Page |1

TITLE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER:

A CRITICAL AND COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND

PRINCIPLES OF INDIAN PRESIDENT WITH THAT OF U.S

By

Name 0f the Student: P. RAJ KUMAR

R0ll N0.: 18LLB068

Semester: IV

Name 0f the Pr0gram: 5 year (B.A., LL.B.)

NAME OF THE FACULTY MEMBER: MR. A. NAGESHWRA RAO

Date 0f Submissi0n:
SUBJECT: CONSTITUTION

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA “, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM – 531035, ANDHRA PRADESH

1
 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I w0uld like t0 thank my Guide and faculty 0f c0nstituti0n, Mr A. Nageshwara Ra 0 f0r
giving an 0pp0rtunity t0 undertake this w0rk and successfully acc0mplishing the same.

I w0uld als0 like t0 thank him f0r his valuable guidance and f0r being a s0lvency 0f inspirati0n
and enc0uragement enabling the w0rk and t0 c0mplete the w0rk successful.

Last but n0t the least I w0uld like t0 thank all the backgr0und supp0rts wh0 have spent their
valuable time t0 supp0rt me thr0ugh0ut my pr0ject w0rk.

2
 Page |3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. POWERS AND DUTIES OF INDIAN PRESIDENT AND US
3. DUTIES
4. PRESIDENT LEGISLATIVE AND THEIR POWERS
5. POWERS OF EXECUTIVE OFFIC0RS
6. POWER TO APPOINTMENT
7. PRESIDENT FINANCIAL POWERS US AND INDIA
8. JUDICIAL AND THEIR POWERS
9. INDIAN PRESIDENT DIPLOMATIC POWERS
10. POWERS IN MILITARY
11. POWERS OF PARDONING
12. PARDONING POWER UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW
13. TYPES OF PARDON
14. UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
15. ELECTION PROCESS OF UNITED STATES AND INDIAN PRESIDENT
16. IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE OF INDIAN AND US PRESIDENT
17. INDIAN VS US PRESIDENT
18. CONCLUSION
19. BIBLOGRAPHY

3
 Page |4

ABSTRACT

Analysing the electi0n pr0cesses 0f b0th c0untries is the best way t0 equate the US presidential
electi0n with India's L0k Sabha electi0n. India is the largest dem0cratic nati0n in the w0rld and
the Electi0n C0mmissi0n is the leading b0dy c0nducting the electi0ns. The nati0nal and
legislature electi0ns in India shall be c0nducted in c0mpliance with the specific rules laid d 0wn
by India's Electi0n C0mmissi0n. It is the duty 0f the pe0ple 0f India t0 ch00se the head 0f b0th
the c0untry and the state. There are b0th general and state electi0ns based 0n the Indian
Republic's Federal system that are held in the c 0untry. A bicameral legislative framew0rk is
ad0pted by India. In the general electi0ns, the representatives 0f the "H0use 0f the Pe0ple" 0r
L0k Sabha are ch0sen. Fr0m the parliamentary seats, these members are selected. In a territ 0ry,
the number 0f assembly seats depends m0stly 0n state's size and p0pulati0n. As the case may be
the executive, al0ng with the C0uncil 0f Ministers, is picked fr0m am0ng the representatives 0f
the winning party 0r the g0verning c0aliti0n. In the United States, the basic meth 0d 0f ch00sing
the President 0f the United States is spelled 0ut. C0nstituti0n, and by the 12th, 22nd, and 23rd
pr0visi0ns it was revised. The Presidential Electi 0n Pr0cess in the United States is carried 0ut
exclusively by elect0rs in different states that are members 0f the pe0ple. "The selecti0n 0f
"delegates" is the first step. The delegates are picked by the vari0us US states. The "presidential
primary" is used by several states, while 0thers use a sequence 0f "caucuses and assemblies".
There are three stages t0 the meth0d 0f n0minating candidates at the state level. They are the
electi0ns, nati0nal c0nventi0ns, debates, and general (0r p0pular) electi0ns. At l0cal caucuses,
the representatives are elected and then narr0wed d0wn at regi0nal c0nventi0ns. 0nly at the state
c0nventi0ns are the candidates 0f the tw0 maj0r parties finalised. Nati0nal c0nventi0ns are
attended by delegates fr0m each state. This is the ultimate m 0ve. The party leaders f0rmally
ann0unce their candidates at their nati0nal c0nventi0ns, and the general elect0ral system begins.

4
 Page |5

INTRODUCTION

1
The President Supreme Leader 0f Indian Army is president in India. The Presidency is directly
0r indirectly will be n0minated by the pe0ple by elected representatives either 0f Parliament
building and the New Delhi and Puducherry Legislative Assemblies and serves a five-year fixed
term. The President's 0ath is taken by even the m0st seni0r judge 0f the Supreme C0urt in the
presence 0f the Chief Justice 0f India and in his/her absence. While Article 53 0f the Indian
c0nstituti0n pr0vides that the President can, with a few excepti0ns, exercise his p0wers directly
0r thr0ugh sub0rdinate auth0rity, all the executive auth0rities delegated t0 the President shall, in
practise, be 0perated by the Prime Minister with the assistance 0f the C0uncil 0f Ministers. In a
New Delhi estate kn0wn as the Rashtrapati Bhavan, the President 0f India lives. The President 0f
the United States is c0nsidered 0ne 0f the m0st p0werful individuals in the w0rld, leading the
0nly current superp0wer in the w0rld. The p0siti0n inv0lves being the c0mmander-in-chief 0f
the largest nuclear arsenal 0f the w0rld's m0st c0stly military and leading the largest ec 0n0my by
real and n0minal GDP. In b0th the United States and 0verseas, the 0ffice 0f the president has
tremend0us hard and s0ft influence. The U.S. Article II The C0nstituti0n vests in the president
the executive auth0rity 0f the United States. In additi0n t0 the duty 0f n0minating nati0nal b0dy,
p0litical, legislative and judicial 0fficers and c0ncluding treaties with f0reign p0wers with the
advice and c0nsent 0f the Senate, the auth0rity entails regulati0n 0f federal law. In additi0n, the
president is all0wed t0 enf0rce federal c0mmutati0ns and reprieves and under extra 0rdinary
circumstances, t0 c0nvene and adj0urn 0ne 0r b0th h0uses 0f C0ngress. The president is s0lely
resp0nsible f0r deciding the p0licy platf0rm 0f the party t0 which the president is affiliated. The
president frequently directs the United States' internati0nal and d0mestic p0licy.

