In in the Constitution. It is also

In practice, from time to time, arguments continued to arise as to whether one organ of the Statehad gone beyond the edges/borders assigned to it under the Constitution.

 This question of whatamounts to an excess, was the basis for action in the hugely important KesavanandaBharti caseof 1973. The question placed before the Supreme Court in this case was relating to/connected tothe extent of the power of the government to update the Constitution as gave/given for underthe Constitution itself. It was argued that Parliament was “(most powerful/better than anyone or anything else)” and represented the sovereign will of the people. So, if the people’s representatives in Parliament decided to change a particular law to control/to reduce individualfreedom or limit the extent of/the range of (law-related) close attention, the (related to judges and the court system) had no right to question whether it was (agreeing with, or related to, the Constitution) or not. However, the Court did not allow this argument and instead found in favourof the (person who’s arguing against a legal decision) on the grounds that the idea/belief ofseparation of powers was a part of the “basic structure” of our Constitution. So, the idea/belief of “separation of powers” is admitted/recognized/responded to as animportant part of the basic features of our Constitution.

 It is also agreed that all the three organsof the State, (in other words), the Government, the (related to judges and the court system), andthe Executive are bound by and subject to the (legal rules/food and supplies) of the Constitution, which (shows the border or limit of something) their (pertaining to each person or thing) powers, legal controls, responsibilities and relationship with one another. It is assumed that none of theorgans of the State, including the (related to judges and the court system), would go beyond itspowers as laid down in the Constitution. It is also expected that in the overall interest of thecountry, even though their legal controls are separated and bordering/limiting, all the institutionswould work in harmony and co-operation to (make as big as possible) the public good. As per this ruling, there was no longer any need for confusing double-meaning as the idea/beliefwas (clearly/for a single purpose) recognized as a part of the Indian Constitution, unchangeable/permanent even by an Act of Parliament.

 So, the idea/belief of separation ofpowers has been included/combined, in its (basic, built-in, important qualities/scent), into theIndian laws.