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 ?
Understanding Indian Constitution's Separation of Powers
The question asks to evaluate the nature of separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary in India, based on two statements: Assertion (A) and Reason (R).
Analyzing Assertion (A)
Assertion (A) states that the Constitution of India does not adopt a rigid separation of powers. This is correct. Unlike systems with strict separation, the Indian Constitution allows for interaction and overlap between the three branches. For example, the judiciary exercises judicial review over legislative and executive actions, while the executive can influence legislation (e.g., through ordinances).
Analyzing Reason (R)
Reason (R) states that the constitutional framework incorporates a system of checks and balances, allowing limited functional overlap. This is also correct. The Indian system intentionally includes checks and balances to prevent any one organ from becoming too dominant. This system necessitates a degree of functional overlap, ensuring accountability and cooperation.
Connecting Assertion and Reason
The presence of a system of checks and balances (Reason R) directly leads to the conclusion that the separation of powers is not rigid (Assertion A). The overlaps inherent in checks and balances mean that powers are not strictly separated. Therefore, Reason (R) correctly explains Assertion (A).
Conclusion on Statements
- Assertion (A) is true.
- Reason (R) is true.
- Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
Important Questions from Mixed Topic (AIBE)
- "The rules of natural justice were not confined to the narrow precincts of the prevailing definition of quasi-judicial functions." This principle was laid down in which case ?
- Ajeet Singh, a famous singer, enters into a contract with Yash Aditya Music Company agreeing to perform exclusively for them for 2 years and not to perform for any other company during that period. After one year, Ajeet Singh refuses to perform for Yash Aditya Music Company and begins performing for BR Chopra & Company. Yash Aditya Music Company files a suit seeking an injunction restraining Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra & Company.
Which of the following statements is correct under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? - Under constitutional jurisprudence in India, repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the Legislature was described by the Supreme Court as a "fraud on the Constitution" in which decision ?
- Under the Patents Act, 1970, a patent is granted to an inventor in India. Which of the following correctly reflects a limitation on the patentee's rights under the law ?
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) : An ex parte decree may be set aside if the defendant satisfies the court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Reason (R) : Under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court must be satisfied that the summons was not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Mark your answer as :