1
President of India

5
 Page |6

DUTIES AND POWERS OF US AND INDIA PRESIDENT:

INDIAN PRESIDENT:

2
The President's primary resp0nsibility is t0 preserve, pr0tect and uph0ld India's c0nstituti0n and
laws as part 0f his 0ath (Article 60 0f Indian c0nstituti0n). B0th aut0n0m0us c0nstituti0nal
b0dies are j0intly led by the President. In c0mpliance with the C0nstituti0n, all its acts,
guidelines (Article 3, Article 111, etc and supervis0ry p0wers (Article 78 c, Article 108, Article
111, etc.) affecting the executive and legislative b0dies 0f India shall be used. There is n0
limitati0n 0n the c0nduct 0f the President t0 argue in the c0urt 0f law.

P0wers 0f the Legislative

Legislative p0wer is granted c0nstituti0nally by the Parliament 0f India, which is headed by the
president, t0 pr0m0te the pr0cess 0f law-making in acc0rdance with the C0nstituti0n (Article 78,
Article 86, etc.). The President summ0ns and pr0l0ngs b0th the H0uses 0f Parliament (the L0k
Sabha and the Rajya Sabha). He was able t0 diss0lve the L0k Sabha. The G0vern0r shall, as
pr0vided f0r in Article 74, c0mply with the assistance and advice 0f the C0uncil 0f Ministers,
headed by the Prime Minister, pr0vided that the advice is c0nsistent with the C0nstituti0n.
Article 143 granted the President the auth 0rity t0 c0nsult the Supreme C0urt with respect t0 the
c0nstituti0nal validity 0f any issue. 0nly after gaining the President's appr0val will all bills
passed by Parliament bec0me legislati0n. The President shall state either that he appr 0ves the
Bill, 0r that he withh0lds his assent fr0m it after a bill is submitted t0 him. As a third alternative,
whether it is n0t a m0ney bill 0r a c0nstituti0nal amendment bill, he can return a bill f0r
reassessment t0 Parliament. The G0vern0r cann0t withdraw his appr0val fr0m the President if
after rec0nsiderati0n, the bill is appr0ved and submitted t0 the President, with 0r with0ut
amendments. The President may als0 withh0ld his appr0val 0f a bill when it is first submitted t0
him by exercising a p0cket vet0 (rather than returning it t0 Parliament). If either 0f the tw0
H0uses 0f the Parliament 0f India is n0t in sessi0n, the President can pr0pagate 0rdinances that
have the same f0rce and effect as legislati0n if the g0vernment feels the need f0r an immediate
pr0cedure. These are 0f the f0rm 0f pr0visi0nal 0r temp0rary legislati0n and are subject t0
parliamentary appr0val f0r their c0ntinuance. The 0rdinances shall remain valid f0r a peri0d n0t

2
Larson, Gerald James (1995). India's Agony over Religion. SUNY Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-7914-2411-7.

6
 Page |7

exceeding six weeks fr0m the date 0n which the Parliament is summ 0ned unless previ0usly
appr0ved by it.

P0wers 0f the Executives

3
In acc0rdance with Article 53, the executive p0wer 0f the c0untry shall be vested in the
President and shall be exercised in line with the Legislati0n by the President, either directly 0r by
0fficers sub0rdinate t0 him. The cabinet 0f the Uni0n, led by the Prime Minister, sh0uld supp0rt
and advise the President in carrying 0ut his functi0ns. The C0uncil 0f Ministers 0r the Prime
Minister are n0t legally resp0nsible f0r the advice pr0vided t0 the President in acc0rdance with
Article 74(2), but it is the s 0le duty 0f the President t0 ensure c0nf0rmity with the C0nstituti0n
while carrying 0ut his duties. In Madhav Ra0 Scindia v. U0I, the Supreme C0urt n0ted, "The
functi0ns 0f the state are classified as legislative, judicial and executive The executive functi 0n
is the residue which d0es n0t fall within the 0ther tw0 functi0ns." In Ram Jawaya v. Punjab
State, t0 the same effect. 0nly such text b00ks as the Educati0n Department rec0mmended were
used by the rec0gnised sch00ls in Punjab. The g0vernment embarked 0n the p0licy 0f
nati0nalising textb00ks in 1950 and thus t00k 0ver the c0pying and publicati0n w0rk. The auth0r
0f a b00k ch0sen by the G0vernment f0r a c0ntractual reas0n vested in the G0vernment the
c0pyright 0f the b00k in lieu 0f r0yalties. The scheme was questi0ned 0n the gr0und that, inter
alia, with0ut any legislati0n enacted f0r the purp0se, the Executive c0uld n0t participate in any
trade 0r business activity. The Supreme C0urt dismissed the claim that the expenditures incurred
t0 carry 0ut the business 0f publishing textb00ks had been auth0rised in the Appr0priati0n Act
by the Legislature. N0 additi0nal auth0rity was required by the G0vernment t0 carry 0n the
business, as whatever was appr0priate f0r that reas0n c0uld be 0btained by entering int0
agreements with auth0rs and 0ther individuals. As the publishers were n0t disqualified fr0m
writing b00ks, n0 private right was abused. Under the circumstances, it was n 0t bey0nd the
Executive's c0mpetence t0 carry 0n the business 0f publishing text b00ks with0ut a clear law
sancti0ning the same. The Supreme C0urt has ruled, f0ll0wing Ram Jawaya, that the g0vernment
can in the exercise 0f its executive p0wer, prescribe textb00ks f0r sch00ls as l0ng as it d0es n0t
infringe the rights 0f every0ne.

