legal methods projec1hgjjuj

7/28/2019 Legal Methods Projec1hgjjuj

1/27


2/27

THE PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF

GOVERNMENT: IS RECONSIDERATION IS

REQUIRED?


3/27

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SINCERE THANKS TO OUR RESPECTED

HISTORY FACULTY , MR.PUSHPENDRA KUMAR PANDEY, WHO HASGUIDED US ALL THE WAY IN COMPLETING THIS PROJECT.

THEN I WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR LIBRARIANS WHO HAVE

HELPED US ALL THE WAY INSEARCHING THROUGH THE SOURCE

MATERIALS WHICH HELPED US LOT IN COMPLETING OUR

PROJECTS.

THE LIST CAN NOT BE COMPLETED WITHOUT THANKING ALL

SENIORS AND FRIENDS WHO HAVE ENCOURAGED ME ALL THE

WAY IN COMPLETING THE PROJECT.


4/27

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Method of ResearchThe researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has made extensive

use of the library at the Chanakya National Law University and also the internet sources.

Aims and Objectives:The aim of the project is to present a comparative study of two winds that control and affect the climate

of the world. They are THE PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT: IS

RECONSIDERATION IS REQUIRED?

Sources of Data:The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

1. Websites

Method of Writing:The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

Mode of Citation:The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this research paper.


5/27

CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

WHY INDIA ADOPTED PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM?

FAILURES OF PARLIAMENTRY SYSTEM

ADVANTAGES UNDER PARLIANMENTARY SYSTEM

THE FEATURES RELATING TO THE PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF THE

GOVERNMENT

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY


6/27

INTRODUCTION

Constitutional monarchies where the authority is vested in parliament are denoted as

parliamentary form of government. Parliamentary republics where parliaments are effectively

supreme over a separate head is known as the prime minister. A parliamentary system is a

system of government wherein the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from the

legislature, and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are

intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive and chief

legislator.

Parliamentary systems are characterized by no clear-cut separation of powers between the

executive and legislative branches, leading to a different set of checks and balances compared to

those found in presidential systems. Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation

between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the

prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being a figurehead, often either a president

(elected either popularly or by the parliament) or a hereditary monarch (often in a constitutional

monarchy).

Parliamentary form of government has been the key features of Indian political system; their

inceptions having taken place under the British rule itself. It became an explicit announcedpolicy under the government of Indian act, 1919 and subsequent enactments. When India

emerged as an independent nation in 1947, it had already had the experience of operating

parliamentary institutions, and thus, in a sense, the decision of constituent assembly of India may

be said to have been pre-empted by the British. By planning institutions and processes of

parliamentary democracy in India, the British ruler had trained the Indians in the parliamentary.

When the Indian leaders were upon to choose a form of government, they naturally chose that

form which they were familiar, namely, the Westminster model of democracy. The political

reality appears to that the Indian psyche has found itself in harmony with the parliamentary form

of government.

The termparliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different parties in

coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the product of electoral


7/27

systemknown as proportional representation. Many parliamentary countries, especially those

that use "first past the vote voting, have governments composed of one party. However,

parliamentary systems in continental Europe do use proportional representation, and tend to

produce election results in which no single party has a majority of seats. Proportional

representation in a non-parliamentary system does not have this result (Arguelles, 2009).

Parliamentarianism may also be for governance in local governments. An example is the city of

Oslo, which has an executive council as a part of the parliamentary system. The council-manager

system of municipal government used in some U.S. cities bears many similarities to a

parliamentary system.

Students of democracy such as Arend Lijphart divide parliamentary democracies into two

different systems, the Westminster and Consensus systems (*1).

The Westminster palace in London, United Kingdom. The Westminster system originates from

the British house of parliament.

