Constitutional Law important questions

Independence of the judiciary (स्वतन्त्र न्यायपालिका) means the courts are free to decide cases. They decide purely according to the law and the evidence. They act without interference, pressure, fear or favour. No such pressure comes from the executive, the legislature or any other power. This is essential to the rule of law. It is essential to the protection of fundamental rights. A court that could be pressured by the government would be no real protection at all. Under the Constitution of Nepal 2015 it is secured by several guarantees.

• Separation from the other organs: the judiciary is a distinct organ headed by the Supreme Court.
• Appointment through councils: judges are appointed on the recommendation of the Judicial Council. The Chief Justice is appointed on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. Appointments are not made by the executive alone.
• Security of tenure: judges can be removed only through impeachment or the prescribed process. They cannot be removed at the will of the government.
• Protected service conditions: judges' remuneration and conditions are safeguarded. They cannot be changed to the judges' disadvantage once the judges are in office.
• Power of judicial review: the courts can review and invalidate laws and acts that violate the Constitution.

The practical worth of these guarantees appears in a real case. Suppose the state has acted unlawfully. For example, it has detained a person without authority. A judge with secure tenure can order the person's release through a writ of habeas corpus. The judge can decide against the government without fearing dismissal or a cut in pay. Together these protections let judges administer justice impartially. They let judges hold even the state to the law.

The Federal Council of Ministers (संघीय मन्त्रिपरिषद्) is headed by the Prime Minister. It is the federal executive of Nepal. The executive power of the federation is vested in it. Its principal functions are these. It implements and administers the laws and runs the government through the ministries. It formulates and executes national policy. It conducts foreign relations and negotiates treaties. It maintains peace, order and national security. It prepares and presents the budget. It manages public finance and administration. It recommends appointments. It issues ordinances when Parliament is not in session. For example, the annual budget sets the government's spending and taxation for the year. It is prepared and presented by the Council. The response to a national emergency is also directed by it. The Council is collectively responsible to the House of Representatives. The House can remove it by a vote of no confidence. So its wide powers are exercised under the continuous accountability of the elected house. (See Q4 above for the fuller treatment.)

The Constitution of Nepal 2015 provides for the appointment of judges. The scheme is carefully designed to protect the independence of the judiciary. It keeps the choice out of the hands of any single political authority.

• Chief Justice (प्रधानन्यायाधीश): appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. The Constitutional Council is a broad-based body chaired by the Prime Minister. It includes other high office-holders of the state.
• Judges of the Supreme Court: appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council is a specialised body for judicial appointments.
• Judges of the High Courts and District Courts: appointed on the recommendation of the Judicial Council as well.
• Qualifications and tenure: judges must meet prescribed qualifications of legal experience. Once appointed they enjoy security of tenure. Supreme Court judges are removable only through impeachment. Others are removable only through the prescribed disciplinary process.

The reasoning behind this scheme is clear. It stops the executive from packing the courts with its own favourites. The recommendations go to the Judicial Council and the Constitutional Council, not to the Prime Minister alone. Judges' tenure is also protected. So a judge can decide a case against the government of the day without fear for the office. This is what keeps judicial appointments largely free of political control. It safeguards the independence of the judiciary.

The executive body of the state in Nepal is the Federal Council of Ministers (संघीय मन्त्रिपरिषद्). It is headed by the Prime Minister. The executive power of the federation is vested in it. Its main functions are as follows.

• Implementing and administering the law passed by Parliament. It runs the day-to-day government through the ministries and the civil service.
• Formulating and executing national policy across all departments of state, from education to the economy.
• Conducting foreign affairs. It negotiates treaties and maintains relations with other states.
• Maintaining peace, order and security within the country.
• Preparing and presenting the budget. It manages public finance and administration.
• Recommending appointments and issuing ordinances when Parliament is not in session. These ordinances later require parliamentary approval.

Here is an example of the executive at work. Suppose a natural disaster strikes. Then the Council of Ministers directs the administration, the security agencies and relief funds to respond. It is using its duty to maintain order and protect the people. Throughout, the Council is collectively responsible to the House of Representatives. The House can remove it by a vote of no confidence. This accountability to the elected lower house is the central feature of Nepal's parliamentary executive. It is the reason its power, though wide, is never unchecked.

