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

Defines Directive Principles as constitutional instructions or recommendations to the State (legislative, executive and administrative organs).

A student could check whether a Directive Principle textually addresses 'separation of judiciary from the executive' since DPs are aimed at guiding those organs.

States Directive Principles are in Part IV and are non‑justiciable (not enforceable by courts).

If separation were a Directive Principle, this implies it would be a non‑justiciable guideline rather than a court‑enforceable constitutional mandate—so one can look for its placement (Part IV) and judicial decisions treating it as non‑justiciable.

Classifies DPs as (ii) directions to the Legislature and the Executive about how the State should exercise power, and (iii) non‑enforceable citizen 'rights' the State should aim to secure.

A student can use this pattern to ask whether 'separation of judiciary from executive' fits as a direction to State organs (category ii) and then inspect Part IV text or examples.

Notes the Constitution embodies a 'delicate principle of limited separation of powers' with checks and balances and instances of judicial involvement in executive administration.

Using this, a student could compare the constitutional practice of separation (limited) with any DP that might call for fuller separation to see if such a DP exists or whether separation is treated elsewhere in the Constitution.

Contains a multiple‑choice test item that asks which source enjoins separation of judiciary from the executive, listing 'a Directive Principle of State Policy' as an option.

This indicates the question is disputed/commonly asked; a student could use it to motivate checking authoritative texts (Part IV articles) or judicial pronouncements to verify whether any DP actually states this.

Explains that the Seventh Schedule enumerates legislative subjects in three lists (distribution of legislative powers between Union and States).

A student could check the actual text of the Seventh Schedule to see whether it addresses separation of organs (judiciary vs executive) or only legislative subjects, thereby testing the statement.

Shows the Seventh Schedule is referred to in the context of the Anti‑defection law, indicating the Schedule contains substantive legislative/subject-matter provisions rather than a general rule on separation of powers.

Compare the kinds of provisions found in the Seventh Schedule (e.g., anti‑defection references) with what a clause enjoining judicial‑executive separation would look like to assess plausibility.

Contains an exam question listing the Seventh Schedule as one option for what 'enjoins separation of judiciary from the executive', showing that some sources present this as a candidate answer (right or wrong).

Use this prompt to verify authoritative sources (Constitution text, authoritative commentaries) to confirm or refute the option.

States the general doctrine: three organs of government and that 'separation of powers' is essential to their working — clarifies what 'separation' would mean if present in constitutional provisions.

With this definition, a student can examine whether the Seventh Schedule's content addresses separation of powers as defined (distinct functions of legislature, executive, judiciary).

Supreme Court observations assert a 'broad separation of powers' under the Constitution, implying the separation doctrine is rooted elsewhere in constitutional structure and jurisprudence.

A student could contrast where separation doctrine appears in case law or constitutional text versus whether the Seventh Schedule (a legislative-subject list) is the source.

States that certain judicial appointment practices developed as conventions (e.g., seniority convention for appointment of CJI), showing that constitutional conventions operate in senior judicial matters.

A student could infer that if conventions govern high‑level judicial appointments, similar conventions might exist about institutional separation and then check historical practice or authoritative commentary.

Explains the principle of separation of powers among legislature, executive and judiciary as an essential working rule.

Combine this doctrinal statement with knowledge of Indian practice to see whether separation is achieved by written rules or by accepted conventions.

Defines judicial independence as non‑interference by executive/legislature and judges acting without fear or favour — a functional rule related to separation.

Use this rule to inspect whether independence is secured by constitutional text or by conventions in appointments, transfers and administration to judge if separation is conventionally enforced.

Court observations describe a 'broad separation of powers under the Constitution' and warn against encroachment, indicating the idea is treated as a constitutional principle in judgments.

A student can compare the Court's reliance on separation as constitutional principle with actual administrative/appointment practices to assess whether separation functions via convention or constitutional command.

Includes a multiple‑choice question listing 'the conventional practice' as one of the possible answers for what enjoins separation of judiciary from executive, showing that convention is considered a plausible source in study materials.

This signals that textbooks treat convention as a candidate source; a student could follow up by checking primary constitutional text and historical practice to verify which source is correct.