*1 See Lijphart 1999 for this section

The Westminster system, usually found in Commonwealth of Nations countries, although

they are not universal within nor exclusive to Commonwealth countries. Theseparliaments tend to have a more adversarial style of debate and the plenary session of

parliament is relatively more important than committees. Some parliaments in this model

are elected using a plurality voting system(first past the post), such as the United

Kingdom, Canada, and India, while others use proportional representation, such as

Ireland and New Zealand. The Australian House of Representatives is elected using

instant-runoff voting while the Senate is elected using proportional representation

through single transferable vote. Even when proportional representation systems are used,

the voting systems tend to allow the voter to vote for a named candidate rather than a

party list. This model does allow for a greater separation of powers than the Western

European model, since the governing party will often not have a majority in the upper

house. However, parliamentary systems still feature a lesser separation of powers than is

found in democratic presidential systems.


8/27

Western European parliamentary model (e.g., Spain, Germany) tend to have a more

consensual debating system, and have semi-cyclical debating chambers. Consensus

systems are identified by proportional representation, where there is more of a tendency

to use party list systems than the Westminster Model legislatures. The committees of

these Parliaments tend to be more important than the plenary chamber. This model is

sometimes called the West German Model since its earliest exemplar in its final form was

in the Bundestag of West Germany (which became the Bundestag of Germany upon the

absorption of the GDR by the FRG). Switzerland is considered one the purest examples

of a consensus system.

There also exists a Hybrid Model, the semi-presidential system, drawing on both presidential

systems and parliamentary systems, for example the French Fifth Republic. Much of EasternEurope has adopted this model since the early 1990s.

Implementations of the parliamentary system can also differ on whether the government needs

the explicit approval of the parliament to form, rather than just the absence of its disapproval,

and under what conditions (if any) the government has the right to dissolve the parliament, like

Jamaica and many others.

A Parliamentary system may consist of two styles of Chambers of parliament one with twochambers (or houses): an elected lower house, and an upper house or Senate which may be

appointed or elected by a different mechanism from the lower house. This style of two houses is

called bicameral system. Legislatures with only one house are known as unicameral system.

For the past one and half year and more, the political debate had been gathering momentum with

the parties speaking out for and against a review of the constitution. In fact, the debate began

the prime minister announced his governments decision to appoint a review commission

January 27, 2000 ; the central hall of parliament at a function to mark the golden jubilee of India

having become a republic. Immediately after the prime minister spoke, the president, Mr. K. R.


9/27

Narayanan, virtually countered the arguments given by the prime minister in the favor of such a

review. The president wondered whether it was the constitution that had failed us or we who

had failed the constitution.

While the contours of the review the Vajpayee regime has in mind are yet to be delineated

clearly, the context in which the pronouncement its spokesman make from time to time leave

none in doubt that the exercise is mainly intended to ensure (government) stability, the need for

which in the words of Mr. Vajpayee, has been felt actually both at the state and center levels.

The changes being canvassed vigorously in this context include guaranteed five year tenure for

Lokh Sabha and state assemblies and a constrictive vote of no-confidence against as incumbent

government besides a more stringent anti-defection law. The fact that some leaders in the present

coalition had on occasion voiced their preference for a presidential form of government had been

taken by some as signs of a larger design.

It is of constitutional significance that the U.K is a constitutional monarchy. This means

that the government is still conducted in the name of the queen, which signifies the ultimate

governing authority. Our structure of government is also characterized by bicarmel parliament.

This means that the parliament is is composed of two houses; a lower house (the house of lords),

which is partly hereditary and party appointed. We also characterize our system as an example

responsible government, in that the government of the day [executive] is accountable to the

House of Commons [the legislature] and can be defeated on the floor of the house in a vote. We

also would describe the U.K has a unitary, rather than a federal state, in that ultimate powers rest

within the central government in London. Finally the British constitution might described in

terms of; limited government to the extent that government can only do what it is empowered

under law to perform. This idea was central to diceys ideal to rule of law.

As a result of these developments the government of the day dominates the legislative and

executive functions of the govt. moreover, the principle of parliamentary supremacy limited thepower of courts to act as a means of controlling government in that, they could not invadate

legislation. This relationship between the parliament, the executive branch of government, and

the court is often referred as the doctrine of separation of powers. This term refers to three

primary function of the government; legislative [making of laws]; executive [the execution of

laws, or putting laws in operation] and judiciary [interpretation of law].


10/27

WHY INDIA ADOPTED PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM?

The decision to adopt the parliamentary system was the result of a long discussion in the

assembly in one of its earlier sessions. It had in its earlier session. It had in its support the

favorable recommendation of the constitution committee (for the union government) presided

over by Nehru. The two issues which were raised during the discussions were:

(1)What would make for the strongest executive consistent with a democratic constitutional

structure?

(2)What was the form of executive which was suited to the conditions of this country?

On 7 June, 1947, the union of the constitution was familiar with the alternative models of

democracy; they chose the parliamentary model after careful weighing the merits and demerits

of the other forms of government. K.T. shah, for instance, expresses his preference for the

American presidential model and even worked for its adoption in India. On December 10, 1948

he moved the following amendment to the constitution;the sovereign executive power and

authority of the union shall be wasted in the president , and shall be exercise by him with

accordance with the laws made their under and in force for the time being. This amendment

hardly received ant support; consequently, it was rejected. The two main arguments against the

switch over were as follows; India was accustomed to the parliamentary form of development

and the presidential system was plague by differences and deadlocks between the executive and

the legislature, which made the functioning of the government difficult.

Jawaharlal Nehru highlighted the merits of the parliamentary

system as follows;

(1)We chose this system in keeping in our own old traditions.

(2) Parliamentary democracies involves peaceful methods of actions, peaceful acceptance of

decisions taken and attempts to change them through peaceful ways again .

(3) Parliamentary system prevents a conflict between the legislature and executive and promotes

harmony between different parts of governmental system.


11/27

(4) The parliamentary system of government, with all its feelings, has virtue that it can fit in the

changing pattern of life.

FAILURES OF PARLIAMENTRY SYSTEM

It would be wrong to describe parliamentary democracy as having been derailed in India, but it

has been moving on a weak track with the direction and the destination giving rights to doubts.

whither democracy is a question that is being widely asked today. Democracy seems. Indeed,

to be at cross roads today. Be here cries of democracy being in danger and freedom in prelim,

the constitution on fire and the country going through the dogs. Our democracy is under a very

severe strain. The electoral process is increasingly dominated by money and muscle, not the

mind. Reasoned debate has all but disappeared from our legislatures. The judiciary inspires little

confidence. The bureaucracy is being mauled and corrupted. Corruption is no longer on the

retail circle. It is the beginning to assume wholesale proportions. The political industrial

bureaucratic combine and the grip on our system are alarming. The major failures of

parliamentary system are:

1. DECLINE OF PARLIAMNET

While Pandit Nehru, a true democrat at heart, build up and preserved the high traditions of

parliament, his autritarian daughter, Indra, made it an institution subservient to her will to

put the stamp of approval and carry out whatever she wished to do. Such was her dominant

personality and so servile were her courtiers in her party during her period of parliament lost

much of its statute.

2. DECLINE IN THE QUALITY OF OUR REPRESENTATIVE

Those who make the laws of the country have to be capable, earnest and above board, but

from the idealistic yardstick most of them, whether in the parliament or in the state

legislatures, are found sadly waiting. Instead of being above the average in their quality and

integrity, they are often below standards. Mahatma Gandhi wanted that the politicians and

those who govern should be of the highest moral caliber and imbued with a spirit of service,

but hardly anyone measures up to these expectations now-adays. There has been


12/27

progressive detoriations in the quality of our politicians and legislators which is, of course,

part of general degradation in our public life in various spheres.

3. DECLINE IN THE QUALIOTY OF DEBATES

There should be vigorous and healthy debates over issues in the parliament. The traditions in

the parliament in this respect have sadly come down. We no longer have the type of intellectuals

and stimulating debates of the time of the stalwarts like G.B.Pant. Nath Pai, Ram Manohar

Lohia, Jjyotirmay Basu, Hiren Mukherjee, H.V Kamath to mention only a few. Parliament is

such a institution where the procedures have to duly followed and the high tradition should not

be broken. But now-a-days often the debates in the parliament degenerate into party squabbles ,

there being no decorum and violent and undignified sciences taking place. Often the speaker has

difficulty in keeping order. Sometimes the speaker himself has been found partisan or incapable.

With such going on, the Lokh Sabha is sometimes bought into ridiculous position and even

becomes an object of contempt.

Generally a parliamentary form of government is a democratically elected form of government

(although there are exceptions to this, for example, once Hitler had been elected to power in

Germany he retained the Reichstag, but effectively barred free elections).

Democratically elected governments can be viewed as being representatives of the people and

therefore less likely to be extreme in nature or to exact cruelty of their electorate. In short they

will protect and attempt to enhance the quality of life for those who voted them in. however,

there can be disadvantages as well. Democratically elected governments m ay be unwilling to

address some of the trickier questions or harder issues, for fear that if they raise taxes too high or

cause major inconvenience for some of the electorate, they will not be voted in again. Thus

parliamentary forms of government may be viewed as flawed, but perhaps they are a safer

option than a dictator or supreme ruler.

There are various negative effects of parliamentary form of government like this government is

afraid of making any strong decisions because it get insecure to maintain its position for next

elections. Parliamentary form of government has to follow electorate to get vote next time. In

this way some decisions of the government can be biased. Secondly, it is very important for any

state to have a stable economy and politics but parliamentary form of government is not


13/27

constitutionally stable. Thirdly, even if the government is a failure, still there is a resistance in

removing the president, which creates oppositions. Moreover, in the parliamentary form of

government, if the legislature and presidency is kept separate then there is no unity and lack of

accountability.

What Are The Advantages Or Disadvantages Of A Parliamentary Form Of Government?

Generally a parliamentary form of Government is a democratically elected form of Government



Democratically elected Governments can be viewed as being representative of the people and

therefore less likely to be extreme in nature or to exact cruelty on their electorate. In short they

will protect and attempt to enhance the quality of life for those who voted them in.

However, there can be disadvantages as well. Democratically elected Governments may be

unwilling to address some of the trickier questions or harder issues, for fear that if they raise

taxes too high or cause major inconvenience to some of the electorate, they will not be voted in

again.

Thus parliamentary forms of Government may be viewed as flawed, but perhaps they are a safer

option than a dictator or supreme ruler

What Are The Negative Effects Of Parliamentary Form Of Government?

There are various negative effects of parliamentary form of government like this government is

afraid of making any strong decision because it get insecure to maintain its position for the next

elections. Parliamentary form of government has to follow electorate to get vote next time. In

this way some decisions of the government can be biased. Secondly, it is very important for any

state to have stable economy and politics but parliamentary form of government is not

constitutionally stable. Thirdly, even if the government is a failure, still there is a resistance in

removing the president, which creates oppositions. Moreover, in parliamentary form of

government, if legislature and presidency is kept separate then there is no unity and lack of

accountability.


14/27

Advantages of a parliamentary system

One of the commonly attributed advantages to parliamentary systems is that it's faster and easier

to pass legislation .This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect

support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. Thus, this would

amount to the executive (as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature)

possessing more votes in order to pass legislation. In a presidential system, the executive is often

chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system

include members entirely or predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate can

occur. Former US President Bill Clinton often faced problems in this regard, since

the Republicans controlled Congress for much of his tenure. Accordingly, the executive within a

presidential system might not be able to properly implement his or her platform/manifesto.

Evidently, an executive in any system (be it parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) is

chiefly voted into office on the basis of his or her party's platform/manifesto. It could be said

then that the will of the people is more easily instituted within a parliamentary system.

In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations

that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a unipersonal presidential system, all

executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial

executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to

give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a

strong president to a system more structurally similar to a classical

parliamentarianism. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system

would be tantamount to Shiite domination; Afghanistan's minorities refused to go along with a

presidency as strong as the Pashtuns desired.

It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of

parliamentarianism. The premier seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president,

and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an

actual person.

In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for producing serious

debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any

time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of the United States to be unnatural.


15/27

The scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing

parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third

World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without

experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30

countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, "All of them, without

exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often ."[2]

A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower

corruption.[

Criticisms of parliamentarianism

One main criticism of many parliamentary systems is that the head of government is in almost all

cases not directly elected. In a presidential system, the president is usually chosen directly by the

electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, separate from the legislature.

However, in a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the legislature, often under

the strong influence of the party leadership. Thus, a party's candidate for the head of government

is usually known before the election, possibly making the election as much about the person as

the party behind him or her.

Another major criticism of the parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported advantage:

that there is no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament,

and therefore no substantial check on legislative power. Conversely, because of the lack of

inherent separation of powers, some believe that a parliamentary system can place too much

power in the executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little

scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. However, parliamentary systems may

be bicameral, with an upper house designed to check the power of the lower (from which the

executive comes).

Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has, or even a dominant

party system, as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes unstable. Critics point

to Israel, Italy, Canada, the French Fourth Republic, and Weimar Germany as examples of

parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, votes of no

confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have made effective governance impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-1


16/27

Defenders of parliamentarianism say that parliamentary instability is the result of proportional

representation, political culture, and highly polarised electorates.

Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi criticized the parliamentary system of Iraq, saying that

because of party-based voting "the vast majority of the electorate based their choices on sectarianand ethnic affiliations, not on genuine political platforms."

[4]

Although Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for allowing an election to take place at

any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. In some systems, such as the

British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so avoid

elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a

party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system. This

problem can be alleviated somewhat by setting fixed dates for parliamentary elections, as is the

case in several of Australia's state parliaments. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the

Belgian, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date.

Critics of parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the

community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to parliament

since there is no option to "run for prime minister" like one can run for president under a

presidential system. Additionally, prime ministers may lose their positions solely because they

lose their seats in parliament, even though they may still be popular nationally. Supporters of

parliamentarianism can respond by saying that as members of parliament, prime ministers are

elected firstly to represent their electoral constituents and if they lose their support then

consequently they are no longer entitled to be prime minister. In parliamentary systems, the role

of the statesman who represents the country as a whole goes to the separate position of head of

state, which is generally non-executive and non-partisan. Promising politicians in parliamentary

systems likewise are normally preselected for safe seats - ones that are unlikely to be lost at the

next election - which allows them to focus instead on their political career.

Countries with a parliamentary system of government

Unicameral System

This table shows countries with parliament consisting of a single house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#cite_note-3


17/27

Country Parliament

Albania Kuvendi

Bangladesh Jatiyo Sangshad

Bulgaria National Assembly

Dominica House of Assembly

KuwaitNational Assembly of

Kuwait

Nepal\ Legislature-Parliament

New Zealand Parliament

Bicameral system

This table shows organisations and countries with parliament consisting of two houses.

Organisation or

CountryParliament Upper chamber Lower chamber

Australia Commonwealth parliament senate House of representative


18/27

austria Parliament Federal council National council

India Parliament(sansad)Rajya sabha (Council of

States)

Lok sabha (House of

People)

PARLIAMENT OF INDIA

Ancient Indian, Vedic texts mention of two Parliament-like gatherings of the Indo-Aryan

kingdoms called theSabh and the Samiti. During the time of the Buddha, many states were

forms of republics, called theSanghas. The Sabha has been interpreted by the historians as a

representative assembly of the electthe important men of the clan, which ran day-to-day

business with the king. The Samiti seems to be a gathering ofallthe male members of the

kingdom, and probably convened only for the ratification/election of a new king. The two largely

democratic institutions, which kept a check on the absolutism of the king, were given a sacred

position, and have been called the daughters of the deity Prajapati in the Vedas, the holiest of all

Hindu scriptures and the earliest Indo-European literature. However, these democraticinstitutions became weaker as republics became larger and elected chieftainship moved towards

hereditary and absolute monarchy. The Sabha and the Samiti bear almost no mention in later

literature. After this, India would not have any democratic legislature till the British times, with

such bodies as the Central Legislative Assembly, a step in the direction of the modern

democratic Parliament of India, the two Houses of which still bear the ancient name ofSabha.

In the parliamentary form of government envisaged for India in the constitution, the President is

the constitutional head of the country. Article 52 says that, There shall be a President of India.The institution of the President of India plays a very important role in the functioning of Indian

democracy. The office of the President of India (PoI) has many executive powers vested in it.

Executive powers.


19/27

Article 53 vests the President with executive powers of the Union, which are exercised by him

directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the constitution.

Article 75(1) provides that the President appoints the Prime Minister, and upon his advice,

appoints the council of ministers. He invites the head of the majority leader in the Lok Sabha to

be sworn in as PM. Article 75(2) states that the council of Ministers shall hold office during the

pleasure of the President. However, the term pleasure of the President should be read in

parallel with confidence of the Lok Sabha.

The President also appoints many constitutional authorities like the Chief Justice of India,

Attorney General, Comptroller and Auditor General, Election Commissioners, Central Vigilance

Commissioner, Members of UPSC, Planning commission, and finance commission.

The President also appoints Governors for the states, appoints the chiefs of Army, Navy and Air

Force. He is also the supreme commander of the armed forces. He also appoints the High

Commissioners to different countries, and receives credentials of different Ambassadors.

He also has the right to negotiate treaties with other countries, without the interference of

Parliament, except in cases where a legislation is required to sign them.

Article 78 says it is the duty of the PM to communicate to the President all the decisions of

Council of Ministers. The President can also ask the PM to furnish information for any subject.

The information need not just be limited to the financial scandals, but can extend to any matter of

national importance and security. This article thus vests in the President enormous power to

obtain any kind of information from the PM. However, the PM can withhold information from


20/27

the President if he feels such information will be misused by the President by giving it to the

opposition..

Article 72 also gives the President power to grant pardons. Pylee feels that granting of pardon is

an executive action, and thus becomes an executive power of the President.

Article 361 makes the President NOT answerable to any court of law for any of the actions

performed under the above said articles

Thus, it is quite clear that the constitution provides the President of India with executive powers

that will make him more responsible towards the society.

Legislative Powers

The President convenes the Parliament and also prorogues it upon sine die adjournment. The

President also ensures that the gap between two sessions is not more than 6 months. He has to

power to over-rule the PM in this regard.

The President appoints 2 members, of the Anglo Indian community to LS, and 12 members from

diverse fields to the RS.

The President addresses the Parliament at the start of every Budget session. He outlines the

policies of the government in power.


21/27

Article 86 enables him to send messages to either the RS or LS. This is a very important

discretionary power because he may or may not consult the PM for such actions.

Article 111 states that every bill passed by Parliament needs the Presidents assent in order to

become a law. Except for money bills, he can send back any bill to the house for reconsideration.

And upon receiving the bill again, he has to sign the bill.

However, there are certain bills that need his assent before being introduced in the house. They

are money bills, bills to reorganize states, bills affecting taxes in which the states are interested

and bills affecting international trade.

Article 123 gives the President the power to pass ordinances. Ordinances are generally passed

when an urgent law needs to be enacted, but the Parliament is not in session. The ordinace

becomes an act upon his assent, and Parliament has to ratify it within 6 weeks of the next

session.

The President also has certain powers for subjects listed on the concurrent list. In case of conflict

between the state and the centre over issues mentioned in the list, the word of the President

prevails.

The powers exercised through the above said articles are open to Judicial review. However,

through Article 361, the President enjoys immunity from criminal proceedings in any court of

law.


22/27

Emergency Powers

By far, the emergency powers of the President are the most powerful ones he possess. The scope

for being an autocrat is very high in the exercise of such powers. However, since all his actions

are based on the aid and advice of the cabinet, his powers are in reality the power of the cabinet.

Article 352 states that if the President is satisfied that a state of emergency exists due to external

aggression or internal disturbances, he can declare a state of emergency in the country.

The Parliament has to ratify within 2 months. If the LS is dissolved, the RS has to ratify it. It can

go on for 6 months at a time, and can extended. If the LS is in session, it has to ratify it within

one month of the RS passing it. Proclaimation of such an emergency can mean that Fundamental

rights can be suspended. Also,

1. Parliament is empowered to frame laws mentioned in the state list.

2. The President can send directives to state governments

3. He can decide on the distribution and allocation of funds to states.

4. An imminent threat is enough to convince the President, there need not be an actual threat.

This kind of emergency has been imposed 3 times so far. During the 62, 71 wars and in 1975,

citing internal disturbances as the cause. The first was the longest, till 68.

Article 356 states that the President can proclaim an emergency in the states, if upon the receipt

of a report from the governor or otherwise, he is satisfied that the governance of the state is not

in accordance with the constitutional law.


23/27

Parliament has to ratify this with a simple majority. The Presidents rule can be extended every 6

months, but cannot be extended for more than 3 years.

When such a proclamation is made,

1. Fundamental rights can be suspended

2. State legislature can be dissolved or be put in suspended animation

3. The laws and budget of the state are passed by Central government. President can

delegate this authority if Parliament cannot handle it.

4. Parliament can authorize president to allocate funds from the Consolidated fund.

5. President has no jurisdiction over high court of that state.

This article has been misused umpteen number of times by various central governments. Off late,

some active presidency has ensured that this article is not misused on a frequent basis.

Article 360 states that if the President is satisfied that the financial stability of India, or a part of

it, is threatened, he may proclaim a financial emergency. Parliament has to ratify this emergency.

During this emergency,

1. The President can issue orders to state governments on how to manage the finances

2. He may order reduction of salaries and allowances of any person or class of persons.

3. All money bills passed by the state have to be passed by Parliament.

Such an emergency has never been declared so far.


24/27

Amendments relating to emergency powers

38th

Can proclaim even if already an emergency exists

42nd

extend to 1 year

44th

Armed rebellion instead of Internal Disturbance

59th

Draconian lawPunjab.

So far, 4 amendments have been made to the emergency powers. The important ones amongst

these four are the 42nd

and 44th

amendments. The 42nd

amendment increased the period of

emergency from 6 months to 1 year. It also said that the President shallact on the advice of the

council of ministers. This amendment was primarily enacted to enhance the powers of the then

PM, Indira Gandhi. However, the 44th

amendment gave the President an option to send back any

act for reconsideration, but if the cabinet sends it back, then the Presidentshallact on the advice.

Basically, the emergency powers are all in the name of the President but he acts only on the

advice of the PM. So, it is the PM who becomes an autocrat in such situations.

Aid and Advice:

All the powers of the president are to be read with the clause, will act upon the aid and advise of

the Council of Ministers. The President acts on the suggestion of ministers. He does not

formulate the policy, he merely endorses the policy of the government in power.


25/27

I t is often discussed among the various leader as to what are the advantages or disadvantages of

a parliamentary form of government?










again.



The 42nd

amendment required him to sign, which made him a rubber stamp. But the 44th

amendment gave him the power to ask for reconsideration. Though this amendment does not

give veto powers, returning of bill for reconsideration is a moral questioning to the policy. This

generally tends to have a significant impact on the government.

There is no provision to say that he can be impeached for not following the aid and advice. Apart

from these, the constitution also makes provisions for consultations with other functionaries. He

has to consult the Court Justice of India in the matter of age of High Court judgeArticle 217.

Article 103(2) makes it imperative on him to consult the EC on disqualification of a member.

44th

amendment says, he shall ask for advice and shall act upon such advise.


26/27

I t is often discussed among the various leader as to what are the advantages or disadvantages of

a parliamentary form of government?










again.




27/27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The various websites visited are:

www.google .com

www.yahoo.com

www.wikipedea.com

the books referred are:

Political science by A.C.Kapur

Political science by Myenni
http://www.yahoo.com/http://www.yahoo.com/http://www.wikipedea.com/http://www.wikipedea.com/http://www.wikipedea.com/http://www.yahoo.com/

legal methods projec1hgjjuj

Documents