The Supreme Court (सर्वोच्च अदालत) is the apex court of Nepal. It is the final interpreter of the Constitution. It is a court of record. It hears appeals from the High Courts. It can issue writs to enforce fundamental rights. Below it are the High Courts and the District Courts.

A High Court (उच्च अदालत) is the court at the provincial level. It sits in Nepal's three-tier judicial hierarchy. It is between the Supreme Court above and the District Courts below. It hears appeals from the District Courts. It tries certain cases. It can issue writs within its jurisdiction.

Impeachment (महाअभियोग) is a removal process. Through it the Federal Parliament removes high officials for serious misconduct. These include the President, the Chief Justice, Supreme Court judges and heads of constitutional bodies. The motion must be passed by a two-thirds majority.

A mid-term election (मध्यावधि निर्वाचन) is held before the House of Representatives completes its full five-year term. It happens when the House is dissolved early. For example, no government can command a majority. Then fresh elections are called ahead of schedule.

A direct election (प्रत्यक्ष निर्वाचन) is one in which the voters themselves choose their representatives. They cast their votes directly. An example is the first-past-the-post election of members to the House of Representatives. It contrasts with an indirect election. There, an electoral college chooses on the voters' behalf, as for the President.

Under the Constitution of Nepal 2015 the President and the Vice-President each hold office for a term of five years. A person may hold the office for a maximum of two terms.

One cause to file a motion of impeachment against the Chief Justice is a serious violation of the Constitution and the law. Other grounds include incompetence, misconduct, failure to discharge the duties of office honestly, or physical or mental inability.

Fundamental rights (मौलिक हक) are the basic human rights that a constitution specially guarantees to its citizens. The constitution also makes them enforceable in its courts. So an ordinary law of the legislature cannot cut them down. In Nepal they are the rights set out in Part 3 of the Constitution of 2015. They range from the right to life with dignity, freedom and equality to the right against discrimination. They also include the rights to justice, property, religion, information and privacy. A wide set of social rights is included too.

Their defining quality is enforceability. Through the right to constitutional remedy, a person whose right is violated may go to the Supreme Court or a High Court. These courts can issue writs to enforce the right.

The second part of the question asks if these rights are absolute. In other words, can they ever be limited? The answer is that they are not absolute. No constitution treats rights as unlimited. If one person's right were unlimited, it would destroy the rights of others. It would also destroy the order of society. Think of a right to free speech that covered defamation and incitement. Think of a right to property that allowed no tax or planning law. Ordered social life would become impossible.

The limits take three forms.

(a) Reasonable restrictions: The Constitution itself allows some rights to be restricted by law. These are freedom of speech, assembly, movement and profession. The law may restrict them in the interest of sovereignty and integrity. It may do so for public order, decency and morality. It may also do so to protect the rights and reputation of others. Here is an example. The state may reasonably regulate the time and route of a large demonstration. This stops it from paralysing a city or putting others in danger. The right to assemble is not abolished.

(b) Emergency derogation: Nepal may face a grave threat to its sovereignty, integrity or security. The threat may come from war or external aggression. It may come from armed rebellion. It may also come from extreme economic breakdown. Then a state of emergency may be declared. Certain fundamental rights may be suspended or limited while it lasts.

(c) The correlative nature of rights: Every right is used within a boundary. The equal rights of others set this boundary. One's own duties to society set it too. So rights and duties move together.

Now we come to the key point of the analysis. The power to limit rights is itself limited by the Constitution.

• Restrictions must be reasonable. The law must impose them. An official's arbitrary will is not enough. A court can be asked to strike down a restriction that is excessive. The same is true of a restriction that picks out a group without good reason.
• An emergency is limited in time. The Federal Parliament must approve it. So the executive cannot extend crisis powers at will.
• Some rights stay beyond suspension even in an emergency. These are the right against torture and the right against retrospective punishment. The remedy of habeas corpus is also protected. Take the last one as an example. Suppose a person is detained during an emergency. A relative can still petition for habeas corpus. A court can still test whether the detention is lawful. So a minimum level of protection survives even the gravest crisis.

In conclusion, fundamental rights in Nepal are strongly guaranteed and enforceable in court. But they are not absolute. They are best understood as protected rights with defined and limited restrictions. This is a deliberate balance between the liberty of the individual and the needs of society and the state. The scheme works because it limits the rights. It also limits the power to limit them. So neither individual liberty nor public order is allowed to swallow the other.

This statement draws a careful line between human rights (मानव अधिकार) and fundamental rights (मौलिक हक). Both halves of the statement are correct. To analyse it, we must do three things. First, we must understand each term. Second, we must test each half of the statement. Third, we must see how the two ideas relate.

Human rights are the rights that every human being has simply by being human. They are universal. They are inherent, which means a person is born with them. They do not depend on any state or constitution recognising them. A person holds them whether or not a government writes them down. Natural-law thinking recognises them. International documents also recognise them. One example is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Their scope is very wide. They cover civil, political, economic, social and cultural claims.

Fundamental rights are a smaller group. They are those human rights that a particular constitution selects. The constitution guarantees them to its own people. It also makes them enforceable in its own courts. In Nepal they are the rights set out in Part 3 of the Constitution of 2015. They are enforced through the right to constitutional remedy. The Supreme Court and the High Courts issue writs to enforce them.

The first half says "all fundamental rights are human rights." This is true. Every right that a constitution makes fundamental comes from the existing body of human rights. Examples are the right to life, liberty and equality. Another is freedom from torture. A state does not invent these rights out of nothing. It recognises rights that human beings already have. Then it gives them legal force. Take the right against torture in Part 3. It is simply a human right. The Constitution has given it a written form. It has also given it a court-enforced remedy inside Nepal. So fundamental rights are human rights with a constitutional guarantee.

The second half says "all human rights are not fundamental rights." This is also true. A constitution guarantees only some human rights as fundamental. Many human rights are recognised internationally. Some of them may not appear in a constitution's enforceable list. Others may be placed among the directive principles instead. Here is an example. Suppose a welfare entitlement is recognised internationally as a human right. Suppose that in Nepal it is written only into Part 4 as a directive principle. It is not in Part 3. It is still a human right. But it is not a fundamental right that a court can enforce in Nepal. So it is a human right without being a fundamental right.

In analytical terms, fundamental rights are a subset of human rights. A subset is a smaller group inside a bigger group. Fundamental rights are fewer in number. But they are stronger in protection. This is because they carry the force of the constitution and a court remedy.

Human rights form the wider, universal circle. Morality and international law recognise this circle. Fundamental rights form the smaller circle inside it. A particular state has chosen to guarantee and enforce this smaller circle.

Picture two circles, one inside the other. The large outer circle is human rights. The small inner circle is fundamental rights. It sits wholly inside the outer circle. Every point in the inner circle is also in the outer circle. But not every point in the outer circle is inside the inner one.

In conclusion, the statement is logically sound. All fundamental rights are human rights. This is because the state only recognises rights that human beings already hold. But not all human rights are fundamental rights. This is because a constitution enforces only the rights it has chosen to guarantee. In Nepal, Part 3 marks out that chosen and enforceable group. The wider universe of human rights remains broader than any single constitution's list.

Fundamental rights and fundamental duties are the two sides of the relationship between the citizen and the state. Fundamental rights (मौलिक हक) are the basic human rights that the Constitution specially guarantees to citizens. The Constitution makes them enforceable in court. Fundamental duties (मौलिक कर्तव्य) are the basic obligations that citizens owe to the nation. Citizens owe them to one another too. A sound constitutional order needs both to be honoured together. Rights cannot survive in a society where nobody accepts the matching duties.

The Constitution of Nepal 2015 guarantees many fundamental rights in Part 3. Here are the main ones.

• The right to live with dignity.
• The right to freedom. This covers speech and expression, assembly, movement and profession.
• The right to equality and against discrimination.
• The right against untouchability.
• The rights relating to justice. These include rights against torture and preventive detention.
• The right to property.
• The right to freedom of religion.
• The rights to information and privacy.
• A wide range of social rights. These are the rights to education, health, employment, food, housing and social security.

The Constitution also gives special protection to women, children, Dalits, senior citizens and other groups.

These rights are strong because they are enforceable. The right to constitutional remedy makes this possible. A person whose right is violated may go to the Supreme Court or a High Court. These courts can issue writs. Habeas corpus frees a person who is unlawfully detained. Mandamus forces an authority to do its legal duty.

Here is an example. Suppose a citizen is denied entry to a public facility only because of caste. The right to equality gives the claim. The right against untouchability gives the claim too. The right to constitutional remedy gives the route to a court. The court can strike down the discrimination. This power of enforcement is what separates a fundamental right from a mere statement of policy.

