[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
535 views1 page

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab: Contravention of The Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The document discusses the doctrine of separation of powers in India and how a recent amendment violates this doctrine. It notes that while India does not have a strict separation, the Supreme Court has recognized the doctrine as part of the basic structure. The doctrine requires that quasi-judicial bodies like the Information Commission function independently without interference from the executive. However, the amendment gives the government control over commissioners' terms and conditions, allowing it to interfere with the independent functioning of the commission. Therefore, the amendment contravenes the separation of powers by permitting the executive to control a quasi-judicial body.

Uploaded by

chetna raghuwanshi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
535 views1 page

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab: Contravention of The Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The document discusses the doctrine of separation of powers in India and how a recent amendment violates this doctrine. It notes that while India does not have a strict separation, the Supreme Court has recognized the doctrine as part of the basic structure. The doctrine requires that quasi-judicial bodies like the Information Commission function independently without interference from the executive. However, the amendment gives the government control over commissioners' terms and conditions, allowing it to interfere with the independent functioning of the commission. Therefore, the amendment contravenes the separation of powers by permitting the executive to control a quasi-judicial body.

Uploaded by

chetna raghuwanshi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Contravention of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The Indian Constitution does not prescribe a strict separation of powers; however, it has been
implicitly recognised and protected as part of the basic structure by the Supreme Court. The
understanding of the doctrine that currently holds the field was laid down in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya
Kapur v. State of Punjab where the Court held that despite the Constitution not recognising the
doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity, “the functions of the different parts or
branches of the Government have been sufficiently differentiated.” Consequently, it was stated that
the Constitution did not contemplate the assumption of one organ’s functions by another.

Going further, the Supreme Court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. The State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Madras held that separation of powers also operated in the domain of quasi-judicial
authorities. Here, the Court held that objective administration of the law required decisions of the
Judge or Tribunal to be free of extraneous guidance by the executive or administrative wing of the
State. Fetters on the exercise of quasi-judicial authority would make the exercise of such authority
completely inconsistent with the well accepted notion of judicial process.

It is submitted that the same independence of functioning is to be accorded to the Information


Commission, which been held to be a quasi-judicial authority by the Supreme Court in Namit
Sharma v. Union of India. In that case the Court held that a statutory authority exercises quasi-
judicial functions when it is required to adjudicate between two or more parties who contest each
other’s claims, and found that the Information Commission exercised quasi-judicial functions since it
dealt with a lis between parties. Further, the Act in S. 18(3) endows the Information Commission
with the powers of a Civil Court, and on this basis the Court held that the Commission possesses the
essential attributes and trappings of a Court.

As a result, the Amendment clearly violates the doctrine of separation of powers, as governmental
control over Commissioners’ terms of office and conditions of service amount to interference with
the independent functioning of the Information Commission. By conferring upon the government
the power to regulate the Commission’s conditions of service, the Amendment raises the prospect of
the body becoming pliant and subservient to the government. Therefore, it is submitted that the
Amendment contravenes the doctrine of separation of powers, as it permits the executive to control
the functioning of a quasi-judicial body tasked with discharging constitutional duties

You might also like