ARGUMENTS:

The following arguments prove that the significance of presidents and governors in India; it
mostly lays out the important roles that they play.
1. The president and the governor have the power to declare an emergency in the
entire country or their state respectively in extreme situations:
Under Article 352, the President can declare a national emergency when the security of
India or a part of it is threatened by war or external aggression or armed rebellion. ...
Hence, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 substituted the words 'armed rebellion' for
'internal disturbance'.

This means that the president and the respective governors can in event of these situations
proclaim an emergency:

1. Proclamation of National Emergency (due to war or armed rebellion or external

aggression).

2. Proclamation of State Emergency (due to the failure of constitutional

machinery), and

3. Proclamation of Financial Emergency (due to badly shaken of financial

stability).

Similarly, if the governor reports that the state administration is not working according to
what is prescribed or if the state government is not able to keep law and order; a president’s rule
can be imposed on that place.(thus dissolving the incumbent then and there). Of course this is
subject to ratification by parliament in due course (only because every power must be separated
and balanced); the mere role of the president becoming active is highlighted. It is not a dormant
position.

Since even these powers have to subsequently be ratified; it is but very important for the
president to be strong and he must always act independent of the interests of the party that he
belongs. Such a huge power is always subject to misuse – for example the 1975 Indira Gandhi
emergency. The nation had to suffer for 2 years, (its freedom disabled) for the insecurity of one
woman who wanted to stay in power. It is common knowledge that had honorable ex-president
Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed been more than just a puppet at the hands of ruling party; perhaps
this could have been prevented. These instances all the more support my cause of how important
it is to have a strong president like it is to have a strong prime minister. For it is important that
the president must be truly apolitical to serve the purpose of the ‘not so ceremonial office’. He
must take a strong stand and check on the de facto rulers.
 2. The president is the supreme commander of the armed forces:

The control of the military must be with the president and not with the prime minister for
there is the fear of the ruling party endangering democracy and there maybe chances of
them taking over if the military is solely at their disposal.
As head of State, the President is the supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of India
and is entitled to declare war or conclude a treaty.

3. The president and governor have say in inviting the majority party to form the
government and prove their majority in case of power tussles and coalition
breakups:

Both of them ensure a smooth transition of the change in government.

When no single political party wins a clear absolute majority and, as a result, no Council of
Ministers can be formed without a coalition of parties the President can exercise his discretion
judiciously in appointing the Prime Minister. Such situations developed in the past.

India has entered into an age of coalition politics. And it may so happen that no single party will
be able to secure an absolute majority, and the President may be required to exercise his
discretionary power for some time to come, in appointing Prime Minister.

He can ask to prove Majority in Lok Sabha: Union Council of Ministers normally remains in
office for five years, unless dissolved earlier for any reason. The President must be satisfied that
the Council of Ministers enjoys the confidence of the majority of the Lok Sabha. In case of any
doubt he can ask the Council of Ministers to prove its majority in the Lok Sabha, as the Prime
Ministers Sri H.D. Deve Gowda was asked by the President after the official withdrawal of
support by the Congress Party from Ministry. The President can also dissolve the Union Council
of Ministers in accordance with Article 75(2) of the constitution, if he finds that the Ministry
does not enjoy the support of the majorities in the Lok Sabha.

Talking about governors; as it was seen in the very recent examples in Bihar and
Nagaland and Tamil Nadu; the governor had a say in who to invite to form the
government and prove their majority – like in case of Bihar, it was BJP and JDU; in case
 of Nagaland where the cabinet itself declared ‘no confidence’ in their current cm and
hence extended their support to TR Zeliang to pave his way to becom chief minister once
again.
Even in Tamil Nadu, where the party broke up; the fction with the highest support of the
MLA’s was invited to form the government..

Now moving on to the president, there have been many instances when they took a stand
and influenced about which party must rule the center in event of instability.

Following examples will show that these apolitical entities must indulge in politics after all;

President Sanjiva Reddy did not allow Janata Party’s claim to form a new government under a
new leader, Jagjivan Ram, after Morarji Desai lost majority. Janata Party president Chandra
Shekhar was livid with rage at Reddy’s decision, and he shouted to the press outside Rashtrapati
Bhavan, ‘He (Reddy) should be impeached.’ It is not difficult to speculate that it was this
decision that facilitated Indira Gandhi’s quick comeback to power in 1980.

