Question

Directions: The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A). Assertion (A): The Constitution of India does not adopt a rigid separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Reason (R): The constitutional framework incorporates a system of checks and balances, allowing limited functional overlap among the organs of the State. In the context of the Constitution of India, which one of the following is correct?

• A. Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
• B. (A) is true, but (R) is false.
• C. (A) is false, but (R) is true.
• D. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).

Hint:

"Checks and Balances" = The key to Indian democracy! Because the executive is part of the legislature, there cannot be a "rigid" separation. It is a system of cooperation and control.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Read the Assertion (A).
(A) says the Indian Constitution does not follow a rigid separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. We need to check if this is true.

Step 2: Test (A).
India follows a parliamentary system. The Prime Minister and Council of Ministers are part of the Legislature, so the executive and legislative functions overlap. This shows the separation is not rigid, so (A) is true.

Step 3: Read the Reason (R).
(R) says the Constitution has a system of checks and balances that allows limited functional overlap among the organs of the State.

Step 4: Test (R).
This is also true. Each organ keeps a check on the others, and some overlap is built in on purpose so that no single branch becomes all-powerful.

Step 5: Does (R) explain (A).
The overlap and checks-and-balances described in (R) are exactly the reason why the separation is not rigid in (A). So (R) correctly explains (A).

Step 6: Conclude.
Both statements are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
\[ \boxed{\text{Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).}} \]