Doctrine Of Separation Of Powers: Comparative Evaluation Between Presidential And Parliamentary Systems
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 17
- 1 min read
Riddhi Chaurasia, LLM (Constitutional Law), Amity University, Lucknow
Dr. Axita Shrivastava, Associate Professor, Amity University, Lucknow
ABSTRACT
The Separation of Powers Doctrine is one of the key foundational principle of constitutional law that ensures the allocation of government functions among three independent organs — the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary — in order to avoid the concentration of power and maintain checks and balances. This paper explores the historical evolution and philosophical origins of the doctrine, from Aristotle and Montesquieu to its modern constitutional applications. Through a comparative analysis between the Presidential system (the United States) and the Parliamentary system (the India), the study highlights how both systems embody this doctrine differently.
While the Presidential model upholds a rigid separation of powers promoting stability and accountability, it often risks political gridlock. Conversely, the Parliamentary model integrates executive and legislative functions for efficient governance but is vulnerable to political instability and party dominance. Judicial pronouncements in landmark cases like Marbury v. Madison (U.S.) and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (India) reaffirm the doctrine’s centrality in upholding constitutional supremacy. The paper concludes that while both systems aim to preserve democratic
governance through separation and interdependence of powers, their effectiveness depends largely on institutional integrity, political culture, and adherence to constitutional values.
Keywords: Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Presidential System, Parliamentary System, Legislature–Executive–Judiciary
