Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. Referring to the functional doctrine, D.Y. Chandrachud, J., had cited the following judgements:

“249. In State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht, the Court held that the doctrine of separation of powers limits the “active jurisdiction” of each branch of Government. However, even when the active jurisdiction of an organ of the State is not challenged, the doctrine allows for methods to be used to prod and communicate to an institution either its shortfalls or excesses in discharging its duty. The Court recognised that fundamentally, the purpose of the doctrine is to act as a scheme of checks and balances over the activities of other organs. The Court noted that the modern concept of separation of powers subscribes to the understanding that it should not only demarcate the area of functioning of various organs of the State, but should also, to some extent, define the minimum content in that delineated area of functioning. S.B. Sinha, J. addressed the need for the doctrine to evolve, as administrative bodies are involved in the dispensation of socio-economic entitlements: (SCC p. 619, para 83) “83. If we notice the evolution of separation of powers doctrine, traditionally the checks and balances dimension was only associated with governmental excesses and violations. But in today's world of positive rights and justifiable social and economic entitlements, hybrid administrative bodies, private functionaries discharging public functions, we have to perform the oversight function with more urgency and enlarge the field of checks and balances to include governmental inaction. Otherwise we  envisage the country getting transformed into a state of repose. Social engineering as well as institutional engineering therefore forms part of this obligation.” (emphasis in original) xx xx xx