In the re Delhi Laws Act case, it was for the first time followed by the Supreme Court that except where the constitution has vested power in a body, the way of thinking that one organ should not complete functions which basically belong to others is followed in India. By a majority of 5:2, the Court held that the explanation of separation of powers though not an important part of our Constitution, in rare circumstances is obvious in the legal rules of the Constitution itself. As observed by Kania, C.J.
Say no to plagiarism.
Get a tailor-made essay on
'Indian Law'
"Although in the constitution of India there is no express separation of powers, it is clear that a legislature is created by the constitution and detailed provisions are made for making that legislature pass laws. Does it not imply that unless it can be gathered from other provisions of the constitution, other bodies-executive or judicial-are not intended to discharge legislative functions?"
This judgment suggested that all the three organs of the State which are the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive are bound by and subject to the legal rules of the Constitution, which limits their powers, legal controls, responsibilities and relationship with one another. Also, that it can be assumed that none of the organs of the State, the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive would go beyond its powers as laid down in the Constitution.
The question placed before the Supreme Court in this case was connected to the extent of the power of the government to update the Constitution as given under the Constitution itself. It was argued that Parliament was "better than anyone or anything else" and represented the sovereign will of the people. So, if the people's representatives in Parliament decided to change a particular law to control individual freedom or limit the extent of the range of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature had no right to question whether it was related to the Constitution or not.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
However, the Court did not allow this argument and instead found in favor of the person who's arguing against a legal decision on the grounds that the belief of separation of powers was a part of the "basic structure" of our Constitution. As per this ruling, there was no longer any need for confusing double-meaning as the idea for a single purpose recognized as a part of the Indian Constitution, permanent even by an Act of Parliament. So, the idea of separation of powers has been included into the Indian laws.
