramount in law but exists in a constant state of negotiation and challenge in the realm of political practice.

3. The "Collegium system" for judicial appointments has been a long-standing issue. Why has it emerged as a critical flashpoint in the separation of powers debate during this period?

The Collegium system has escalated from a subject of academic debate to a critical flashpoint because it has become the primary institutional battleground where the executive's desire for a greater role in judicial selection directly confronts the judiciary's core principle of independence. The sustained political majority enjoyed by the executive has emboldened it to pursue a more assertive strategy to alter the balance of power in appointments, not through a direct legislative challenge like the failed NJAC, but through methods of passive resistance and delay. The executive's tactic of sitting on Collegium recommendations for prolonged periods, seeking repeated reconsiderations, and withholding approvals without providing explicit reasons constitutes a powerful form of indirect pressure. This creates a practical crisis by increasing judicial vacancies, which in turn burdens the court system and can slow down the administration of justice, thereby indirectly weakening the judiciary's operational capacity. The judiciary, for its part, has responded with public expressions of frustration and stern hearings, but it finds itself with limited coercive tools to force the executive's hand beyond moral suasion. This protracted stalemate over appointments is no longer just a procedural dispute; it symbolizes a deep-seated institutional distrust and a fundamental struggle over who ultimately controls the gateway to the judiciary, making it a microcosm of the larger conflict over the separation of powers.

4. Beyond high-profile cases, how is the principle of federalism being affected by the evolving dynamics between the central and state governments?

The principle of federalism is being significantly strained, evolving from a cooperative structure of governance into a contentious site of political and administrative contestation that tests the vertical separation of powers. This strain manifests in several interconnected ways. The use of central investigative agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation against political leaders and officials in states governed by opposition parties is frequently alleged to be a strategic tool of political coercion rather than a neutral application of law. This practice creates an environment where the administrative power of the Union executive can be perceived as being used to undermine the political autonomy of states, thereby damaging the collaborative spirit essential for a healthy federation. Furthermore, the conduct of Governors in opposition-ruled states has become a major flashpoint, with instances of withholding assent to bills passed by the state legislature, delaying their transmission, and creating administrative hurdles for the elected state government. These actions have forced the Supreme Court to repeatedly intervene, issuing directives to Governors to act, which underscores how the office of the Governor, intended to be a neutral link, has become an active agent in inter-institutional conflicts. This constant friction between the Union and opposition states demonstrates that federalism is no longer a purely constitutional concept but a live political battleground where the balance of power is continuously being negotiated and challenged.

5. Considering the trends of 2024-2025, what is the potential future trajectory for the separation of powers and constitutional governance in India?

The potential future trajectory for the separation of powers in India points towards an increasingly contested and dialectical model of governance, moving away from a collaborative dialogue towards a system where boundaries are defined through recurring institutional friction. The current trends suggest a consolidation of the executive-legislature combine, which will likely continue to use its political mandate to pursue a transformative legal and policy agenda, potentially leading to more instances of legislative reversals of judicial opinions. The judiciary will continue to be the primary counter-majoritarian institution, but its role may become more strategic, involving a selective application of the basic structure doctrine in core areas of democracy and rights, while exhibiting greater deference in complex economic and policy matters. The ongoing crisis in judicial appointments shows no immediate signs of resolution, indicating a persistent zone of institutional conflict that could weaken the judiciary's long-term capacity and morale. The health of the constitutional system will ultimately depend on whether the institutions can rediscover a spirit of constitutional morality that transcends majoritarian impulse. This requires the legislature to embrace its deliberative role more earnestly, the executive to exercise its power with a greater sense of constitutional restraint, and the judiciary to balance its courage with wisdom. If these corrective forces do not emerge, the trajectory risks a gradual erosion of the checks and balances that are fundamental to a vibrant and resilient democracy, solidifying a new equilibrium where power is increasingly concentrated.

Disclaimer: The content shared in this blog is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes. It provides only a basic understanding of the subject and should not be considered as professional legal advice. For specific guidance or in-depth legal assistance, readers are strongly advised to consult a qualified legal professional.