Table of Contents

TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Separation of Powers: A Comparative Analysis of the Doctrine in India, United States of America and England. PAGEREF _Toc478900775 \h 1
Meaning PAGEREF _Toc478900777 \h 2
ORIGIN PAGEREF _Toc478900778 \h 2
Constitutional Provisions PAGEREF _Toc478900780 \h 5
Judicial Opinion of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers PAGEREF _Toc478900781 \h 6
Presidential Form of Government PAGEREF _Toc478900783 \h 9
Principle of Checks and Balances PAGEREF _Toc478900784 \h 10
Administrative Growth and Separation of Powers PAGEREF _Toc478900785 \h 10
Delegated Legislation PAGEREF _Toc478900786 \h 11
CONCLUSION PAGEREF _Toc478900788 \h 13
ENDNOTES PAGEREF _Toc478900789 \h 14

Separation of Powers: A Compa rative Analysis of the Doctrine in India, United States of America and England.

 The doctrine of separation of powers is essentially what fortifies the three pillars of democracy. Without such a demarcation, the point of such offices and such pillars is redundant, and the nation might as well be a dictatorial state, with all three pillars working in collusion. This assignment compares the doctrine of separation of powers in India, the U.S.A. and England, and the reiteration of this demarcation in the three nations by the judiciary. 

The doctrine of Separation of Powers emphasizes the mutual exclusiveness of the three organs of government,  viz.,  legislature, executive and judiciary. The main underlying idea is that each of these organs should exercise only one type of function. There should not be concentration of all the functions in one organ otherwise it will pose a threat to personal freedom, for; in that case, it could act in an arbitrary manner. It could enact a tyrannical law, execute it in a despotic manner and interpret it in an arbitrary manner without any external control. The purpose underlying separation doctrine is to diffuse governmental authority so as to prevent absolutism and guard against tyrannical and arbitrary powers of the state, and to allocate each function to the institution best suited to discharge it. The rationale underlying the doctrine that been that if all power is concentrated in one and the same organ, there would rise the danger of state absolutism endangering the freedom of the people. However, it needs to be appreciated that in considering this doctrine, we have moved from the discipline of law to that of political theory. The separation of powers is a doctrine not a legal principle. HYPERLINK "" \l "_edn1" [ i ]
There is an old adage containing a lot of truth that  "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" . To evolve effective control mechanism, man had been looking for devices to contain the forces of tyranny and authoritarianism.  "Separation of Powers"  was conceived to be one such device.
  It may not be possible to state precisely the origins of the doctrine of separation of powers. However, if we look to the writings of the Greek philosopher  Aristotle , it is possible to discern a rudimentary separation of powers doctrine. Thus in his  Politics,  Aristotle remarked that:
There are three elements in each constitution in respect of which every serious lawgiver must look for what is advantageous to it; if these are well arranged, the constitution is bound to be well arranged, and the differences in constitutions are bound to correspond to the differences between each of these three elements. The three are, first the deliberative, which discusses everything of common importance; second, the officials . . .; and third, the judicial element.
The English political theorist,  JohnLocke  (1632-1704), also envisaged a threefold classification of powers. Writing in  The Second Treatise of Government  (1689), Locke drew a distinction between three types of power: legislative, executive and federative. . In Locke's analysis, the legislative power was supreme and although the executive and federative powers were distinct, the one concerned with the execution of domestic law within the state and the other with a state's security and external relations, he nevertheless took the view that ‘they are always almost united' in the hands of the same persons. Absent from his classification is any mention of a separate judicial power. Moreover, the proper exercise of these powers