Separation of powers, doctrine of

2026 PLD 17 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

ScopeTo interpret law is the exclusive judicial sphere and once an interpretation is rendered, the same is final

At first sight, the protection which an entrench separation of powers might afford, finality seems obvious and uncontroversial; that is, an absolute protection against interference by executive branch, intolerant of exception or qualification

This is not to deny the inherent jurisdiction in the courts themselves to reopen or revise final judgments in certain very limited circumstances, a jurisdiction, of course, which is perfectly consistent with the separation of powers because it is the judicial branch itself which is exercising this discretion, not the non-judicial branches

The interference in a final judgment by the legislature also has definite circumspections

Constitutional limitations on legislative competence over final judgments have clear civil liberties implications, in particular, the objective that legal disputes be resolved by adjudication according to law by independent judges 'free from potential domination by the legislative and executive branches of government, and that the fruits of litigation are not denied to a successful litigant

The Rule of Law implications are also obvious in these circumstances

Prima facie, the protection of final judgments must constitute a basic minimum protection afforded by the separation of powers, even if it were to protect nothing else

One thing is settled: there is no scope of any authority of the executive to ignore a binding judgment of a Constitutional Court

Three organs have to act within the bounds specified in the Constitution, any transgression or encroachment by one organ over the sphere of the other will result in chaos and uncertainty

It is, therefore, paramount that an equilibrium is to be maintained inter se between the three organs of the State within the limits delineated by the Constitution

Separation of power does not only mean that Judges are independent; it also means that judiciary would effectively yield the power to review the legality, and eventually the constitutionality of the acts of other public and private power.

2026 PLC(CS) 188 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

ScopeTo interpret law is the exclusive judicial sphere and once an interpretation is rendered, the same is final

At first sight, the protection which an entrench separation of powers might afford, finality seems obvious and uncontroversial; that is, an absolute protection against interference by executive branch, intolerant of exception or qualification

This is not to deny the inherent jurisdiction in the courts themselves to reopen or revise final judgments in certain very limited circumstances, a jurisdiction, of course, which is perfectly consistent with the separation of powers because it is the judicial branch itself which is exercising this discretion, not the non-judicial branches

The interference in a final judgment by the legislature also has definite circumspections

Constitutional limitations on legislative competence over final judgments have clear civil liberties implications, in particular, the objective that legal disputes be resolved by adjudication according to law by independent judges 'free from potential domination by the legislative and executive branches of government, and that the fruits of litigation are not denied to a successful litigant

The Rule of Law implications are also obvious in these circumstances

Prima facie, the protection of final judgments must constitute a basic minimum protection afforded by the separation of powers, even if it were to protect nothing else

One thing is settled: there is no scope of any authority of the executive to ignore a binding judgment of a Constitutional Court

Three organs have to act within the bounds specified in the Constitution, any transgression or encroachment by one organ over the sphere of the other will result in chaos and uncertainty

It is, therefore, paramount that an equilibrium is to be maintained inter se between the three organs of the State within the limits delineated by the Constitution

Separation of power does not only mean that Judges are independent; it also means that judiciary would effectively yield the power to review the legality, and eventually the constitutionality of the acts of other public and private power.

2025 PLD 869 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

ScopeDoctrine of checks and balancesConcomitant with the doctrine of separation of powers is, however, the doctrine of checks and balances

It acknowledges that while each organ operates independently, there should be some mechanism to restrain each organ within the limits of its power and to counteract whenever such limits are exceeded

It is through checks and balances that each organ is empowered to monitor and, if necessary, undo the actions of the others, ensuring that no organ exceeds its constitutional authority

The very strength of the separation of powers is thus dependent on the checks and balances, making no organ absolutely unchecked

Therefore, in essence, the separation of powers and the checks and balances are intertwined concepts that reinforce the stability and integrity of a constitutional democracy; they provide a framework where each organ is both empowered and limited, fostering both cooperation and accountability.

2025 PLD 869 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Scope

Principle of separation of powers is fundamental to the organization of any state and the same is fundamental to the systems of Government

It is a basic principle of our Constitution

The separation of powers is inferred from the Constitution's organizational principles, hence, it is implicit in the Constitution

Separation of powers is not only a fundamental principle of our constitutional construct but also the cornerstone of a constitutional democracy

The separation of the judiciary from the executive and legislature is part and parcel of judicial independence.

2025 PLD 125 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Trichotomy of power is essential and important as it is a basic feature of the Constitution.

2022 SCMR 1691 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Scope of the doctrine of Separation of powers in a constitutional democracy stated.

2022 PLC(CS) 1603 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Scope of the doctrine of Separation of powers in a constitutional democracy stated.

2020 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Delegation of an "essential legislative function" by the Legislature to the Executive was not permissible under the Constitution

Foundation of such embargo owed its genesis to the concept of trichotomy of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judicature, which was a fundamental principle of the constitutional construct.

2016 SCMR 1040 CONSTITUTIONAL-COURT-OF-SOUTH-AFRICA Judicial Precedent

ScopeDoctrine of separation of powers, on the one hand, recognised the functional independence of branches of government

On the other hand, the principle of checks and balances focused on the desirability of ensuring that the Constitutional order, as a totality, prevented the branches of government from usurping power from one another

In such sense it anticipated the necessary or unavoidable intrusion of one branch on the terrain of another

No constitutional scheme could reflect a complete separation of powers: the scheme was always one of partial separation.