Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely

The Supreme Court on Monday (January 5, 2026) quizzed the Uttarakhand government for its inaction against the encroachment on thousands of hectares of forest land. In November 2025, the apex court also struck down key provisions relating to the appointment process in the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021, as unconstitutional and violative of separation of powers and judicial independence.

Such rulings bring into focus the foundational constitutional principles that govern the different branches of government – the theory of separation of powers. The theory of separation of powers is now an established aspect of constitutional government. It is traced back to the French philosopher Montesquieu, who articulated it in his book, The Spirit of the Laws (1748).

The theory is rooted in the idea that the concentration of powers – the obverse of the separation of powers – is dangerous. Therefore, it is better to separate and compartmentalise powers as its accumulation in a single authority or institution can overwhelm citizens and leave them vulnerable.

It comes close to the idea put forward by the famous British thinker Lord Acton, who suggested there is an inherent tendency in power to corrupt and that absolute power is a sure precursor to absolute corruption. He famously observed: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

The theory of separation of powers gives us the familiar distinction between the three branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Quite intriguingly, These three branches are supposed to be coequal, each exercising distinct functions and acting as checks on the others. Yet in the popular political imagination, the executive – especially the head of the executive – looms so large that this often becomes a significant concern regarding the balance that constitutional government is all about.

In the US, the President, as the head of the executive and occupant of the White House, has at times been seen as undermining the idea of the separation of powers, especially through the excessive use of executive orders. Similarly, in the UK –  a classic example of the parliamentary form of government – there has been a trend since the beginning of the 21st century towards a kind of “presidentialisation” of the Prime Minister’s office at 10 Downing Street.

At this point, it would be interesting to look at how the theory of the separation of powers appears within the two major systems of constitutional government: the American Presidential system and the British parliamentary system.

In the American Presidential system, the executive and the legislative branches are kept strictly separate. The President and his Cabinet cannot simultaneously be members of the legislative. The US legislature is bicameral and consists of two houses or chambers: the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Senate is a very powerful upper house and comprises 100 members. It represents the US federal system, with each of the 50 states sending two representatives, irrespective of whether the state is as large and populous as California or as small as Vermont. The House of Representatives is the lower popularly elected house and comprises 435 members.

However, a powerful upper house in the US is something of an anomaly, as it is generally the lower, popularly-elected house that tends to be more powerful. This is evident in the case of the UK parliamentary system, where the House of Commons (Lower House) predominates over the House of Lords (Upper House). We have a very similar system in India, with the Lok Sabha being the powerful, popularly elected chamber in comparison to the Rajya Sabha.

In contrast to the Presidential system of government, the Parliamentary system sees the executive emerging from within the legislature itself. The Prime Minister and the members of the executive, such as the Cabinet and other ministers, are all members of Parliament.

Many would argue that the executive emerging from the legislative in this manner is a violation of the principle of the separation of powers. However, the principle of the separation of powers cannot be seen in isolation from the system of checks and balances.

The separation of powers and the system of checks and balances need to be seen as a way to prevent the excessive concentration of powers in any one branch of government. It is to ensure that each branch exercises vigilance over the other and thereby keeps the whole system in balance.

Proponents of the parliamentary system of government suggest that the executive drawn from the legislative is able to ensure an effective oversight of the excesses of the executive, as it exists at the behest and support of the legislature. Supporters of this view often contrast the parliamentary system with the presidential system in the US, where a strict separation between the executive and the legislature can at times lead to institutional gridlock.

This frequently manifests itself in the form of prolonged deadlocks that happen when the expenditure proposals of the executive are not sanctioned by the legislature, leading to a government shutdown. This was seen most recently when there was a shutdown in the US of about 43 days from 1 October to 12 November 2025.

It is also important to point out that despite the separation of powers, there are mechanisms that connect the executive with the legislative branch. For instance, the Vice President of the US is the chairman of the US Senate. We have a similar arrangement in India, where the Vice President chairs the Rajya Sabha. In addition, the US President has the power to veto legislation passed by the US Congress, which allows the executive to check the legislature. All of these considerations bring into focus the judiciary.

In all countries that have a Supreme Court, which is the apex of the judiciary, the very crucial role it plays is to serve as a guardian and protector of the Constitution. Here the UK is a bit of an anomaly, as it does not have a written constitution, and it was only in 2009 that a Supreme Court was established.

The fact that a major constitutional change had to be brought about in the Westminster Parliamentary system of government to create a Supreme Court attests to the influence of the theory of separation of powers. It also highlights the crucial role that a judiciary, especially the apex of the judiciary in the form of the Supreme Court, tends to play.

A very recent instance of the Supreme Court of India exercising its powers of judicial review to check the legislature and the executive excesses is its decision striking down key provisions relating to the appointment process in the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021.

This was a law aimed at altering the tribunal system and succeeded the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Condition of Service) Ordinance. It needs to be recalled that an ordinance is a provision made in the Constitution for the executive to pass what, in effect, is a temporary law that must then be passed by the legislative branch within a period of six months.

The bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran took objection to the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, calling it a “repackaged version” of the earlier ordinance. Notably, the law was enacted days after the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the Act in a July 2021 judgment, and contained provisions substantially similar to those of the earlier law.

The Supreme Court’s objection to the Tribunal Reforms Act was that it gave excessive powers to the Union Government, or the executive, in the appointments and functioning of the chairpersons and members of tribunals. The CJI noted that the law went against the “core of the constitutional arrangements” as it enabled executive control over appointments to the tribunal by curtailing tenure and even determining salaries.

The Chief Justice even observed that the Act was a “judicial override” of the binding Supreme Court judgment of 2021 on the preceding ordinance. More significantly, the Chief Justice underlined that judicial review of laws is a basic feature of the Constitution.

The bench said, “The Constitution is what the Court says it is, not in the sense of aggrandising judicial authority, but as a necessary corollary of the Court’s role as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning.” From this Supreme Court ruling, one can see the principle of separation of powers and its concomitant checks and balances system in action.

Explain the doctrine of separation of powers and its significance in constitutional governance. Compare the operation of separation of powers in the American presidential system and the British parliamentary system.

“Separation of powers cannot be viewed in isolation from the system of checks and balances.” Discuss with suitable constitutional examples.

How has the Supreme Court of India used the power of judicial review to uphold the doctrine of separation of powers? Illustrate with recent judgments.

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Examine the relevance of this observation in contemporary constitutional democracies.

Is a strict separation of powers preferable to functional overlap? Discuss with reference to presidential and parliamentary systems.

(Amir Ali is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)

Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.