Examine how the separation of powers is practised in India compared to the rigid presidential model of the United States of…

India follows a parliamentary model of checks and balances, not rigid separation of powers. Article 50 directs separation of the judiciary from the executive, but the executive is fused with the legislature: the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Article 75(3)), and ministers must be, or within six months become, members of Parliament (Article 75(5)). The Prime Minister is primus inter pares and can be removed by a no-confidence motion.

The United States follows Montesquieu's separation. The President is independently elected, sits outside Congress, cannot introduce bills, and can be removed only by impeachment, not a confidence vote. His veto can be overridden by two-thirds of Congress, and the Senate gives advice and consent on appointments and treaties.

India’s President is nominal, acting on ministerial aid and advice (Article 74). The Prime Minister’s authority is thus collective and rests on Lok Sabha confidence, whereas the US President holds a fixed four-year term, limited to two terms by the 22nd Amendment. In practice, however, a Prime Minister with a stable majority can wield more power: he steers both executive and legislature through party discipline and the anti-defection law, controls the legislative agenda and can advise dissolution of the Lok Sabha. A US President may face divided government and Senate confirmation, and cannot dissolve Congress, though he commands the armed forces and issues executive orders. India’s judiciary guards the balance: Kesavananda Bharati treated separation of powers as basic structure, and Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain struck down an amendment shielding the Prime Minister’s election from review.

The US model offers a stable, independent executive; India’s fusion secures responsible government, with judicial review checking abuse.