The administration of federated and democratic nations can imitate the separation of powers. To prevent one branch from interfering with the operations of the other two branches, the state is separated into three distinct branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each has distinct independent powers and responsibilities. In essence, it is the guideline that each state government must adhere to in order to properly create, carry out, and apply the legislation to a given scenario.

If this rule is ignored, there will be increased opportunities for corruption and the abuse of power. There will be less likelihood of passing a dictatorial law if this philosophy is adhered to since they will know that it will be reviewed by another branch. It attempts to provide exclusivity to the operation of each organ and strives for a clear division of authority. In India, powers and functions are not reversed but rather separated.

In contrast to the US, India does not adequately implement the concept of the separation of powers. Thanks to a system of checks and balances that has been established, the court has the jurisdiction to invalidate any unconstitutional legislation that the legislature approves.

The majority of constitutional systems in use today do not, in the conventional sense, contain a strict division of powers among the several organs because it is impracticable. Although the Constitution does not specifically recognise the doctrine of the separation of powers in its complete form, it does include provisions for a just distribution of responsibilities and power among the three institutions of government.

The term "separation of powers" is defined by several sources. However, the three characteristics that define separation of powers can be broadly categorized as a person who makes up a portion of one organ shouldn't make up a portion of another, the operation of one organ shouldn't affect how the other organs work and an organ shouldn't perform an activity that belongs to another organ.

Three-tier machinery of state government

1. Legislative
   Enacting laws is the legislature's primary duty. A law's passage represents the State's will and serves as a check on its independence. It is the cornerstone of how the executive and judicial branches operate. It is given the first slot among the three organs since it is only after the legislation has been framed that its implementation and application can take place. The court serves as an advisory body, therefore it can make recommendations to the legislature about the creation of new laws and the change of existing laws, but it cannot carry out those recommendations.
    
2. Executive
   The organs are in charge of carrying out or enforcing the state's will as stated explicitly by the legislature and the constituent assembly. The executive is the leader of the government's administrative branch. It is referred to as the government's mainspring because if the executive breaks down, the government will exhaust itself as it becomes unbalanced. In a narrow sense, the term "executive" refers to the minister's head as well as his counselors, departmental heads, and ministers.
    
3. Judiciary
   It refers to those public officials whose duty it is to implement the legislation created by the legislature to particular instances while taking the idea of natural justice, or fairness, into account.
   
   There are no limitations on the Parliament's ability to enact laws, provided they comply with the Constitution's requirements. The Constitution's own Articles 62 to 72 outline the president's authority and duties. The judiciary is independent in its work, and neither the legislature nor the executive are able to hinder it from carrying out its duties. Any law approved by the legislature may be deemed invalid by the court if it is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights (Article 13), and the High Court is granted the authority of judicial review by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136. The Constitution makes the separate constitutional entities—namely, the Union territories, the Union, and the
    

State--actual in the case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab. Additionally, it has three important tools: the legislative, executive branch, and judiciary. It precisely delineates their boundaries and calls for them to carry out their duties without interfering with those of others. They should operate within their authority.

We can see from the constitutional provisions that India does not adhere strictly to the notion of the separation of powers. Along with the functional overlap, there is also a personnel overlap. If a statute is unconstitutional under the terms of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to declare it void.

Although there is a clear statement in the constitution, similar to the one in the United States, that the executive power belongs to the president under Article 53(1) and the governor under Article 154(1), there is no mention of the vesting of legislative or judicial power in any organ. We can infer that there isn't a strict division of powers.

As the judiciary is independent and neither the president nor the legislative interferes, it initially looks that our Constitution is founded on this notion. Additionally, the court forbids discussion of judicial administration in parliament. The Supreme Court has the authority to judicially evaluate laws and declare them to be invalid. The separation of the executive and judicial branches of government is described in Article 50 of the Indian Constitution as a Directive Principle of State Policy, although it is not enforceable. Under Article 105, the Member of Parliament is granted a number of privileges, powers, and immunities. Because of this clause, the legislature is autonomous. The President and Governor are given executive authority, and they are shielded from legal and criminal consequences.

However, it is evident that doctrine is not embraced in a strict sense. The executive is a part of the legislative, and the legislature holds the executive responsible for its actions and grants it authority. Although it is not enforceable, Article 50 of the Indian Constitution refers to the separation of the executive and judicial arms of government as a Directive Principle of State Policy. The Member of Parliament is given a number of rights, powers, and immunities under Article 105. This provision gives the legislature autonomy. Executive powers are granted to the President and Governor, who are also immune from civil and criminal liability.