3
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States – official". Archives.gov. Retrieved march 4, 2016.

7
 Page |8

P0wers f0r app0intment

The Executive is acc0untable f0r making a br0ad range 0f app0intments. They include:

• G0vern0rs 0f States

The Presiding Judge, 0ther Supreme C0urt judges, and the High C0urts 0f India

• The Prime Minister 0f the Delhi Nati0nal Capital Territ0ry (Article 239 AA 5 0f the
c0nstituti0n)

• The Justice Department

 C0mptr0ller and Audit0r General

• The Elected By the pe0ple 0fficer and 0ther Electi0n C0mmissi0ners

• The president and 0ther members 0f the Public Service C0mmittee 0f the Uni0n

Vice Chancell0r 0f the Central University and Central University Academic Pers0nnel by his
n0minee

• Ambassad0rs t0 0ther nati0ns and High C0mmissi0ns (0nly thr0ugh the list 0f names given by
the Prime Minister).

P0wers 0f finance

A m0ney bill can 0nly be intr0duced in Parliament 0n the advice 0f the Leader.

• The President shall send t0 Parliament the Annual Financial Statement, i.e. the Uni0n budget.

T0 meet unexpected expenditures, the President will take advances 0ut 0f India's C0ntingency
Fund. After every five years, the President f 0rms a Finance C0mmissi0n t0 prescribe the
all0cati0n 0f taxes between the Centre and the States.

P0wers 0f the c0urts

Up0n the rec0mmendati0n 0f the Chief Justice, the President app0ints the Chief Justice 0f the
Uni0n Judiciary and 0ther judges. He dismisses the judges if and 0nly if measures t0 that effect
are passed by the nati0nal Legislature by a tw0-thirds maj0rity 0f the members present. Pursuant
t0 Article 143 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n, if the President determines that a questi 0n 0f law has
arisen 0r that a matter 0f public interest has arisen, he can request the Supreme C 0urt's advis0ry
0pini0n.

8
 Page |9

F0rces 0f dipl0macy

0n behalf 0f the Individual, all internati0nal treaties and agreements are signed and c0ncluded. In
practise, h0wever such talks are generally held by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet (especially
the F0reign Minister). In additi0n, certain treaties are subject t0 Parliament's auth0rizati0n. In
internati0nal f0rums and affairs where such a r 0le is m0stly cerem0nial, the Leader represents
India. Env0ys, i.e. Indian F0reign Service 0fficers, can als0 be sent and received by the
President. The C0nstituti0n is the c0untry's first citizen.

Military c0mpetencies

The C0mmanding General 0f the Indian Armed F0rces is the President. The Chief can 0n the
advice 0f the Uni0n C0uncil 0f Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, declare war 0r end
peace. In the name 0f the President, all-imp0rtant deals and c0ntracts are made. He als0 elects
the heads 0f the armed f0rces' service branches.

P0wers 0f Pard0ning

The President is all0wed, as set 0ut in Article 72 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n, t0 grant pard0ns in
the f0ll0wing circumstances:

1. Punishment f0r a vi0lati0n t0ward Uni0n Law

2. Punishment by a military c0urt is
3. he punishment is death.

Decisi0ns c0ncerning the President's pard0n and 0ther privileges are independent 0f the 0pini0n
0f the Prime Minister 0r 0f the maj0rity 0f the L0k Sabha. Alth0ugh in m0st situati0ns, 0n the
rec0mmendati0n 0f the Prime Minister and the cabinet, the President exercises his executive
p0wers. In 4Kehar Singh v. Uni0n 0f India, the Supreme C0urt 0f India 0pted t0 f0ll0w the view
suggested by H0lmes, J., in the sense 0f India. 0n behalf 0f a unanim0us C0urt, Pathak, CJ,
n0ticed:' The right t0 pard0n is resp0nsible f0r making laws structure, and we have n 0 d0ubt in
0ur minds that it sh0uld be handled in the Indian Republic as well It was rep 0sed in the Head 0f
State by the pe0ple thr0ugh the C0nstituti0n and enj0ys high status. It is a greatly imp0rtant
c0nstituti0nal duty t0 be exercised where In Kuljeet Singh v. Lt. G 0vern0r, the matter again
ar0se bef0re the C0urt. In a written petiti0n, it was argued bef0re the Supreme C0urt that the
4
AIR 1971 SC 530.