Beside these rights, the Constitution lays down fundamental duties of the citizen. Two examples are showing loyalty to the nation and to the Constitution, and protecting public property.

The link between rights and duties is essential. One person's right to a freedom means every other person has a duty to respect it. Rights can be enjoyed only when citizens also do their duties toward society and the state. Here are two examples. The right to a clean environment can be realised only if citizens accept the duty not to pollute public spaces. The right to move freely on public roads depends on others accepting the duty not to block them unlawfully.

Fundamental rights are also not absolute. The law may impose reasonable restrictions on them. It may do so in the interest of sovereignty, public order, morality or the rights of others. Some rights may also be suspended during a declared state of emergency. Even then some rights stay protected. They cannot be suspended. Examples are the right against torture and the remedy of habeas corpus. This keeps a minimum level of protection even in the gravest crisis. The balance shows an important idea. The Constitution guarantees rights strongly. But people must use them responsibly within the law and with their duties in mind.

In short, fundamental rights protect the dignity, liberty and equality of the individual against the state. Fundamental duties bind the individual to the welfare of the community. The Constitution of Nepal 2015 places the two together on purpose. A healthy constitutional order needs citizens to claim their rights and also to perform their duties. Rights without duties would fall into disorder. Duties without rights would fall into oppression. Held together, they give constitutional citizenship its meaning.

The directive principles of the state (राज्यका निर्देशक सिद्धान्त) are set out in Part 4 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015. Part 4 also covers the policies and obligations of the state. The directive principles are the guiding principles that shape the long-term direction of the state.

(a) Purpose and scope: They direct the state toward a just and inclusive society. The society should also be prosperous and socialism-oriented. They cover political, economic, social, cultural and environmental goals. Examples are social justice and public welfare. Others are balanced development and protection of the environment.

(b) Nature: Fundamental rights are different. The directive principles are generally not directly enforceable in court. A citizen cannot ordinarily sue the government just because a principle has not yet been fulfilled.

(c) Weight: They are not enforceable in court. Even so, they bind the conscience of the state. They guide how laws and policies are framed. The government must also report regularly on how it is carrying them out. So the legislature and the public can hold it to account. They can check the direction the state is taking.

Here is an example. The state may give free basic education to children of poor families. It may expand health posts into remote hill and mountain districts. In both cases it is giving effect to the directive principles. No court forced it to act.

In this way the directive principles work together with the fundamental rights. The rights protect the individual against the state. The directive principles commit the state to positive action for the common good. They set the goals. Laws and budgets should steadily work toward those goals.

The directive principles of the state (राज्यका निर्देशक सिद्धान्त) are set out in Part 4 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015. Part 4 also covers the policies and obligations of the state. The directive principles are the guiding principles that shape the long-term direction of the state.

(a) Purpose: They lead the state toward an independent and prosperous society. The society should be socialism-oriented and just. They aim to secure social justice and inclusion. They also aim to secure the welfare of the people.

(b) Scope: They cover political, economic, social, cultural and environmental goals. These range from balanced regional development to protection of the environment.

(c) Nature: Fundamental rights are different. The directive principles are generally not directly enforceable in court. A citizen cannot usually go to court just because a principle is unfulfilled. This is because they are moral and political directions to the government. They are not claims that a court can enforce.

(d) Weight: They are not enforceable in court. Even so, they bind the conscience of the state. They guide how laws and policies are framed. The government must also report regularly on how it is carrying them out. So the legislature and the public can judge something important. They can see whether the state is moving in the promised direction.

Here is an example. The government may make school education free for children of poor families. It may start a programme to bring health services to remote districts. In both cases it is acting on the directive principles. No court ordered it to do so.

The directive principles also work together with the fundamental rights. Rights protect the individual against the state. The directive principles commit the state to positive action. That action is for the common good.

Fundamental rights are guaranteed. But they are not absolute. The Constitution of Nepal 2015 allows them to be limited or suspended in certain defined conditions. This limiting or suspending is called derogation.

(a) State of emergency (संकटकाल): Nepal may face a grave threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity or security. The threat may come from war or external aggression. It may come from armed rebellion. It may also come from extreme economic breakdown. In such a case the state may declare an emergency. It may then suspend or limit certain fundamental rights while the emergency lasts. The reason is simple. In a true national crisis the state needs wider powers. It needs them to defend the nation. All rights depend on the nation.

