Checks and balances

Topic: State, Government and Governance: Organs, Levels and the Citizen · NCERT: Class 6, Ch 10 "Grassroots Democracy – Part 1: Governance"; Class 7, Ch 10 "The Constitution of India: An Introduction"; Class 7, Ch 6 "The State, the Government, and You"; Class 8, Ch 6 "The Parliamentary System: Legislature and Executive"; Class 9, Ch 6 "Democracy"; Class 10, Ch 1 "Power-sharing"; Class 11, Ch 1 "Constitution: Why and How?"; Class 11, Ch 6 "Judiciary"

Meaning

Checks and balances is the system in which each organ of government (legislature, executive and judiciary) can limit the others. If one organ oversteps its role, another can stop it and restore the balance (NCERT: Fig. 10.3, Class 6).

It matters because separating powers alone is not enough. Each organ also needs ways to hold the others back, so that no single institution can grow too powerful or weaken the Constitution.

Explanation

How it works: separation plus mutual control

• A government does three jobs, and each one belongs to a separate organ (branch):
• Legislature makes laws (Parliament, state legislatures).
• Executive carries out laws and runs the administration (President or Governor, ministers, civil servants).

• Judiciary settles disputes and explains what laws mean (Supreme Court, High Courts, lower courts).

• Separation of powers gives each job to a different organ.

• Checks and balances goes a step further. Each organ gets tools to limit the other two.
• Why both are needed (NCERT exercise): imagine one group controlling all three organs.
• The same people would make the law, enforce it and judge anyone who broke it.
• The citizen would have no neutral body to appeal to.

• The result is arbitrary rule and loss of liberty.

• Separate does not mean isolated. In good governance the organs interact and work together, but each watches the others.

Where the idea came from

• John Locke (17th-century England) separated the power to make laws from the power to carry them out.
• Montesquieu set out the idea fully in The Spirit of the Laws (1748). He said there is no liberty when the legislative, executive and judicial powers are held by one person or body.
• The US model: the framers of the US Constitution (1787) divided power among three branches. Through checks and balances, each branch can block actions by the others [7].
• Veto: the President can reject a bill passed by Congress. Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote.
• Senate confirmation: the Senate must approve the President's choices for judges, ambassadors and Cabinet members.
• Impeachment: Congress can remove the President or federal judges.
• Judicial review (the power of courts to strike down a law that conflicts with the Constitution) came from Marbury v. Madison (1803), not from the text of the US Constitution [8][9].

The Indian model: functional separation with checks

• India has functional separation. The three functions are clearly marked out, but the organs overlap in people and powers.
• Why there is no rigid separation: India has a parliamentary executive.
• Ministers must be members of the legislature, or must become members within six months.
• The Council of Ministers has collective responsibility to the Lok Sabha: the whole ministry stands or falls together on the floor of the House.

• So the executive comes from the legislature and answers to it.

• Because the organs overlap, India relies heavily on checks to keep the balance.

Key check procedures, step by step

Impeachment of the President (Art. 61). Ground: violation of the Constitution.

1. Either House brings the charges as a resolution. At least one-quarter of the total members of that House must sign it, and 14 days' written notice must be given.
2. The resolution must pass by at least two-thirds of the total membership of that House.
3. The other House investigates the charges. The President can appear in person or be represented.
4. If the second House also passes the resolution by two-thirds of its total membership, the President is removed from that date.

Removal of a Supreme Court judge (Art. 124(4) and Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968). Grounds: "proved misbehaviour or incapacity".

1. A notice of motion is signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
2. The Speaker or Chairman decides whether to admit it.
3. If it is admitted, a 3-member inquiry committee is formed: a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist.
4. If the committee finds the judge guilty, each House must pass the motion by a special majority in the same session. This means a majority of the total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting.
5. The President then orders the removal.

Limits on the checks themselves

• Some walls between the organs cannot be crossed:
• Arts. 121, 211: the legislature cannot discuss a judge's conduct, except on a motion to remove the judge.
• Arts. 122, 212: courts cannot question legislative proceedings on the ground of irregular procedure [5].

• Art. 361: the President and Governors are not answerable to any court for using their official powers.

• Validating law vs overruling law:

• Allowed: the legislature changes the law on which a judgment was based, for example by fixing the defect the court pointed out.
• Not allowed: a law that simply sets aside a court's final decision. That would make the legislature an appeal court above the judiciary.

In the Constitution and practice

India's checks-and-balances map

Who checks whom	Tools	Legal anchor
Legislature → executive	Question Hour (the first hour of a sitting, when members question ministers), Zero Hour, adjournment and calling-attention motions, no-confidence motion, budget control, impeachment of the President	Art. 75(3); Arts. 112–117; Art. 61
Legislature → judiciary	Removal of judges; validating laws	Art. 124(4); Art. 217; Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
Executive → legislature	Summoning, proroguing (ending a session) and dissolving the Lok Sabha; assent to bills; ordinances	Art. 85; Arts. 111, 200, 201; Arts. 123, 213
Executive → judiciary	Appointing judges; pardons	Arts. 124(2), 217; Arts. 72, 161
Judiciary → both	Judicial review of laws, constitutional amendments and ordinances	Arts. 13, 32, 226

• Art. 50 (Directive Principle): the State shall separate the judiciary from the executive in public services. Under colonial rule the same officer often collected revenue and also judged cases [6].
• Assent powers:
• Art. 111: the President can give assent, withhold it, or return a bill (not a money bill) for reconsideration. If Parliament passes the bill again, the President must give assent.
• Art. 200: the Governor can also reserve a state bill for the President, who then acts under Art. 201.

