Do you think that constitution of India does not accept the principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain.

Unlike, American constitution where there is proper separation of power between Executives and Legislature, Indian Constitution promotes cooperation between the organs of democracy. It is a well-knit framework, where there is proper balance between 3 pillar of democracy viz., Executives, Legislature and Judiciary. Separation of power is enumerated in Art. 50 of DPSP (Fundamental for Governance). But many a time questions have been raised where the power is used by one to suppress the decision of the other, most recent case where Judiciary struck down the NCAJ (99th CAA), with a reason it that it interferes the independency of judiciary. There are many other example where Executives have used their power to circumvent a judgement by the judiciary, CAA 24, 38, 39 and 42nd and are example. Constitution of India has made a proper balance between Parliament Sovereignty and Judiciary. Parliament can make laws, and can also amend the constitution [Art. 368] to implement certain legislation for the welfare of state and its citizen, on the other hand Judiciary [Supreme Court] has been the custodian of Constitution, it may struck down any provision which may affect the Basic Structure Doctrine [evolved in the famous Kesvananda Bharti Judgment]. Executives being responsible to legislature, are limited by the constitution. All these provisions have ensured that there be a check and balance between the organs of democracy.