(b) Reasonable restrictions by law: Rights can be limited even in normal times. This applies to freedom of expression, assembly, movement and profession. The law may impose reasonable restrictions on them. It may do so in the interest of sovereignty and integrity. It may do so for public order, decency and morality. It may also do so to protect the rights and reputation of others. Here is an example. A law may forbid a public procession from blocking a hospital's emergency gate. But the law cannot abolish the right to assemble altogether.

There are also safeguards. They make sure derogation does not become a tool of oppression.

• Some rights can never be suspended, even during an emergency. These are the right against torture and the right against retrospective punishment. The remedy of habeas corpus is also protected. So a detained person can still ask a court to test whether the detention is lawful.
• An emergency is limited in time. It must also be approved by the Federal Parliament. This keeps even crisis powers under the control of the elected representatives of the people.

So derogation is allowed only in grave and defined situations. Even then it must stay within constitutional limits.

A state of emergency (संकटकाल) may be declared when Nepal's sovereignty, territorial integrity or security is gravely threatened. The threat may be war, external aggression, armed rebellion or extreme economic breakdown. During it certain fundamental rights may be suspended. Some rights stay protected, such as the right against torture and the remedy of habeas corpus. The emergency is limited in time. The Federal Parliament must approve it.

A moral duty (नैतिक कर्तव्य) is an obligation based on conscience, ethics and social expectation. It is not based on legal force. Examples are helping those in need and being honest. A legal duty is different. Breaking it brings a legal consequence. A moral duty is enforced by conscience and social opinion. The courts do not enforce it.

Fundamental rights (मौलिक हक) are the basic human rights that the Constitution specially guarantees to citizens. The Constitution makes them enforceable in court. So ordinary law cannot take them away. In Nepal they are guaranteed in Part 3 of the Constitution of 2015.

The Constitution of Nepal guarantees the right to constitutional remedy. A person whose fundamental right is violated may go to the Supreme Court or a High Court. These courts can issue suitable orders and writs to enforce the right. Examples of writs are habeas corpus and mandamus.

A federal system (संघात्मक व्यवस्था) is a system of government with a divided design. The constitution divides power between a central (federal) government and regional governments. Each derives its authority directly from the constitution. Each exercises it within its own sphere. Neither can abolish the other on its own. It contrasts with a unitary system. In a unitary system all power is concentrated at the centre. The regions act only on powers delegated to them. A federal system has clear aims. It accommodates diversity. It gives regions self-rule. It brings government closer to the people. It prevents too much power in a single authority. Nepal adopted federalism in 2015 for exactly these reasons. This followed a long history of centralised, unitary rule.

The heart of a federal system is the distribution of power between the levels of government. A constitution does this by setting out lists of powers. Under the Constitution of Nepal 2015, power is distributed among the three tiers. These tiers are federal, provincial and local. The lists are set out in its schedules.

• An exclusive federal list. This covers national matters such as defence and the army, foreign affairs, currency and banking, citizenship, and central planning.
• An exclusive provincial list. This covers matters of provincial concern within each province.
• An exclusive local list. This covers matters of local concern handled by the local governments.
• A concurrent list of the federation and the provinces. Both may legislate on these.
• A concurrent list shared by all three levels. These are the federation, the provinces and the local units.

Clear rules of precedence keep the system coherent. Suppose laws conflict on a matter in a concurrent list. Then federal law prevails over provincial law. Provincial law prevails over local law. This is to the extent of the inconsistency. Residual powers are those not placed on any list. They rest with the federal level. A simple example makes the scheme concrete. A national matter such as issuing currency belongs only to the federation. A purely local matter such as a village road belongs to the local unit. Now take a shared subject where two laws clash. The higher law prevails to the extent of the conflict. The rest survives.

So in a federal system power is not held by one government alone. It is shared among levels. Each level is supreme within its own field. There are clear rules to resolve overlaps. The Constitution of Nepal 2015 applies this through its lists of exclusive and concurrent powers. It gives each of the three tiers a defined sphere. It maintains the unity of the state through the rule that federal law prevails. In this balance between shared self-rule and national unity lies the strength of Nepal's federal design.