The language makes it clear that doctrine is not embraced strictly, nevertheless. The legislature, which includes the executive, bestows authority onto and holds the administration accountable for its deeds. Given that India has a parliamentary system of government, there should be some sort of connection. Normally, only the legislature has full legislative authority, but under specific conditions, the president may be given that authority. For instance, while the parliament is not in session, the president may enact an ordinance in accordance with Article 123 to establish the laws in times of emergency. The president occasionally has the ability to use the judiciary. Both houses actively participate in the impeachment process and finalize the allegations.

In addition to exercising legislative authority by establishing rules governing their own procedure, the judiciary also carries out administrative tasks while drafting regulations and providing direction for the lower courts.

Impact of the doctrine of separation of powers on democracy
The idea of separation of powers aims to prevent the concentration of power in one or a small number of hands, which can have devastating results as history has repeatedly shown. By putting this idea into practice, the government becomes liable, accountable, and responsible to the people for what it does, supporting the advancement and defense of human rights. This eliminates one of the biggest flaws in other systems of government, such monarchy or dictatorship, where the king is not answerable to his subjects. When put into practise, the principle produces a balance of power within the government in which the operations of each body of the government are kept in check by the others while staying separate from one another.

Merits of separation of power
In its most extreme form, the principle of separation of powers is regarded as undesirable and untenable. It is therefore not fully recognized in any country on earth. Its significance, however, is in highlighting the checks and balances necessary to prevent abuse of the extensive presidential powers.

Creating a system of checks and balances
Checks and balances are a component of the doctrine of separation of powers. This trait gives each organ, in addition to its own power, some additional advantages over the other two organs. Throughout the process, a system of checks and balances controls the inter-organ connections. In theory, the separation of powers argument made sense. However, when it was put to use in real-world situations, a number of faults were discovered.

An individual's freedoms and rights are safeguarded by the idea of the separation of powers, and they are insulated against many forms of tyranny and persecution. Government agencies gain in-depth knowledge about the problems they are in charge of and become more efficient as authority is distributed among them. Sometimes, one arm of government cannot handle all of the responsibilities involved in governance. Therefore, the separation of powers helps to reduce the pressure on each branch of government.

The three branches of the government are each given a specific set of duties. If the idea were to be strictly followed, each person would have to contribute only what they could. This ensures that the state is managed in a systematic way.

A great defense against the misuse and arrogance of authority is the separation of powers. A dictatorship cannot take hold because different ministries are granted diverse levels of power. The concept is sound because it can prevent tyranny on the part of individuals in positions of power. The concept ensures that too much power is not concentrated in a single branch of government. This helps to prevent the impulse to abuse power.

According to the concept of judicial independence, the judiciary should be independent of the other branches of the government. Almost all constitutions provide the court the power to resolve all constitutional disputes and to declare the actions of the other arms of government void and unenforceable. The concept of the separation of powers helps to support the judiciary's independence in discharging its responsibilities.

Overlapping legislative authority
The Judiciary has the power to revalidate and change laws that the Court had ruled were unconstitutional as well as to impeach and remove justices. It is empowered to punish the guilty party if its privilege is infringed.

Members of the legislature oversee each governmental ministry along with the executive. A no-confidence vote has the power to overthrow the government. The President and Governor act on the recommendation of the council of ministers, which is composed of members of the legislature.

Overlapping Executive Authority
Regarding the judiciary choosing potential applicants for the Chief Justice and other judicial offices.

the power to pardon or commute the sentences of criminal defendants who have been found guilty of a crime. The executive's tribunals and other quasi-judicial institutions also perform judicial functions.

Utilizing the Legislative the ability to pass an ordinance with the same legal force as one that was approved by a state legislature or a parliament.

They have the authority to adopt regulations that govern their unique procedure and mode of operation, within the confines of this Constitution.

Overlapping judicial authority
Utilizing the Legislative
In accordance with Article 142, the Supreme Court acts as an Executive to guarantee complete justice. With the ability to assess executive action to determine whether the Constitution is being broken, or with the Executive Legal assess. The Constitution's fundamental framework cannot be altered.

Conclusion
All three branches of the government must cooperate and work together for the government to run smoothly. This idea cannot be used as a guiding principle for government operations, according to Professor Garner. The precise division of each organ's tasks is challenging.

Although the harmony of the three pillars of government is crucial to liberty, growing concerns about welfare and security have led to a shift of more power to the executive. In a perfect society, the individual's liberty, wellbeing, and state security should all be prioritized on an equal basis. This would undoubtedly require a powerful government, but it would also require a system of checks and balances, as well as the division of powers.

References:

1. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-separation-of-powe rs/
2. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1617/Separation-of-Powersand-Its-Development-with-Special-Reference-to-India.html
3. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/what-separation-pow ers-means-constitutional-government