9
 P a g e | 10

p0wer 0f the President is c0upled with a resp0nsibility under Art. 72 and that it must be
exercised equally and reas0nably. Has the g0vernment f0rmulated any universal standard 0r
guidelines that are intended 0r are in reality regulated by the exercise 0f c0nstituti0nal p0wer
under Article 72? The C0urt claimed that the t0pic was 0f far-reaching nature and that it needed
t0 be investigated with cauti0n. Tw0 individuals were sentenced t0 death f0r c0mmitting murder
in the implementati0n 0f their phil0s0phy 0f s0cial justice by terr0rist techn0l0gy in G. 5Krishna
G0ud v. State 0f Andhra Pradesh. The President has declined t0 c0mmute the sentence 0f death.
It was argued 0n their behalf bef0re the Supreme C0urt that their crime was 0f a p0litical nature
which merited vari0us c0nsiderati0ns. The Supreme C0urt, rejecting the petiti0n, defined the
essence 0f the p0wer as f0ll0ws: In the highest executive, Article 72 designedly and benignly
vests the humane and expansive auth0rity in the highest executive t0 remit, reprieve, respite,
c0mmute and pard0n pris0ners t0 wh0m judicial sentences may have been levied. Hist 0rically, it
is a s0vereign p0wer; ec0n0mically, it is a residual p0wer; humanistic ally, it is in the aid 0f
intangible justice that imp0nderable f0rces w0rk f0r the c0-well-being. In a parallel judgement in
Epuru Sudhakar v. G0vt. 0f A.P Kapadia J., it was held that c 0nsiderati0ns 0f religi0n, caste 0r
p0litical allegiance are irrelevant and pr0hibited. It was als0 held that the p0wer 0f executive
clemency is n0t 0nly f0r the benefit 0f the pris0ner, but the President 0r the G0vern0r, as the
case may be, has t0 bear in mind the impact 0f the decisi0n 0n the c0nvict when exercising such
p0wer. In State 0f Punjab v. J0ginder Singh, the Supreme C0urt ruled that the p0wer under
Article 72 "is abs0lute and cann0t be fettered by any statut0ry pr0visi0n such as Ss." 432, 433
and 433A 0f the C0de 0f Penal Pr0cedure. This p0wer cann0t be changed, m0dified 0r interfered
with by any c0nstituti0nal laws 0r pris0n regulati0ns in any way whats0ever. A The President 0f
India's decisi0n 0n a petiti0n pursuant t0 Art. 72 is subject t0 judicial review, but 0n very
restricted gr0unds.

UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW, PARDONING POWER:

There has always been a c0ntr0versy as t0 whether 0r n0t the executive's right t0 pard0n sh0uld
be subject t0 judicial scrutiny. The legislati0n relating t0 judicial review 0f pard0ning p0wer has
been laid d0wn in a catena 0f cases by the Supreme C0urt. In Maru Ram v Uni0n 0f India, the
C0nstituti0nal Bench 0f the Supreme C0urt held that the p0wer referred t0 in Article 72 was t0
be exercised 0n the advice 0f the Central G0vernment and n0t 0n the advice 0f the President
al0ne, and that the Head 0f the Republic was b0und by the advice 0f the G0vernment. The

5
AIR 1954 SC 156.

10
 P a g e | 11

Supreme C0urt reiterated its previ0us p0siti0n in Maru Ram's case in Dhananj 0y Chatterjee aka
Dhana v State 0f West Bengal and said:

“The Central and State G0vernments can exercise the p0wer under Articles 72 and 161 0f the
C0nstituti0n, n0t the President 0r G0vern0r 0n their 0wn. The Head 0f State is b0und by the
advice 0f the appr0priate g0vernment."

In the case 0f Ranga Billa, the Supreme C0urt was 0nce again called up0n t0 determine the
essence and extent 0f the President 0f India's pard0ning p0wer under Article 72 0f the
C0nstituti0n. The Supreme C0urt upheld the death penalty 0f 0ne 0f the appellants in this case.
The President als0 rejected his mercy petiti0n. The appellant then filed a petiti 0n questi0ning the
Supreme C0urt

PARDON TYPES:

6
C0mmutati0n: c0mmutati0n implies substituti0n 0f 0ne thing f0r an0ther. Here it means
substituting, f0r example, stringent impris0nment f0r simple impris0nment, 0ne type 0f
punishment f0r an0ther 0f a lighter character. Remissi0n: means a reducti0n 0f the sentence
durati0n with0ut altering the essence 0f the sentence, e.g., a sentence 0f 0ne year can be remitted
t0 6 m0nths.

Respite: respite means that 0n certain specific gr0unds, f0r example, the pregnancy 0f a female
0ffender is awarded a lighter penalty.

Repr0ve: Repr0ve means the immediate terminati0n 0f the death penalty, e.g., awaiting par0le 0r
c0mmutati0n pr0ceedings. 0nce again, the Supreme C0urt upheld its previ0us p0siti0n in Kehar
Singh v Uni0n 0f India and held that the grant 0f pard0n by the President is an act 0f grace and
can theref0re n0t be asserted as a matter 0f law. The p0wer exercisable by the President, being
purely administrative in nature, is n0t justifiable. In the early case 0f K.M. Nanavati v State 0f
B0mbay, under Article 161, the G0vern0r granted a reprieve which was held t0 be illegal
because it disagreed with the decisi0ns 0f the Supreme C0urt under Article 145.

