Inherent Powers and the Doctrine of Separation of Powers: A Constitutional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research paper undertakes a comprehensive constitutional analysis of the concept of inherent powers in relation to the doctrine of separation of powers within the Indian constitutional framework. Inherent powers are those not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution but are considered essential for the effective functioning of constitutional institutions. These powers, often exercised by the judiciary and executive, occupy a grey area between necessity and overreach, raising critical questions about legitimacy, accountability, and constitutional limits. The study explores the theoretical foundations of inherent powers, tracing their origins in constitutional jurisprudence and political theory, particularly the writings of Montesquieu and Dicey. It examines the Indian model of separation of powers, which departs from strict compartmentalization in favor of a more functional division. The analysis is supported by landmark Supreme Court judgments, including S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which highlight the evolving judicial understanding of inherent powers in diverse constitutional contexts. Comparative perspectives from jurisdictions like the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada are employed to evaluate how other democracies manage the use of inherent powers while upholding institutional integrity. The paper also highlights the potential risks of judicial overreach and executive arbitrariness when inherent powers are used without adequate checks. In conclusion, the paper offers critical suggestions and reforms to promote a more disciplined, transparent, and constitutionally guided application of inherent powers. It underscores the need for judicial restraint, legislative oversight, public constitutional literacy, and institutional accountability to preserve the constitutional balance envisioned by the framers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".