Analysis of Assertion (A)

The assertion states that the Indian Constitution does not recognize the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity. This is correct. While the Indian Constitution establishes distinct legislative, executive, and judicial branches, it does not enforce a strict, rigid separation. There are overlaps and interdependencies, such as parliamentary control over the executive and judicial review of legislation.

Analysis of Reason (R)

The reason claims that the doctrine of separation of powers accommodates a system of checks and balances. This is also true. In practice, particularly in parliamentary systems like India's, the separation is functional rather than absolute. A system of checks and balances allows each branch to limit the powers of the others, ensuring accountability and preventing any single branch from becoming too dominant. This accommodation is essential for the practical functioning of the government.

Relationship between (A) and (R)

Reason (R) explains why Assertion (A) is true. The reason the Indian Constitution does not adhere to a rigid separation of powers (A) is precisely because it incorporates a system of checks and balances (R). These checks and balances inherently create interaction and interdependence between the branches, thus preventing absolute rigidity. Therefore, (R) is a correct explanation of (A).

Conclusion

Both the assertion (A) and the reason (R) are true statements. Furthermore, the existence of checks and balances (R) serves as the reason why the separation of powers is not rigidly applied in the Indian constitutional framework (A).