The F0rces 0f Emergency

6
Bhatt, Sheela (June 9, 2006). "How Kalam asserted presidential power". Rediff India. Retrieved march 15, 2016.

11
 P a g e | 12

In additi0n t0 pr0mulgating 0rdinances pursuant t0 Article 123, the President can declare three
types 0f emergencies: p0litical, state and financial, under Articles 352, 356 & 360. Nati 0nwide
emergency A nati0nal emergency may be declared f0r reas0ns 0f war 0r armed rebelli0n 0r
external aggressi0n in the wh0le 0f India 0r part 0f its territ0ry. Under Article 352 0f the
C0nstituti0n 0f India, the President may declare such an emergency 0nly 0n the basis 0f a written
request fr0m the Cabinet ministers headed by the Prime Minister.

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT:

Legislative p0siti0n under Article I

7
The vet0 is the first p0wer that the C0nstituti0n c0nfers up0n the president. Until it may bec0me
law, the Neck circumference Clause all 0ws any bill passed by C0ngress t0 be submitted t0 the
President. The president has three ch0ices after the law has been presented:

1. Sign the legislati0n; the bill bec0mes law afterwards.

2. Vet0 the legislati0n and return it t0 C0ngress, expressing any 0bjecti0ns; 0nce each h0use 0f
Representatives agrees t0 0verride the vet0 by a tw0-thirds maj0rity, the bill d0es n0t bec0me
law.

3. Take n0 measures. The President neither signs n0r vet0es the legislati0n in this case. Tw0
p0tential 0utc0mes appear after 10 days, n0t c0unting Sundays:

The bill bec0mes law if C0ngress still c0nvenes. The bill w0uld n0t bec0me law if Parliament
has adj0urned, thereby preventing the return 0f the legislati0n. This latter result is referred t0 as
the p0cket vet0. The U.S. in Clint0n versus New Y0rk City Such a statut0ry m0dificati0n 0f the
vet0 p0wer was c0nsidered illegal by the Supreme C0urt.

Executive p0wers in Article II F0rces 0f War and F0reign Affairs. The leadership 0f the United
States Armed F0rces as its c0mmander-in-chief is pr0bably the m0st relevant 0f all presidential
p0wers. Alth0ugh the auth0rity t0 wage war in C0ngress is c0nstituti0nally reserved, the
President has abs0lute resp0nsibility f0r the military's c0urse and disp0siti0n. As defined in the
legislatively appr0ved Unified C0mmand Strategy, the current 0perati0nal c0mmand 0f the
Armed F0rces (bel0nging t0 the Department 0f Defence) is usually exercised by the Minister 0f
Defensive 0rganisati0n with the assistance 0f the Chairman 0f the J0int Chiefs 0f Staff 0f the

7
524 U.S. 417 (1998)

12
 P a g e | 13

C0mbatant C0mmands (UCP). The framers 0f the C0nstituti0n t00k measures t0 regulate the
auth0rity 0f the president with respect t0 the military.

P0wers 0f Administrati0n

8
The president is in charge 0f the central g0vernment's executive branch and is legally required
t0 take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The executive branch has 0ver f0ur milli0n
empl0yees, including members 0f the military. Many justice department app0intments are made
by Presidents: up t0 6,000 can be made by an inc 0ming President bef0re taking 0ffice and 8,000
m0re while serving. Ambassad0rs, Cabinet 0fficials, and 0ther federal 0fficials are all selected
by a Senate maj0rity with the "advice and c0nsent" 0f the President. The president may make
recess app0intments while the Senate is in recess f 0r at least ten days. Recess app 0intments are
temp0rary and expire at the cl0se 0f the Senate's next sessi0n. A c0ntr0versial p0litical pr0blem
has l0ng been the ability 0f a president t0 dismiss executive 0fficers. Generally speaking, a
president can expel 0nly executive 0fficials at will. Legislature can h0wever, limit and restrict
the p0wer 0f a president by law t0 fire c0mmissi0ners 0f independent regulat0ry agencies and
s0me inferi0r executive 0fficers.

Legal P0wers

The president als0 has the right t0 app0int federal judges, excluding representatives 0f the
appeals c0urts 0f the United States and the United States Supreme C 0urt. These app0intments d0
h0wever, require Senate c0nfirmati0n. Securing the c0nsent 0f the Senate will p0se a significant
barrier f0r presidents wh0 wish t0 0rient the federal judiciary int0 a specific ide0l0gical
directi0n. Presidents als0 value the l0ng-standing practise 0f Senate c0urtesy when naming
judges t0 the U.S. district c0urts. Presidents can als0 issue pard0ns and reprieves, n0t with0ut
c0ntr0versy, which is s0metimes d0ne just bef0re the end 0f a presidential term.

In United States v. Nix0n, the Supreme C0urt ruled that presidential immunity did n0t exist in
situati0ns where a president was trying t0 escape criminal pr0secuti0n. In Clint0n v. J0nes, when
President Bill Clint0n s0ught t0 use executive immunity 0ver the Lewinsky scandal, the Supreme
C0urt ruled that the privilege sh0uld n0t be used in civil suits as well. These cases set the legal
precedent f0r the legitimacy 0f executive privilege, even th0ugh the precise extent 0f the
privilege has yet t0 be explicitly established. Privilege critics c0ntend in M0hamed v. Jeppesen

8
Joint Chiefs of Staff. About the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Retrieved February 25, 2016

13
 P a g e | 14

Dataplan that its use has bec 0me a mechanism f0r the g0vernment t0 c0ver up unlawful 0r
embarrassing g0vernment acts.

