In India, separation of judiciary from the executive is enjoined by

Answer: B. SEPARATION OF JUDICIARY FROM THE EXECUTIVE is enjoined by a DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE OF STATE POLICY. ARTICLE 50 of the Constitution (Part IV — Directive Principles of State Policy) states: 'The State shall take steps to SEPARATE THE JUDICIARY FROM THE EXECUTIVE in the public services of the State.' This directive principle was incorporated to ensure that adjudicatory functions are not mixed up with administrative/executive functions, especially at the lower levels (the magistrate's court level, where colonial-era practice had the same officer serving both as executive magistrate and judicial magistrate). Implementation: - The CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 (CrPC) gave full effect to Article 50 by SEPARATING the EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATES (under the State Executive) from the JUDICIAL MAGISTRATES (under the Sessions Court hierarchy / High Court control). - Judicial Magistrates are appointed by the High Court and report to it. - Executive Magistrates handle preventive/administrative functions (Section 144 orders, etc.) and report to the District Magistrate/Collector. - Even before CrPC 1973, several states had already begun separation. Today the system is fully institutionalised across all states. Why other options are WRONG: (A) PREAMBLE — gives the philosophical foundation (sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic; justice, liberty, equality, fraternity) but does NOT specifically mention judiciary-executive separation. (C) SEVENTH SCHEDULE — distributes legislative subjects between Union (List I), States (List II), and Concurrent (List III). It does not address separation of judiciary from executive. (D) Conventional practice — separation predates many statutes through colonial-era reforms (Bengal Regulation 1772), but the constitutional mandate is in Article 50, NOT in convention alone. Source: Constitution of India Article 50 / Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 / syllabus Indian Constitution at Work.