The Doctrine of Doctrine of Separation of Powers: A Cricket Analogy
constitutional judiciary advanced analogy_postImagine a cricket match played between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and a state cricket association. BCCI is the supreme authority, making rules and policies for the sport at the national level. Now, the state association wants to make its own rules for the state-level tournaments. But, BCCI says, "No way, buddy, you can't do that, we've already made the rules." Here, BCCI is acting like the judiciary, saying the state association's actions violate the rules set by the 'Constitution' (or the BCCI constitution in this case).
In Constitutional Law, the Doctrine of Separation of Powers says that the judiciary has the power to check the actions of the other two branches of government (legislative and executive) if they are unconstitutional or violative of the separation of powers.
Arre yaar, I loved the cricket analogy in the last post but I think it's still missing a crucial point. In the cricket analogy, the judiciary is the umpire who can declare a match over, but what about the scenario where the other two powers (executive and legislative) don't obey the judiciary? How does that apply to the doctrine of separation of powers then? Discuss, guys!