Q1.
If the Executive is part of the Legislature, how do we say that there is separation of power? (Hint: revisit the section on legislature above)
Answer
Because in India separation of powers means separation of functions and of accountability — not separation of persons. The same MP can be a minister; but the job she does as a minister is not the job Parliament does, and Parliament can hold her to account for it.
| What is shared | What is still separate |
|---|---|
| Ministers are chosen from among the MPs of both Houses, so the people are the same | The functions are different: the Legislature makes laws and oversees; the Executive enforces them |
| The Executive introduces most of the bills | Only Parliament can pass them — a minister’s bill still has to survive committee scrutiny, clause-by-clause debate and a vote in both Houses |
| The Executive prepares the budget | Only Parliament can sanction the expenditure |
| Ministers sit in the House and answer in it | They sit there as people who must justify themselves — at the Question Hour and before committees. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, and can be removed by it |
And the third organ completes the answer. The Judiciary stands wholly outside both. It checks that the laws Parliament passes do not violate the constitutional framework, and it can step in if the Constitution is violated when the Executive implements a law. So even where the legislature and the executive overlap, neither of them is the final judge of its own conduct.
The trade-off, stated plainly: a system that separates the persons completely (as a presidential system does) gets sharper separation but can deadlock, with an executive and a legislature that simply refuse to work with each other. A parliamentary system accepts the overlap and buys something else with it — a government that must keep explaining itself to the elected House every single sitting day, and that falls the moment it loses that House’s confidence. Lal Bahadur Shastri’s resignation in 1956 after a train accident, though he was not blamed for it, shows how seriously that responsibility was taken.