Mains Practice Questions

Introduction:

In a constitutional democracy, separation of powers and institutional checks and balances are essential to prevent concentration of authority. However, in practice, executive dominance, driven by political majorities, control over bureaucracy, and ordinance-making powers, often weakens the autonomy and effectiveness of other institutions, raising concerns for democratic governance.

Body:

How Executive Dominance Undermines Checks and Balances:

• Weakening of Parliamentary Oversight: Frequent use of ordinances under Article 123 (e.g., repeated re-promulgation struck down in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 1987) bypasses legislative scrutiny.
  • Important Bills are sometimes passed as Money Bills, limiting scrutiny by the Rajya Sabha (e.g., Aadhaar Act controversy).
• Influence over Independent Institutions: Executive control over appointments and transfers affects the autonomy of bodies like investigative agencies.
  • Allegations of selective use of agencies such as CBI and ED raise concerns of politicization. Many states have withdrawn their general consent for CBI.
• Erosion of Federal Checks: Centralisation through fiscal instruments like cesses and surcharges reduces states’ share of divisible taxes.
  • Cesses and surcharges in India have risen significantly, becoming a large, non-shareable chunk of Central revenue, increasing from ~10% pre-pandemic to over 20% by 2021-22.
• Pressure on Judicial Independence: Delays and disagreements over judicial appointments under the collegium system have strained executive–judiciary relations.
  • As of December 2025, there are more than 297 vacancies across India's High Courts.

Strengthening Checks and Balances in Governance:

• Reinforcing Parliamentary Oversight: Mandate greater referral of Bills to Department-related Standing Committees, ensuring expert scrutiny and bipartisan deliberation.
• Ensuring Autonomy of Independent Institutions: Provide security of tenure and functional independence to investigative agencies, as emphasised in Vineet Narain Case.
• Preserving Judicial Independence: Ensure time-bound judicial appointments through constructive executive–judiciary cooperation.
  • Respect judicial decisions and avoid selective compliance.
  • Rationalise tribunal reforms to align with principles laid down in Madras Bar Association judgments.
• Deepening Federalism: Reduce excessive reliance on cesses and surcharges, ensuring predictable fiscal transfers to states.
  • Promote cooperative and competitive federalism through institutional platforms like the Inter-State Council.

Conclusion:

While a strong executive may enhance administrative efficiency, excessive dominance risks hollowing out institutional checks and balances. Upholding constitutional morality requires empowering legislatures, ensuring autonomy of oversight bodies, and respecting judicial independence to sustain democratic governance.