Constitutional Law 101: Busting the Myths

Let's face it, Constitutional Law can be intimidating. IPC was written in 1860, we're still dealing with its remnants. Judicial Services aspirants, don't worry, we've got you covered. Today, we're going to bust some common myths and get down to brass tacks.

Myth 1: Separation of Powers means absolute power to each organ

Not quite. The Indian Constitution (Article 50) enshrines the principle of separation of powers, but it doesn't mean each organ (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) has absolute power. In fact, Article 123 gives the President the power to make ordinances during a parliamentary recess, overriding the legislative process. This shows that the lines can get blurred.

Myth 2: The Supreme Court can't review executive actions

Wrong again. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) ruled that the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of rights guaranteed under Part III is a fundamental right. This means the Court can review executive actions, including those taken under Article 123.

Myth 3: The President is above the law

Don't even get me started on this one. The President is not above the law, but they do enjoy certain immunity from prosecution under Article 361. However, this immunity is not absolute, as seen in the case of Dr. Laxmi Sehgal v. Union of India (1974), where the President's immunity was waived off.

Myth 4: The Parliament can't make laws on fundamental rights

This one's a doozy. The Parliament can indeed make laws on fundamental rights, but only under Article 31-A, which allows for the amendment of the Constitution to give effect to changes in the law. However, the Supreme Court has been known to strike down such laws if they violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III.

So, what's the takeaway here? The separation of powers is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a delicate balance of power between the three organs. As a Judicial Services aspirant, it's essential to understand these nuances and not get caught up in simplistic myths. Think about this: A state government passes a law that seems to infringe on the fundamental rights of its citizens. The law is challenged in the Supreme Court, but the government argues that it's an executive function and hence not justiciable. How would you argue that the Court can review the law and ensure the protection of fundamental rights?