A federal system of governance (संघीय शासन प्रणाली) is a system with a special design. The constitution divides governmental power between a central (federal) government and a set of regional governments. Each level draws its authority directly from the constitution. Each exercises it within its own sphere. Neither can simply abolish the other. It is different from a unitary system. In a unitary system all power rests at the centre. The regions act only on delegation. Federalism has clear purposes. It accommodates diversity. It brings government closer to the people. It allows regional self-rule. It guards against too much power in a single authority.

Under the Constitution of Nepal 2015, Nepal is a federal democratic republic. It has three tiers of government: the federal level, seven provinces, and 753 local units.

At the federal level, the legislature is the Federal Parliament. The executive power is exercised by the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. The judiciary is headed by the Supreme Court. At the provincial level, each province has a Provincial Assembly as its legislature. It has a provincial Council of Ministers headed by a Chief Minister as its executive. The Governor serves as the head of the province. The Governor is appointed by the President. At the local level, there are rural municipalities and municipalities. Each has an assembly and an executive. Each also has a judicial committee to settle certain local disputes through mediation.

The distribution of power among these tiers is set out in the schedules of the Constitution. It uses lists. There is an exclusive federal list. There is an exclusive provincial list. There is an exclusive local list. There is a concurrent list shared by the federation and the provinces. There is a concurrent list shared by all three levels. Defence, foreign affairs, currency and similar national matters fall to the federal level. Matters of regional concern fall to the provinces. Matters of local concern fall to the local units. Shared matters appear on the concurrent lists. There are rules when laws conflict on a shared subject. Federal law prevails over provincial law. Provincial law prevails over local law. This is to the extent of the inconsistency. Any residual power rests with the federation. For example, suppose a provincial law on a concurrent subject contradicts a federal law on the same subject. The provincial law is void to the extent of that conflict. The rest of it stays in force.

In this way the Constitution of Nepal 2015 builds a genuine federal structure. It divides power among three self-governing tiers. At the same time it preserves Nepal as a single, sovereign and indivisible state. The citizen gains government that is close at hand for local matters. The citizen also gains government that is unified for national ones. That is the essence of the federal system of governance it establishes.

A federal state (संघीय राज्य) divides power between a central government and regional governments by the constitution. Each is supreme in its own sphere. Nepal became such a state under the Constitution of 2015. Its merits and demerits are as follows.

Merits:

• Accommodates diversity: regions with different languages, cultures and needs can govern themselves. In Nepal this answered long-standing demands of diverse communities for self-rule.
• Government closer to the people: local and regional problems are handled at the nearest level. An example is a local road or a drinking-water scheme. It is not handled from a distant capital.
• Prevents concentration of power: dividing power among levels guards against central tyranny. It also gives the citizen more than one elected government to turn to.
• Encourages participation and development: more layers of elected government mean wider participation. They also mean locally responsive development.

Demerits:

• Complexity and cost: running three tiers of government is expensive. It is also administratively complicated.
• Risk of conflict and duplication: disputes may arise between the levels over powers and resources. An example is a dispute over a concurrent-list subject.
• Uneven development and weak uniformity: richer provinces may advance faster than poorer ones. Laws may also differ from place to place.

On balance a federal state suits a large and diverse country like Nepal. This holds provided the levels cooperate. It also holds provided the constitutional distribution of powers is respected.

The doctrine of separation of powers (शक्ति पृथकीकरण) is linked to Montesquieu. It holds that the three functions of government should be kept in three separate organs.

• The legislature makes the law.
• The executive implements and administers the law.
• The judiciary interprets the law and settles disputes.

Its purpose is to prevent the concentration of power in one authority. This protects liberty from tyranny. Suppose one body made, enforced and judged the law. Then nothing would restrain its abuse. A complete separation is impractical. So modern constitutions apply the doctrine through checks and balances. The organs are largely separate. But each can restrain the others. In Nepal the Federal Parliament makes law. It can impeach certain high officials by a two-thirds majority. The executive administers the state. It can issue ordinances when Parliament is not in session. The independent judiciary is headed by the Supreme Court. It can review and invalidate unconstitutional acts. Suppose the executive detains a person without lawful authority. The judiciary can order the person's release through a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order to produce a detained person and justify the detention. This is a direct check on executive power. So the organs are distinct yet mutually balancing. That balance is what safeguards the citizen's freedom.