The Doctrine of Separation of Powers II

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

The Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 (‘State Act’) was reserved for consideration of President of India and Presidential assent has been obtained. Recently, G. Mohan Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 440 has observed, whole exercise of pointing out any repugnancy, after receiving assent of President, is otiose. In view of Presidential assent under Article 254(2), State Act would prevail within State of Kerala.

However, State Act interferes with judicial functions and is violative of Doctrine of Separation of Powers. State Act is liable to be declared unconstitutional on this count. A law, enacted by Legislature, may apparently seem to be within its competence. But, in substance, if shown as an attempt to interfere with judicial process, such law may be invalidated being in breach of Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Government of Kerala v. James Varghese, [Civil Appeal No. 6258 of 2014].

_____

Judiciary should not stray too far out of bounds, and expressly interfere in legislative domain. Our democratic setup may be likened to a tripartite machine, fueled by Doctrine of Separation of Powers, without which it’s functioning shall surely come to a grinding halt.

We once again repose our faith in Legislature and Elected Representatives, to take imperative steps towards ensuring an equitable and dignified life for domestic workers.

– Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 2025 decided on 29.01.2025.

Rudrajyoti Nath Ray's avatar
'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.