(a) In the Parliamentary system, though there is no separation between the legislature and the executive in terms of personnel, there is separation of functions between the two. Explain in the light of relevant judicial decisions. (20 marks)

(b) Are

Question

(a) In the Parliamentary system, though there is no separation between the legislature and the executive in terms of personnel, there is separation of functions between the two. Explain in the light of relevant judicial decisions. (20 marks)

(b) Are administrative tribunals competent to examine the constitutional validity of primary legislations? Discuss in the light of case law. (15 marks)

(c) Explain the significance of 'Audi Alteram Partem'. What are the cases or circumstances in which the aforesaid principle of natural justice can be excluded? (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

Under the Indian constitutional scheme, the doctrine of separation of powers is accepted functionally rather than in its rigid, classical Montesquieuan sense. While the Westminster parliamentary model necessitates an overlap in personnel—ministers being drawn from and collectively responsible to the legislature under Articles 74 and 75—it strictly preserves a functional division of powers.

Functional Separation in the Parliamentary System

The Council of Ministers executes policy and administration, while Parliament retains the core function of enacting laws, scrutinising executive action, and voting supplies. In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955), the Supreme Court clarified that the Indian Constitution does not recognise an absolute separation of powers in personnel, yet it clearly differentiates executive, legislative, and judicial functions to prevent concentration of unchecked power. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Court elevated this functional division and the system of checks and balances into the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution, holding that one organ cannot usurp the essential functions of another.

Tribunals and Constitutional Validity of Primary Legislation

Administrative tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies designed for specialised adjudication, not plenary constitutional courts. While S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) initially viewed tribunals as effective substitutes for High Courts, this proposition was authoritatively recalibrated in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997). The seven-judge bench held that while administrative tribunals can test the constitutional validity of subordinate or delegated legislation, they are strictly barred from examining the constitutional validity of their own parent primary legislation under which they are created.

Further, as reiterated in Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) and Ramesh Chandra Singhal v. Union of India, judicial review over primary legislation is a non-negotiable core of Constitutional Courts. Tribunal decisions remain subordinate to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32, preserving the ultimate power of constitutional interpretation within constitutional courts.

Significance and Exclusion of Audi Alteram Partem

The principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) is an indispensable facet of natural justice, ensuring fair play, preventing arbitrariness, and preserving public trust in administrative decisions. Its core components include the issuance of adequate prior notice, a reasonable opportunity to present one's case, and the delivery of a reasoned speaking order. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977), the Supreme Court observed that natural justice is not an unruly horse or rigid straitjacket, but a flexible instrument to secure justice, adaptable to administrative imperatives.

Consequently, audi alteram partem can be excluded in specific circumstances:

First, express or implied statutory exclusion, where the statute intentionally bars a pre-decisional hearing to achieve public objectives.

Second, situations of extreme urgency or national security, as seen in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where an immediate impounding of a passport excluded a pre-decisional hearing, though the Court mandated a post-decisional hearing to prevent injustice.

Third, purely legislative actions or general policy decisions, where individual hearings are administratively impossible (State of Punjab v. Sita Ram).

Fourth, academic disciplinary matters and mass malpractice, where conducting individual inquiries would frustrate the entire process (Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha).

Fifth, cases where a hearing would be a "useless formality" because the admitted facts lead to only one inevitable legal conclusion.

Together, functional separation, guarded tribunal jurisdiction, and structured application of natural justice ensure that state power remains both effective and constitutionally disciplined.

(a) In the Parliamentary system, though there is no separation between the legislature and the executive in terms of personnel…

Model answer

What "Explain" is asking you to do

Structure that answers it

Where marks are lost

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Practice this exact question

More from Law 2022 Paper I