NCERT Solutions for Class 9th Social Science Chapter 6 Separation of Powers — THINK ABOUT IT
Book page 142 Updated on2026-09-08
Q1.
What do you think would happen if the same organ of the government made laws, implemented them, and enforced them? Share your thoughts with your classmates.
Answer
Power would be concentrated, and there would be nobody left to correct a mistake. The chapter states the purpose of the division exactly: separating the three organs prevents “the concentration of power in any one organ”, and “This separation is essential for maintaining checks and balances among the three organs of the government.”
The checks and balances described on page 142. The arrows are the whole point: they are what a single all-powerful organ would remove.
What would be lost, one check at a time:
No review of amendments. At present, “while parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, the judiciary can review such amendments to ensure they are consistent with the spirit of the Constitution.” A single organ would amend and approve its own amendment.
No unconstitutional laws. “If a law is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions, the judiciary has the power to declare it unconstitutional.” If the law-maker is also the judge, no law could ever be found unconstitutional — not because the laws are good, but because nobody is entitled to say otherwise.
No limit on enforcement. “the executive power of enforcement agencies is regulated by laws and rules framed by the Parliament and can also be reviewed by competent courts.” Merge the organs and the same body writes the rules it will be judged by.
The rule of law collapses. The chapter defines it as the guarantee that “no one is above the law” and that disputes are resolved “in a court of law through procedures established by law, not by force or personal influence”. A single organ is above the law, because it is the law.
Rights become unenforceable. Fundamental Rights are valuable because they can be claimed in court under Articles 32 and 226. Against whom would you claim them if the court were the same body you were complaining about?
Why an independent judiciary is the load-bearing piece: the chapter calls it “an impartial and independent institution that safeguards citizens' rights and upholds the spirit of the Constitution”, and points to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a step it has taken “to ensure access to justice for all”. PIL only works because the body hearing the case is not the body being complained against.
For the classroom discussion: test the idea with something small. Let one student write the rules for a class competition, judge the entries, and decide appeals. Nothing dishonest need happen for the result to be untrustworthy — and that is exactly the argument. Separation of powers is not an accusation against officeholders; it is a design that does not depend on their goodness.