President Shankar Dayal Sharma’s decision to let BJP form government in May 1996 continues
to be debatable. He seems to have meticulously followed constitutional tradition that the party
with the largest number of parties should be asked to form the government. The BJP government
lasted for a mere 13 days because it could not win the support of the other non-Congress parties.
It paved the way for the future National Democratic Alliance. Sharma may not have foreseen that
his decision enabled the BJP and its allies to be in government for six years.

All these instances clearly show that the president more than a ceremonial head who lives
in the best address in the land. 

4. **The president serves as an important check and balances out the power with the
de facto head prime minister which rules out the possibility of there being too much
power in a single hand:

It is common saying that the PM ‘rules’ and the president/governor ‘governs’ best and
that is exactly what they ideally do – supervise.

In a presidential system; like the one followed in the USA or Iran,

 Where the constitution vests the post with extraordinary powers, may lead to utter misuse
as is happening in Venezuela right now. After the much protested vote for the formation
of a committee filled of the President’s (Nicholas Maduro’s) supporters which shall
rewrite the constitution and virtually remove all remaining checks on his power amid
extreme economic slump and violent protests – Venezuela is hardly a democracy
anymore.
Even worse, Syria has been on a state of civil war since the last 5-6 years because the
president refuses to step down and give up his powers. It has seen gross human right
violations, ranging from air strikes to as extreme as chemical gas leaks to suppress the
people.

The above examples prove how separation of powers is of utmost importance. Now it is a
well-known fact that the president can hardly act outside the government which has the
power to take all decisions but the presence of such a post itself serves as a check on their
power. A strong and bold president would never let crisis come.

5. The president is the final resting place of mercy petitions and volatile parliament
bills:

Parliamentary bills and state govt. bills:

The president has the power to veto a bill once i.e. reject it or offer certain guidelines. These
insights allow the parliament to amend the bill and make it better and resend it. Of course, the
president can stop a bill only once and he must sign it if it comes again the next time; there have
been many cases in the past where the presidents have often sat on the bills and defer signing
them if he feels that the circumstances in the nation are such that the law would not be good for
it. This sort of keeps the Parliament from going off the rails making highly unfair bills. 

In certain cases, prior sanction of the President is required for initiating any legislation. For
instance, bill for formation of a new State or altering the boundaries of the existing State or
States is to be placed before Parliament with prior approval of the President. 
 Bill passed by a State Legislature: A bill passed by a State Legislature may also be reserved
for the consideration of the President by the Governor of that State. The President enjoys this
right in relation to a bill passed by a State Legislature only in such cases where those are referred
to him by the Government of a State under Article 200.

Mercy petitions:
Under Article 72 of the Constitution, the President can grant pardon, and suspend, remit or
commute a sentence of death.
Once a convict has been finally awarded the death sentence or life term by the Supreme Court,
anybody, including a foreign national, can send a mercy petition with regard to that person to the
President’s Office or the MHA. A mercy plea can also be sent to the Governor of the state
concerned, who then forwards it to the MHA for further action.
A few years ago, the Union Ministry of Law told the MHA that the President’s power to grant
pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment under Article 72 was “absolute and
cannot be fettered by any statutory provisions” under the Code of Criminal Procedure or prison
rules.

6. The president is the head of the union:

The President is at the head of the Union Executive. Consequently, all executive powers
are exercised in his name. The executive power of the Union to be exercised by the
President is extended to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make
laws and to conclude treaty and agreement.

Although actual decision is of the cabinet; the presidents are mostly learned men who
have worked diligently. Their expertise and direction should always be fruitful for the
government.

7. Power to promulgate ordinances:

The President may promulgate such Ordinances as the circumstances appear to him to
require (Article 123). Such an ordinance can have the same force and effect of an Act of
Parliament i.e. in times when the parliament is not in session or there is not enough time
for any law to passed with due and extensive procedure; and there is an immediate need
of an order to be passed (usually to maintain law and order), the president may issue an
ordinance that can be later ratified by the parliament.

Example; recently, when Tamil Nadu faced a serious law and order problem when the
people not only protested but openly defied the ban on Jalikattu( their traditional bull
taming festival); an ordinance to allow that sport had to come in; as the court refused to
give it a go ahead.

8. Appointments and nominations:

As head of the executive, the President appoints the Governors of States, the Judges of
the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the Auditor General of India and many other
high officials, such as the members of Finance Commission, Election commission, Union
Public commission etc.
 Nomination: The President nominates a number of members in both Houses. The chief
purpose of the nomination is to ensure adequate representation in Parliament of all
sections of population especially the minority that often goes unrepresented, which may
not always be achieved through elections.