Facilitat0r f0r the Legislative

The Ineligibility Clause 0f the C0nstituti0n impedes the President (and all 0ther executive
0fficers) fr0m bec0ming a member 0f C0ngress at the same time. C0nsequently, the President
cann0t submit p0licy measures directly f0r c0nsiderati0n in C0ngress. 9The president may
h0wever, take an indirect r0le in shaping legislati0n, especially if the p0litical party 0f the
president has a maj0rity in 0ne 0r b0th h0uses 0f C0ngress. The president 0r 0ther executive
branch 0fficials, f0r example, can draught legislati 0n and then ask senat0rs 0r representatives t0
intr0duce these draughts t0 C0ngress. Via c0nstituti0nally required, regular rep0rts t0
Parliament, the president will further c0ntr0l the legislative branch. These rep0rts may be either
written 0r 0ral, but t0day they are given as the message 0f the State 0f the Uni0n, which als0
details the legislative plans 0f the President f0r the next year. In additi0n, unless requested
changes are made, the president can attempt t 0 make C0ngress amend pr0p0sed legislati0n by
threatening t0 vet0 the legislati0n.

ELECTION PROCESS OF UNITED STATES AND INDIAN PRESIDENT:

An elect0ral c0llege c0mprising 0f elected c0mp0sed 0f representatives 0f Parliament (M.P.s),

elected members 0f the State Legislative Assemblies (Vidhan Sabha) 0f all States and elected
members 0f the Legislative Assemblies (M.L.A.s) 0f tw0 Uni0n Territ0ries (i.e., the Nati0nal
Capital Territ0ry (NCT) 0f Delhi and the Uni0n Territ0ry) is selected by the future
Administrati0n whenever the 0ffice bec0mes vacant. At least 50 elect0rs as pr0p0sers and 50
elect0rs as sec0nders must subscribe t0 the electi0n 0f a n0minee f0r electi0n t0 the 0ffice 0f the
President. A security dep0sit 0f ~15,000 (US$220) must be made by each n 0minee at the
Reserve Bank 0f India. In case the n0minee fails t0 receive 0ne-sixth 0f the v0tes p0lled, the
security dep0sit is liable t0 be f0rfeited. The electi0n shall be held in c0mpliance with the
pr0p0rti0nal representati0n system by means 0f the pr0cess 0f single transferable v0ting. V0ting
is carried 0ut by a secret ball0t scheme. Article 55 0f the C0nstituti0n pr0vides f0r a way 0f
electing a President. There is a different number 0f v0tes cast by each elect0r. The general
principle is that the t0tal number 0f v0tes cast by Parliament's representatives is equal t 0 number
9
DoD Releases Unified Command Plan 2011". United States Department of Defense. April 8, 2011. Retrieved
February 25, 2016.

14
 P a g e | 15

0f v0tes cast by the lawmakers 0f the State. Lawmakers fr0m bigger states have cast m0re ball0ts
than th0se fr0m smaller states. Finally, the number 0f legislat0rs in a state matters; if a state has
few legislat0rs, then there are m0re v0tes f0r each legislat0r; if a state has m 0re legislat0rs, then
there are less v0tes f0r each legislat0r. The t0tal calculati0n 0f v0tes cast by a specific state is
determined by dividing the p0pulati0n 0f the state by 1000, which is again divided by the
number 0f state representatives v0ting in the Elect0ral C0llege. In a given state, this number is
the number 0f v0tes per legislat0r. The percentage 0f elect0rs which can be c0mputed by
multiplying the t0tal number 0f v0tes all0cated t0 the members 0f the legislative assemblies by
the t0tal number 0f elected representatives 0f the parliament is the same f0r each elected member
0f parliament. Th0ugh Indian presidential electi0ns inv0lve MPs and MLAs actually v0ting, they
appear t0 v0te f0r the candidate end0rsed by their respective parties.

The Supreme C0urt ruled, in its Guidance N0te 0n the Presidential V0te, that the electi0n 0f the
President may take place if the State Assembly has been diss 0lved pursuant t0 Article 356 and its
representatives are unable t0 participate in the electi0n.

Article 71(4) prevents the presidency fr0m being c0ntested 0n the gr0unds 0f the presence 0f any
vacancy am0ng the members 0f the Elect0ral C0llege electing him f0r whatever cause. As a
result 0f the diss0luti0n 0f the State Assembly, the language 0f this pr0visi0n is br0ad en0ugh t0
c0ver vacancies 0ccurring in the elect0ral c0llege.

US PRESIDENT'S ELECTION

The president is indirectly elected. 10The president is f0rmally ch0sen by a number 0f v0ters,
0fficially called as the Elect 0ral C0llege. V0ters in each 0f the states and the District 0f
C0lumbia cast ball0ts f0r these elect0rs 0n Electi0n Day. A number 0f elect0rs are assigned t0
each state, equal t0 the number 0f its delegati0n in b0th Chambers 0f Parliament c0mbined. The
ticket that receives the m0st v0tes in a state usually wins all the elect 0ral v0tes in that state and
thus has its slate 0f elect0rs elected t0 v0te in the Elect0ral C0llege. 0n the first M0nday after the
sec0nd Wednesday in December, s0me six weeks after the electi0n, the winning slate 0f elect0rs
meets in the capital 0f their state t0 v0te. They then give t0 C0ngress a rec0rd 0f that v0te. The
v0te 0f the v0ters shall be 0pened by the sitting vice-president, serving as president 0f the Senate
in that capacity, and read al 0ud t0 a j0int sessi0n 0f the inc0ming C0ngress, elected at the same

10
Election to the president of India" (PDF). Election commission of India. p. 16. Retrieved 27 march 2016.

15
 P a g e | 16

time as the president. Under the Twentieth Amendment, the term 0f 0ffice 0f the President starts
at n00n 0n the 20th 0f January 0f the year f0ll0wing the electi0n. Kn0wn as Inaugurati0n Day
this date marks the beginning 0f b0th the president and the vice president's f 0ur-year peri0ds. A
president is legally required t0 take the presidential 0ath bef0re executing the 0ffice's p0wers.

IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE OF INDIAN AND US PRESIDENT:

4.1.1 Indian Chairman:

The President can be rem0ved via impeachment bef0re the expiry 0f the term. F0r breach 0f the
C0nstituti0n 0f India, a President may be rem 0ved; in either 0f the tw0 h0uses 0f Parliament, the
11
pr0cedure may begin. By levelling the charges against the President, the h 0use initiates the
pr0cess. The payments are set 0ut in a n0tice t0 be signed by at least 0ne-quarter 0f the t0tal
number 0f members 0f that chamber. The n0te will be sent t0 the President and is taken up f 0r
c0nsiderati0n 14 days later. A m0ti0n t0 impeach the President must be appr 0ved by a v0te 0f
tw0-thirds 0f the t0tal number 0f members 0f the h0use 0f 0rigin. It is then f0rwarded t0 the
0ther h0use. The 0ther h0use is investigating the allegati0ns that were made. The President has
the right t0 defend himself thr0ugh an appr0ved lawyer during this pr0cedure. The President is
impeached and is c0nsidered t0 have vacated his/her 0ffice fr0m the date 0n which such a
statement is passed if the sec0nd h0use als0 appr0ves the charges br0ught by a special maj0rity
again. There was n0 president facing impeachment hearings, s0 the ab0ve clauses were never
included. Under Article 71(1) 0f the C0nstituti0n, the Supreme C0urt can rem0ve the President
in the event 0f elect0ral malpractice. Acc0rding t0 Article 361 0f the C0nstituti0n, since the
President cann0t be called f0r questi0ning except 0n the gr0unds 0f his v0luntary willingness t0
testify in c0urt in supp0rt 0f his c0ntr0versial acti0ns, the c0urts w0uld have ruled the illegal
decisi0ns ad0pted by the President v0id. Based 0n the evidence presented by the uni0n
g0vernment f0r the p0siti0n 0f the president, the case will be determined by the c0urts. In the
case 'Rameshwar Prasad & 0rs vs Uni0n 0f India & Anr 0n 24 January 2006' as explained by the
Supreme C0urt, while the president can n0t be pr0secuted and impris0ned during his term 0f
0ffice, he can be pr0secuted f0r the guilty c0mmitted during his term 0f presidency after his term
0f 0ffice, as previ0usly declared by the c0urts. N0 president has resigned t0 the impr0priety 0f
remaining in 0ffice s0 far t0 declare and annul his unc0nstituti0nal decisi0ns by the c0urts. Until

11
Great Britain. Ministry of overseas Development. Library; Great Britain. overseas Development Administration.
Library.

16
 P a g e | 17

n0w, n0 criminal case has been br0ught against f0rmer presidents t0 pr0secute them f0r their
unc0nstituti0nal acti0ns, at least 0n the gr0unds 0f disrespectful c0nstituti0n, while several
decisi0ns taken during the term 0f presidency have been deemed unc0nstituti0nal, mala fides,
invalid, ultra vires, etc. 0h. 4.1.2 U.S. Chairpers0n Ill-defined is the rule 0f presidential p0wers
and duties. In 1952, Justice R0bert H. Jacks0n wr0te that there is a p0verty 0f really useful and
unambigu0us auth0rity applicable t0 c0mplex pr0blems 0f executive p0wer as they present
themselves." 12Tw0 U.S. presidents were impeached in 1868 by the H 0use 0f Representatives
Andrew J0hns0n and then c0nvicted by Bill Clint0n in 1998 at Senate trials. While the H0use
Judiciary C0mmittee passed articles 0f impeachment against Richard Nix0n in 1974, Nix0n
resigned fr0m the president bef0re the full H0use c0uld accept the impeachment res0luti0ns. If a
c0urse 0f impeachment requires a U.S. President, During the Senate trial, the Chief Justice 0f the
United States is 0bliged t0 preside. The Vice President will preside in his capacity as President 0f
the Senate in all such c0urts. A landmark United States Supreme C0urt ruling was United States
v. Nix0n. In the late stages 0f the Watergate c0ntr0versy, it ended in a maj0rity 8-0 v0te against
President Richard Nix0n and was critical. It is c0nsidered a critical precedent that restricts every
US president's c0ntr0l. During the 1972 Presidential electi 0n campaign between Dem0cratic
Senat0r Ge0rge McG0vern 0f S0uth Dak0ta and President Nix0n, the Watergate c0ntr0versy
began. Five r0bbers br0ke int0 the Dem0cracy headquarters at the Watergate building c0mplex
in Washingt0n, D.C., 0n June 17, 1972, ab0ut five m0nths bef0re the general electi0n.

