6. Conclusion

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers in its true sense is very rigid and this is one of the reasons of why it is not accepted by a large number of countries in the world. The main object as per Montesquieu in the Doctrine of Separation of Power is that there should be government of law rather than having will and whims of the official. Also, another most important feature of the the doctrine is that there should be independence of judiciary. Hence, the Doctrine of Separation of Powers does play a vital role in the creation of a just government and fair and proper justice is dispensed by the judiciary due to its independence.

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers has come a long way from its theoretical inception. Today, the doctrine in its absolute form is only recognized in letter as it is entirely unfeasible and impractical for usage in the operational practices of a government. With the passage of time, States have evolved from being minimal and non-interventionist to being welfare oriented by

playing the multifarious roles of protector, arbiter, controller and provider to the people. In its omnipresent role, the functions of the State have become diverse and its problems interdependent hence, any serious attempt to define and separate the functions would only cause inefficiency in the government.

The modern day interpretation of the doctrine provides for establishment of a system of checks and balances. Therefore, a system of checks and balances is a practical necessity in order to achieve the desired ends of the doctrine of separation of powers. Such a system is not dilatory to the doctrine but necessary in order to strengthen its actual usage.

India relies heavily upon the doctrine in order to regulate, check and control the exercise of power by the three organs of government. Whether it is in theory or in practical usage, the Doctrine of Separation of Powers is essential for the effective functioning of a democracy like India.