Executive — Practice

Question 1

Compare the parliamentary system of India with the presidential system of the USA across FOUR parameters: election of executive, tenure, accountability to legislature, and relationship between head of state and head of government.

Accepted Answer

| Parameter | India (Parliamentary) | USA (Presidential) |
|---|---|---|
| **Election of executive** | PM is NOT directly elected — PM must be an MP (usually Lok Sabha) and command the majority's confidence. President is indirectly elected by MPs and MLAs. | President is directly elected by voters (through state-level Electoral College). |
| **Tenure** | PM has NO fixed term — can be removed by no-confidence vote at any time. Lok Sabha term is 5 years maximum but can be dissolved earlier. | President has a FIXED 4-year term (maximum 2 terms). Cannot be removed except through impeachment — a very high bar. |
| **Accountability to legislature** | PM and Cabinet are COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE to the Lok Sabha — must maintain its confidence. Can be forced to resign by a no-confidence vote. | President is NOT responsible to Congress — cannot be forced to resign by Congress vote. Serves fixed term regardless of congressional majority. |
| **Head of state vs Head of government** | India's President = constitutional head of state (formal/ceremonial). PM = real head of government (executive power). DIFFERENT PERSONS. | USA's President = BOTH head of state (ceremonial) AND head of government (real executive). SAME PERSON. |

Question 2

List the constitutional powers of the President of India. Then explain the doctrine of 'constitutional head vs real executive head.' When, if ever, can the President act independently of Cabinet advice?

Accepted Answer

**Constitutional Powers of the President**:

*Executive Powers*: All executive actions of Government of India are formally taken in the President's name. Appoints PM (real discretion only in hung Parliament), other ministers (on PM's advice), Governors, SC/HC judges (on Collegium recommendation), CAG, Attorney General, members of Union PSC.

*Legislative Powers*: Can summon, prorogue, dissolve Parliament. Addresses joint session. Gives assent to Bills (or returns for reconsideration once — 'pocket veto' for ordinary bills). Promulgates Ordinances when Parliament not in session.

*Financial Powers*: Money Bills can be introduced only with President's recommendation. Causes Union Budget to be presented. Operates Contingency Fund.

*Emergency Powers*: Articles 352 (National Emergency), 356 (President's Rule), 360 (Financial Emergency) — most significant powers if and when invoked.

**Constitutional vs Real Executive Head**:
Article 74 says: 'There shall be a Council of Ministers with the PM at the head to aid and advise the President. The President SHALL act in accordance with such advice.' The 44th Amendment (1978) clarified: President MAY send the advice back for reconsideration ONCE. After reconsideration, the President MUST act on the revised advice.

Therefore: President = HEAD OF STATE (formal, ceremonial, constitutional) but NOT real decision-maker. PM = REAL EXECUTIVE (makes actual decisions, President signs them).

**When can President act independently?**
(i) **Appointment of PM in hung Parliament**: When no party has clear majority, the President has real discretion in deciding who to call first to form government — this discretion is significant and controversial.
(ii) **Refusing to dissolve Lok Sabha**: A defeated PM asking for dissolution — President can refuse and invite another leader to try forming a government instead.
(iii) **Returning a Bill for reconsideration (once)**: The President can send a non-Money Bill back. But after Parliament re-passes it, the President MUST sign it.

In practice, India's Presidents have largely acted as constitutional figureheads. K.R. Narayanan exercised some independence in returning the UP dissolution (1997) for reconsideration. But systematic deviation from Cabinet advice is constitutionally unsupported.

Question 3

Article 356 has been used over 100 times since 1950, primarily to dismiss state governments of opposition parties. Explain: (a) what Article 356 provides, (b) how it was misused, and (c) how the S.R. Bommai case (1994) changed its application.

Accepted Answer

(a) **What Article 356 provides**:
Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation of President's Rule if the President is 'satisfied' that the government of a state 'cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.' The Governor recommends to the President. Under President's Rule: state legislature is dissolved or suspended; the President (through the Governor) exercises executive power; Parliament can make laws for the state. Duration: 2 months initially, extendable to 3 years with Parliament approval at 6-month intervals.

(b) **How it was misused**:
Article 356 was treated as a political weapon by the Centre against state governments of opposition parties:
- Used 100+ times between 1950–2000 (Rajasthan, Karnataka, Bihar dismissed multiple times for political reasons)
- The 'satisfaction' of the President was purely on Cabinet's (PM's) advice — and the Cabinet's 'satisfaction' was often partisan
- B.R. Ambedkar, during Constituent Assembly debates, had called Article 356 a 'last resort' — it became instead a routine instrument
- Famous abuse: Indira Gandhi dismissed Kerala's first elected Communist government (1959) — first use. Pattern continued: ruling party at Centre dismissing state governments where it lost elections
- Courts initially held that the President's 'satisfaction' was non-justiciable (Rajasthan case, 1977) — no judicial oversight

(c) **S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — The Turning Point**:
Context: BJP government of Karnataka was dismissed (1989) on grounds of horse-trading; Bommai challenged this. 9-judge constitutional bench delivered landmark judgment:

**Key holdings**:
(i) **Justiciability**: The President's satisfaction is NOT absolute — it can be subjected to JUDICIAL REVIEW. Courts can examine whether the decision to impose President's Rule is based on OBJECTIVE MATERIAL and whether it is reasonable.
(ii) **Parliamentary approval mandatory**: Parliament must approve President's Rule proclamation within 2 months. Until approved, President cannot dissolve state legislature — only suspend it. If Parliament withholds approval, the dismissed government is REINSTATED.
(iii) **Irreversible actions reviewable**: All actions taken by the President during the 2-month period before Parliamentary approval CAN be reversed if the proclamation is held invalid.
(iv) **Floor test essential**: Before imposing President's Rule, the Centre should direct the Governor to conduct a floor test (confidence vote in the assembly) rather than accepting the Governor's subjective assessment. A government that can demonstrate majority in assembly cannot be dismissed.
(v) **Secularism as basis**: A state government that acts against secular principles of the Constitution can be dismissed — religious communalism is a valid ground under Art 356.

**Impact after Bommai**:
Misuse of Article 356 dropped dramatically. States can now challenge President's Rule in courts. The floor test requirement means political manoeuvring (defection, horse-trading) is harder to use as grounds. Though Article 356 was used post-Bommai (Bihar 2005, Karnataka 2007), the uses have been more legally defensible and courts have intervened in controversial cases.

Practice — Executive

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities