NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

PRESIDENTIAL V. PRALIAMENTRY
FORM OF GOVERMENT

THIRD TRIMESTER

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

ASHUTOSH PRASAD Ms. Kuldeep Kaur
SECTION A
ROLL NO. – 2018 BA LLB 64

Page 1 of 17
 Acknowledgment

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide Ms.
Kuldeep kaur for her exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this thesis. The blessing, help and guidance given by her from time
to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark. I
would further like to thank her for giving me this opportunity to do this project by instilling
his faith in me.

Further I would like to extend my gratitude towards National Law Institute University which
as an institution gave me the platform to carry out my research on such an important topic of
Political Science.

I am also grateful to my parents for their constant guidance and support throughout the
project. It would have been impossible for me to complete this project without their love and
affection.

Last but not the least; I would like to thank God for being with me throughout the course of
the project and keeping everything in its place.

Page 2 of 17
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………4
2. History and adoption of the parliamentary form of government……………………4
3. Parliamentary form of government………………………………………………….5
4. Parliamentry form of government in India..…………………………………………5
5. Presidential form of goverment……………………………………………………...7
6. Presidential form of government in USA……………………………………………8
7. ParliamentryV. Presidentialform of goverment……………………………………...9
8. Advantages of parliamentary form of government………………………………….10
9. Loopholes of parliamentary form of government in India context………………….11
10. Need of Presidential form of government…………………………………………...13
11. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...15
12. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………16

Page 3 of 17
 INRODUCTION

The Parliamentary system produces a stronger government, for

(a) Members of the Executive and Legislature are overlapping and (b) the heads of the
government control the Legislature

K M Munshi

. India has a parliamentary system of government based largely on that of the United

Kingdom (Westminster system). However, eminent scholars including the first President Dr
Rajendra Prasad have raised the question "how far we are entitled to invoke and incorporate
into our written Constitution by interpretation the conventions of the British Constitution".
The system was adopted in India because of the belief of a stronger and stable government
that would help in the efficient functioning of the country.

HISTORY AND ADOPTION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF

GOVERNMENT IN INDIA

The members of the Constituent Assembly were committed to framing a democratic

constitution for India, and there was little doubt that this democracy should be accepted in the
institutions of direct responsible government and not in the indirect system. The assembly
had to find the answer in the context of the past which was India’s familiarity with cabinet
government and in the needs of the present and the future. The assembly chose a slightly
modified version of the British Cabinet system. K M Munshi in his Draft Constitution
provided for a head of state with powers like those of a British Monarch, for joint
responsibility of ministers. He preferred the British system to American Presidential system,
believing it to be a stronger form because of the overlapping memberships of the government
and legislature.

Page 4 of 17
 India was formally set upon the path of parliamentary government during the early
meetings of the Union Constitutional Committee. The definitive moment came at a joint
meeting with the Provisional Constitutional Committee set up at the same time as the UCC.

Experience provided the most favourable of parliamentary government. The Constituent

Assembly had sought to establish a parliamentary government for India because it promised
strength, cohesive action and leadership and yet at the same time it feared Executive power.
Its suspicions were very understandable, for although Indians had participated to some degree
in the legislative institutions of parliamentary democracy, they had been subjected to the rule
of autocratic executives. Like colonial Americans, they had learned to have greater faith in
legislatures as protectors of their rights, they had, indeed conceived an ineradicable mistrust
of the Executive branch of the government.

In his Draft Constitution of September 1947, Rau added flesh to the bare bones of the Union
Constitution Committee’s Executive provisions. Among other things, he laid down that
cabinet was collectively responsible to the House of the People, and this major convention of
parliamentary government became a part of our Constitution.

PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT

A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the executive

branch get their democratic legitimacy 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.

If Britain is the best example of parliamentary form of government, presidential system has
its best instance in the American political system.

PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN INDIA

The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary form of government both at the Centre
and at the State. In this respect the framers of the Constitution have followed the British
model in toto. The parliamentary form of government is its responsibility to the Legislature.
The Government of India is of a democratic form which means it is a government `by the

Page 5 of 17
people, for the people and of the people`. In this parliamentary system of government,
parliament is supreme and there is fusion of Executive and Legislative powers. The President
is the constitutional head of the Executive. All the executive powers are exercised by the
Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as head. After independence, the whole political
scenario changed with the Congress in Power. The Constitution of India being the supreme
law of the land came into force on 26 January 1950. The preamble of the Constitution defines
India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. The parliamentary system of
India is a replica of the Westminster-style. The first general election was held under the
Constitution during 1951-52.

Parliament occupies a prominent position in the structure of the Government of India. It is the
representative institution of the people. It is through the Parliament, the sovereign will of the
people finds expression. Article 79 of the Constitution of India states that there shall be a
Parliament for the union and the government will be responsible to legislature and the
legislature is in turn responsible to the people who are the ultimate sovereign. The
composition of the parliament consists of the president and the two Houses- the Lok Sabha or
the House of the Parliament and the Rajya Sabha or the Council of States. The continuation
of a President or the Head of the State in the Parliamentary form of government symbolises
its true character. The President though does not participate in the discussions of the two
Houses, yet he exercises several powers and performs important functions. The president of
India is elected by an Electoral College consisting of the elected members of the two Houses
of the parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the state.

The Rajya Sabha which is another essential part of the parliament consists of not more than
250 members. Of these, 233 members represent states and union territories and 12 members
are nominated by the President. Members to the Rajya Sabha are elected by the elected
members of Legislative Assemblies of the concerned states. The Rajya Sabha is not subject to
dissolution in contrast to the Lok Sabha and one third of its members retire every second
year. However, in the Indian Polity, the Lok Sabha is composed of representatives of the
people chosen by direct election on the basis of universal adult franchise. As present, the Lok
Sabha consists of 545 members with two members nominated by the President to represent
the Anglo-Indian Community. The term of the Lok Sabha is for five years and gets dissolved
under circumstance of failure of the leading party to prove clear majority or a no-confidence
motion.

Page 6 of 17
Article 74 (1)1 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers headed
by the Prime Minister to aid and advise the President who shall, in exercise of his functions,
act in accordance with such advice. India is a bicameral parliament consisting of the Lok
Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). The Council of
Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, the House of the People. The Council
of Ministers comprises Cabinet Ministers, Minister of States and Deputy Ministers. It is the
Prime Minister who communicates all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to
administration of affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation to the President. Each
department has an officer designated as secretary to the Government of India to advise
Ministers on policy matters and general administration. The Cabinet Secretariat has important
coordinating role in making decision at highest level and operates under direction of Prime
Minister.

Government of India has certain departments that carry on their duties under the supervision
of several ministries. The Central Ministry is part of the Executive branch of Government
India. Depending on the federal character of the political system of India, Indian Government
Departments are divided into Central government departments and State Government
department. The central ministry work independently and the State governments work under
the supervision of the Central Government. There are certain departments including
Departments of Agriculture, Home Affairs, Commerce and Industry, External Affairs,
Corporate Affairs, Defence, Information and Broadcasting, Civil Aviation, Human Resource
Development, Railways, Environment and Forests, Finance and Company Affairs, Health and
Family Welfare, Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Power,
Labour, Tourism, Women and Child Development, Youth Affairs and Sports and several
others constitute the Indian Government Departments. These departments work for public
welfare. The ministers of these government bodies are chosen through general election India
at an interval of every five years. But the bureaucrats and other officials are appointed
through competitive exams that are held throughout India.

PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT

1
Constitution of India

Page 7 of 17
A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch exists
and presides (hence the name) separately from the legislature, to which it is
not responsible and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it.

  In the words of Bagehot, “the independence of the legislative and the executive powers is
the specific quality of presidential government just as fusion and combination is the principle
of cabinet government".

PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN UNITED STATES

The concept of separate spheres of influence of the executive and legislature is specified in
the Constitution of the United States, with the creation of the office of President of the United
States elected separately from Congress. The framers of the U.S. Constitution adopted the
principle first enunciated by the Baron de Montesquieu of separation of powers. They
carefully spelled out the independence of the three branches of government: executive,
legislative, and judicial. At the same time, however, they provided for a system in which
some powers should be shared: Congress may pass laws, but the president can veto them; the
president nominates certain public officials, but Congress must approve the appointments;
and law was passed by Congress as well as executive actions are subject to judicial review.
Thus the separation of powers is offset by what are sometimes called checks and balances.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the President and other executive officers are not permitted to
hold seats in the legislature at the same time they hold offices in the executive branch of the
government. The Constitution requires a strict separation of the personnel of the executive
and legislative organs of government. The same people may not simultaneously hold formal
office in and exercise the authority of both branches of government. If a person occupying an
executive or administrative office in the national government is elected to either chamber of
Congress, he must resign the executive or administrative office before he can take his seat in
the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. If an incumbent U.S. Senator or Representative
is elected President or Vice President, he cannot be inaugurated as President or Vice
President until he resigns his seat in Congress. A member of either house of Congress cannot
accept a presidential appointment as presidential staff officer, Cabinet-level department head,
or other executive or administrative officer until he resigns his seat in the Senate or House of
Representatives

Page 8 of 17
Formally and legally, the President is not the majority party leader in the legislature. Under
the Constitution, he is leader in neither of the two houses of Congress. On occasion, however,
the President may function informally and unofficially as policy leader of one or both
chambers of Congress in particular areas of national public policy. . The President,
possessing a separate grant of constitutional authority and elected independently Congress to
a fixed term which the latter cannot easily cut short, is not primarily responsible to the
legislature. Instead, he is directly and primarily responsible to the American voters. Since the
election of the President and the election of members of Congress are separate and
independent elections, a political party's victory in the presidential election does not
necessarily mean that the party will emerge victorious in the congressional elections.
Conversely, the fact that a party has won a majority of the seats in one or both houses of
Congress does not necessarily mean that it has also won the Presidency. Therefore, control of
the principal organs of the U.S. national government may be divided between rival parties.
The President, his staff officers, members of his Cabinet, and other high-ranking executive
officers may be of one political party, while a majority in one or both chambers of Congress
may be of the opposition party. The top executive authority, the President, is, in effect,
elected by popular vote. Since the President is not chosen by Congress, the executive is not
primarily responsible to the legislature. The chief executive, like the legislature, receives his
mandate to govern from the voters and is thereby directly responsible to them. Moreover, the
President, U.S. Representatives, and U.S. Senators are chosen by and responsible to different
constituencies with varying and competing interests. The consequence is multiple and
fragmented lines of political authority and responsibility.

PRESIDENTIAL v. PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT

For the last two decades , a debate has been going on in the country whether the present
parliamentary system should be continued or should be replaced with the presidential system
under which the president elected directly by the people for a fixed term will function as the
nation’s executive unhampered by the legislature in taking the administrative decisions. He
will also have the distinct advantages of choosing his ministerial team from among the best
talent, available in the country without being subjected to the pulls and pressures of elected

Page 9 of 17
representatives. Those who favour presidential form of government claim that it has the
following advantages.

 The Chief Executive in a presidential system is relatively free from sectional and
party disputes. His term is fixed and thus it ensures stability of the government and
the President can devote his time for the development of the country.
 He is free to choose his team of ministers from the best talent available within the
country. His choice is not restricted to elected representatives as in the case of
parliamentary system.
 It discourages the disease of defections and maintains discipline among the members
of a political party.

On the other hand those who favour the retention of the present parliamentary form of
government claim that it has the following advantages over the presidential form of
government.

 It is a responsible government. The government is subject to security in the legislature

as regards its achievements and failures. The ministers are accountable to the
legislature.
 The Prime Minister who enjoys two third majority of the Parliament is much more
powerful than the President in the United States.
 There is nothing to prevent the Prime Minister to choose the best talent from outside
his cabinet and get them elected to either House of the Parliament.
 The disease of defection can be removed by appropriate legislation.

ADVANTAGES OF PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF

GOVERNMENT

1. 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

Page 10 of 17
 the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes
in order to pass legislation
2. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. It
can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of
parliamentarianism. The prime minister 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. Parliamentarianism has been
praised for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without
an election, and for allowing elections at any time.
3. The fusion of the legislative and executive branches in the parliamentary system
tends to lead to more discipline among political party members. Parliamentary
system has proved most successful in countries having developed two-party
system .Parliamentary system of the government has placed more and more
emphasis on the power of Parliament. The main emphasis is on the centre of the
power. Parliament becomes the main focus and the institution Prime Minister has
been getting more and more importance.
4. Parliamentary systems are inherently less accountable than Presidential once, as
responsibility for decision is taken by the collective cabinet rather than a single
figure.
5. It is a stable government as the opposition is ready to form the new government in
case the party in power resigns.

LOOPHOLES OF THE PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT

IN INDIAN CONTEXT

At the outset it has to be made clear that the framers of the Constitution preferred the
parliamentary system for two reasons.

1. The system was already in existence in India and the people were well acquainted
with it.
2. It provides for accountability of the ministers to the Legislature.

Page 11 of 17
However this hope of the framers has been belied. The happenings during the last two decade
clearly demonstrate that parliamentary form of government has almost failed. Efforts to
remove its drawbacks have not been successful.

Briefly it suffers from the following drawbacks:

1. MULTIPLICITY OF POLITICAL PARTIES:

The existences of too many political parties have resulted in unstable government .A
number of State Governments has fallen due to the multiplicity of political parties. It is
not possible to have strong opposition in the legislature which affects the decision of
the government in various forms and exercises control over it.

2. EVIL OF DEFECTION:
The evil of defection has been threatening the very basis of our parliamentary system
resulting in unstable government. To cure this evil Parliament enacted the 52nd
amendment in 1977 and added the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution which provided
that if a member of a legislative party voluntarily leaves his party or votes against the
whip or nominated member joins another party within six months of election he will
lose his membership of the legislation. But one of the exceptions to the above rule is
that if one third of the members goes out of the party it will be called a split and not
defection and the separated group will be a new entity.

3. LACK OF COHESIVENESS AND LEADERSHIP IN NATIONAL PARTIES:

Lack of unity and cohesion in national parties, particularly the Congress party and
behaviour of the members of the different groups within the party have weakened the
authority of the leader of the party who becomes the Prime Minister. It has been seen
that the Prime Minister has to devote much of his time in solving party disputes and
little time is left to him to look after the nation’s work.

4. IILITERACY OF VOTERS:

Page 12 of 17
 A vast majority of our electorate is illiterate and politically immune and in exercising
his right of franchise is swayed away on the basis of caste, creed, religion, money etc.
National issues are not at all considered by the electorates.

5. GROWTH OF REGIONAL PARTIES:

The growth of local and regional parties arousing parochial and provincial feelings has
also weakened the functioning of the parliamentary system. These regional parties are
demanding more autonomy for the States and thus threaten the unity and integrity of
the national.

6. CRIMINALISATION OF POLITICS:
Criminalisation of politics has also affected the free and fair elections. Almost all
parties have connections with known criminals. These criminal leaders spread violence
in elections on a large scale. They resort to booth capturing, bogus voting etc.

In the light of the experience of the functioning of parliamentary form of government during
the last two decades it may be said that the present parliamentary system has not been
working successfully and it should be replaced with the Presidential Form. An executive head
directly elected by the people for a fixed term will be free from all restraints and will be able
to provide political stability thereby helping the nation towards fast economic development.

NEED OF PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR INDIA

India stands out as a shining symbol of democracy amongst the nations that emerged as
independent states after the demise of colonial rule post-World War II. India’s founding
fathers opted for the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy as practiced in Britain
with some modifications. Probably in their wisdom and taking a long view as was available at
that particular time, India’s founding fathers perceived that the parliamentary system of
government would be best suited to bridge the vast disparities of India and provide
opportunities for a more integrated India to emerge. They also believed that the generations
of political leaders that would follow them and occupy their hallowed seats in Parliament
would be men and women of equal noble vision and equal noble purpose. the system of
checks and balances that were inserted in the Constitution by the founding fathers in relation

Page 13 of 17
to the powers vested in the President and the Supreme Court we see now these being
questioned by those who should be setting exemplary standards to uphold them. The first
blow was struck by Indira Gandhi by bringing in the 42nd Amendment Constitution to make
it obligatory for the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The Parliamentary system of Government today in India stands deeply compromised and
eroded from what was conceived by the founding fathers. They would squirm in their graves
to see what hues the Parliament has acquired and the total compromise and distortion that has
taken place of their Constitutional blueprint.

Financially also the Parliamentary system is a heavy drain on the Indian exchequer in terms
of Jumbo Cabinets and over 800 members of both Houses of Parliament all to be maintained
at five star luxury levels and millions of rupees spent on their perks and privileges. The same
gets applicable at the States level. To this needs to be added the stupendous cost of frequent
elections necessitated by fall of governments due to political defections.

The time has come for India to dispense with the Parliamentary system of Government as it
has failed to prove its effectiveness and has outlived its utility. India must opt now for the
Presidential system of Government in which the President is elected for a period of four years
by a direct vote. He would be both the Head of State and the Head of the Government.

The above pattern should apply at the States level also with the Governor being elected by a
direct vote. Both at the Central level and the States levels the number of lawmakers should be
restricted to a given number in double figures.

Between the American and French systems of Presidential governance the American system
is more preferable for India but with the important proviso that the President be elected by a
direct vote of all citizens and not an electoral college. It would ensure that the person who
emerges as Head of State and Head of Government of India would be the best bet that India
has to offer. The qualifications for the Presidential candidate should incorporate excellence in
intellectual attainments and personal integrity. It should have filters to keep out tainted and
criminalized people. More importantly voting must be made compulsory for all citizens of
India. This system would also facilitate millions of Indian expatriates to take part in
determining India’s future.

Page 14 of 17
Page 15 of 17
 CONCLUSION

Though the parliamentary system of government has many advantages as discussed and it
was incorporated in the Constitution because of familiarity. The happenings during the last
two decade clearly demonstrate that parliamentary form of government has almost failed.
Efforts to remove its drawbacks have not been successful. This calls out for a need of
introducing presidential form of government in India. But it may be possible that the
Executive would assume absolute power and prove to be a threat to the democracy of the
country. I believe a hybrid system which is a combination of Presidential System and
Parliamentary Systems would be more appropriate for India. When France went through a
long period of unstable coalition governments, in 1958 they changed from parliamentary
System to so called Semi-Presidential System of government.
Within a decade, French political parties, once unwilling to cooperate and form stable
coalitions, began to coalesce into a workable system with coalitions that supported not only
prime ministers, but also presidents. The French hybrid system functions more smoothly
when the majority party in parliament is also the party of the President, but this needs not
always be the case. The term hybrid generally refers to a system with a separately elected
President who shares executive power with the Prime Minister. The President usually has the
constitutional power to select the Prime Minister. Switching over to another form of
government would not solve the problem alone unless the ministers are willing to bring about
a change in them for the betterment of the country.

Page 16 of 17
 BIBLIOGRAPY

BOOKS REFERRED

Granville Austin, ‘Essays on Constitutional Law’, ( 1st Ed, Oxford University Press, 2006.)

J N Pandey, ‘ Constitutional Law’, (44th Ed, Central Law Agency,2007.)

D.D.Basu, ‘Constitutional Law on India,(8th Ed, 2008.)

D.D.Basu, ‘Shorter Constitution of India,’ (14th Ed, 2009)

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system
2. www.essortment.com/parliamentary-versus-presidential-governments-60835.html
3. www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-parliamentary-and-
presidential-system-of-government.htm 
4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system 
5. www.academon.com/...Parliamentary-Form-of-Government/48464 
6. rajendramishra.blogspot.com
7. www.shoong.com
8. www.indiannetzone.com
9. www.asianinfo.com
10. www.boloji.com

Page 17 of 17