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: Understanding the Concept:
The Indian Constitution follows a parliamentary system of government, which inherently blends executive and legislative functions, rather than a rigid separation like the American model.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Assertion (A) is true: The Indian model is characterized by functional overlap (e.g., the Prime Minister and Cabinet must be members of the Legislature).
- Reason (R) is true: This overlap is intentional to ensure "checks and balances," where each organ remains accountable to the others, preventing the concentration of absolute power in any single branch.
- Since the functional overlap described in (R) is the reason why the system is not rigid, (R) provides the correct explanation for (A).

Step 3: Final Answer:
Both are true and (R) is the correct explanation. Option (A) is correct.

Answer 2

An Assertion-Reason question of this kind is best resolved by first fixing the truth value of the Assertion and the Reason independently, and only then checking whether the Reason actually explains the Assertion, before testing each of the four composite options against that finding.

1. Option (A): This option claims both statements are true and that the Reason correctly explains the Assertion. The Indian Constitution does not follow a rigid separation of powers, since the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers sit within the Legislature while heading the Executive, and the Judiciary reviews the acts of both, so the Assertion is true. The Reason, describing a built-in system of checks and balances permitting limited functional overlap, is also true and is in fact the precise constitutional mechanism that produces the non-rigid separation described in the Assertion. Since the explanation fits exactly, this option holds up.
2. Option (B): This option claims the Assertion is true but the Reason is false. Since the Reason accurately describes India's checks-and-balances design, calling it false is incorrect, so this option cannot stand.
3. Option (C): This option claims the Assertion is false and the Reason is true. The Assertion itself is a well accepted feature of Indian constitutional law and is true, not false, so this option is incorrect on its very first limb.
4. Option (D): This option accepts both statements as true but denies that the Reason explains the Assertion. Since the functional overlap and mutual checks described in the Reason are exactly what makes the separation of powers non-rigid in the Assertion, denying the explanatory link does not fit the facts, so this option is incorrect.

Testing all four composite claims shows that only the first one accurately captures both the truth of the two statements and the explanatory relationship between them.

Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).