Landmark cases

• Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955): India has not adopted rigid separation of powers. Executive power is the residue, meaning what is left after the legislative and judicial functions are taken away.
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): a 13-judge bench created the basic structure doctrine. Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot destroy its core features. Separation of powers was named as one of those core features.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): the Court struck down Art. 329A(4), which the 39th Amendment had added. Parliament had acted like a court by declaring the Prime Minister's election valid.
• Minerva Mills (1980): the Court struck down Art. 368(4) and (5), which the 42nd Amendment (1976) had added. Limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure.
• State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala (2014), Mullaperiyar dam: a 5-judge bench struck down Kerala's 2006 Act, which tried to block a final Supreme Court ruling. This was a bad overruling law.
• SCAORA (2015): by 4:1, the Court struck down the 99th Amendment (2014) and the NJAC Act. Giving the executive a role in choosing judges threatened judicial independence. The collegium system (senior judges choose judges) came back.
• Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017): a 7-judge bench held that re-promulgating ordinances (issuing the same ordinance again and again without placing it before the legislature) is a "fraud on the Constitution". Courts can review the "satisfaction" behind an ordinance.

Current friction: Governors and state bills

• State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (8 April 2025): the Court fixed time limits for Governors: 1 month or 3 months to withhold assent or reserve a bill, and 1 month to assent to a re-passed bill. It gave the President 3 months for reserved bills. It declared 10 re-passed bills deemed to have received assent [3].
• 16th Presidential Reference (Art. 143): a 5-judge bench gave its advisory opinion on 20 November 2025 [2][4]. It held that:
• courts should not set timelines where the Constitution sets none;
• the Constitution has no concept of "deemed assent";
• if a Governor stays inactive for too long, courts may only give limited directions asking the Governor to decide [2].

Don't confuse with

• Separation of powers: this gives each function to a different organ. Checks and balances gives each organ tools to limit the others. India has only functional separation, but it has strong checks.
• Parliamentary sovereignty (UK): in the UK, Parliament can make or unmake any law. India follows constitutional supremacy, so neither Parliament nor the Supreme Court is supreme. The Constitution is (Minerva Mills, 1980).
• Validating law vs overruling law: a validating law removes the basis of a judgment and is allowed. A law that simply sets aside a final judgment is not allowed (Tamil Nadu v. Kerala, 2014).
• Governor's reservation (Art. 200) vs President's options (Art. 111): only the Governor can reserve a bill. The President cannot "reserve" a Union bill.

Prelims Hooks

• The Spirit of the Laws (1748) → Montesquieu. Judicial review in the USA came from Marbury v. Madison (1803), not the Constitution's text [8][9].
• Art. 50 (separating the judiciary from the executive) is a Directive Principle, so it cannot be enforced in court [6].
• Arts. 121/211: the legislature cannot discuss a judge's conduct except on a removal motion. Arts. 122/212: courts cannot question legislative proceedings for irregular procedure [5].
• Impeaching the President (Art. 61) needs two-thirds of the total membership of each House. Removing a judge (Art. 124(4)) needs a special majority in each House.
• SCAORA (2015) struck down the 99th Amendment and NJAC. Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) held that re-promulgating ordinances is a "fraud on the Constitution".
• The 20 November 2025 opinion (5 judges) said there is no deemed assent and no court-made timelines for Governors. This reversed the 8 April 2025 timelines [2][3].

Mains Points

• Fusion brings accountability, but also risk.
• Because the executive sits in the legislature, Question Hour, no-confidence motions and budget control keep ministers answerable.

• But a government with a large majority can control the legislature. This makes judicial review and independent bodies more important as checks.

• Judicial activism vs judicial overreach.

• Activism has filled gaps, for example the Vishaka (1997) guidelines and the end of repeated ordinances in Krishna Kumar Singh (2017).
• Critics say court-made timelines for Governors (April 2025) went into executive discretion. The November 2025 opinion pulled back on this point [2].

• A balanced answer cites Minerva Mills: the Constitution is supreme, and each organ must respect the others' limits.

• Reform debates.

• Judges' appointments: the collegium protects judicial independence but is criticised for lack of transparency. One proposal is a published memorandum of procedure and published reasons, without giving the executive the final say.
• Governors' delays: long delays weaken elected state legislatures and cooperative federalism. After November 2025, any binding time limit under Arts. 200 and 201 has to come from Parliament through a constitutional amendment, not from the courts.

Related concepts

• Separation of powers
• Ram Jawaya Kapur case

Read more

• Separation of powers and checks and balances