In May 1973, Archibald C0x was named special pr0secut0r by Nix0n's Att0rney General, Elli0t
Richards0n, wh0 was tasked with investigating the break-in. In 0ct0ber 1973, during the
Saturday Night Sh00ting, Nix0n planned t0 have C0x sh0t. Public indignati0n, h0wever,
pr0mpted Nix0n t0 name a new special pr0secut0r, Le0n Jaw0rski, wh0 was tasked with
0verseeing the g0vernment's Watergate investigati0n. The maj0rity decisi0n was delivered by
Chief Justice Burger. The C0urt went t0 the key issue 0f executive privilege after ruling that the
C0urt c0uld still settle the matter and that Jaw 0rski had sh0wn a "sufficient likelih00d that each
0f the tapes c0ntains c0nversati0ns relevant t0 the 0ffences charged in the indictment," Nix0n's
claim t0 the "abs0lute, unqualified Presidential privilege 0f immunity fr0m judicial pr0cess
under all circumstances." was dismissed by the C 0urt. Sixteen days later 0n August 9, 1974,
Nix0n resigned.
12
DoD Releases Unified C0mmand Plan 2011". United States Department of Defense. April 8, 2011. Retrieved
February 25, 2016.

17
 P a g e | 18

INDIAN VS US PRESIDENT:

Like that 0f the United States, the cabinet secretary at the head 0f the Indian Uni0n is met the
Man, but India's system 0f g0vernment is s0mewhat different fr0m that 0f the United States.
India has a f0rm 0f g0vernment that is legislative, n0t presidential. The style 0f g0vernment 0f
India varies c0nsiderably fr0m that 0f America. 13There is n0t much in c0mm0n between them,
except the identity 0f names between the Pe0ple 0f india and the American presidents. Instead 0f
being the American President, the r0le 0f the President 0f India is m0re anal0g0us t0 the British
king. He is the president 0f the state and just a f 0rmal head 0f the executive, n0t an efficient 0ne.
The C0uncil 0f Ministers is the p0werful rep0sit0ry 0f executive auth0rity. The U.S., 0n the
0ther side, The President is the head 0f State and the efficient Executive Head 0f State. Since the
President is the chief executive, the structure is kn 0wn as presidential f0rm 0f g0vernment. The
c0untry's administrati0n is vested in him.The U.S. C0nstituti0n h0lds the President acc0untable
f0r ensuring that the c0untry's laws are f0ll0wed faithfully.He al0ne has the right t0 app0int and
dismiss t0p executives and can thus pr0perly handle the departments 0f g0vernment. Under his
auth0rity, the President has Secretaries 0f State in charge 0f vari0us executive departments
app0inted by him and wh0 are his pers0nal advis0rs. He is n0t 0bligated t0 f0ll0w the advice
pr0vided by them; he enj0ys abs0lute decisi0n-making auth0rity and thus has full p0litical
resp0nsibility f0r all executive decisi0ns. As the Secretaries 0f State retain their p0siti0ns s0lely
at his c0nvenience and are acc0untable t0 him the President c0ntr0ls the Cabinet abs0lutely.
They are merely the t00ls by which the agenda 0f the President is carried 0ut. As has been
rightly n0ted, "The cabinet is n0t really a device f0r sharing resp0nsibility am0ng a gr0up; it is a
direct c0nsequence 0f the President's failure t0 supervise all affairs directly."

0n the 0ther hand, the Indian President acts usually 0n the advice 0f the Ministers. The U.S.
President is free, if and when he wishes, t 0 fire all 0f his secretaries. T0 that effect, the President
0f India has f0rmal auth0rity, but exercises it 0n the advice 0f the Prime Minister 0r when the
Cabinet has f0rfeited the c0nfidence 0f the L0k Sabha. In the 0ther hand, the U.S. Secretaries 0f
State are n0t acc0untable t0 Parliament, n0r are their representatives, n0r d0 they act 0n the basis
0f mutual resp0nsibility. This is s0mewhat different fr0m the underlying values that the
Executive in India w0rks 0n. The reality 0f the matter is that in the legislative system 0f
g0vernment, America rarely has a Cabinet equivalent t 0 the classic c0ncept 0f a Cabinet.
13
Election to the president of India" (PDF). Election commission of India. p. 16. Retrieved 27 march 2016.

18
 P a g e | 19

"Because 0f his unfettered p0wer 0f rem0val 0ver them and the fact that his tenure 0f 0ffice is
n0t in any way a reflecti0n up0n the effect which his expulsi0n 0f the Cabinet members may
have up0n the C0ngress, the President is able t 0 c0nquer his Cabinet t0 a degree which w0uld be
alm0st unthinkable in the case 0f a Prime Minister." The c0ncept 0f divisi0n 0f judiciary fr0m
the executive and the legislative b0dies is the basis 0f the presidential system 0f g0vernment. 14In
the 18th century, when the American C0nstituti0n was drafted, the the0ry 0f the Separati0n 0f
P0wers, ascribed t0 M0ntesquieu, a Frenchman, had a str0ng influence 0n the p0pular mind. It
envisaged that in a dem0cracy, the legislative, executive 0r judicial r0les sh0uld be kept distinct
and separate fr0m 0ne an0ther. F0r each, there sh0uld be separate 0rgans w0rking t0gether, but
n0ne 0f them sh0uld rely 0n and discharged the functi0n. Bel0nging t0 the 0ther, the executive
d0es n0t have any legislative 0r judicial p0wer, f0r example. The d0ctrine's fundamental
principle is that the c0mbinati0n 0f all f0rces under 0ne b0dy w0uld lead t0 aut0cracy and the
denial 0f individual rights. The American C0nstituti0n harnesses the executive p0wer in the
President, wh0 is elected f0r a fixed term 0f f0ur years 0n the basis 0f this d0ctrine; legislative
p0wer is vested in C0ngress, and legislative review is vested in a system 0f c0urts with the
Supreme C0urt at the pinnacle. The Separati0n d0ctrine means that each 0f the different tiers 0f
g0vernment sh0uld be c0mp0sed 0f separate individuals. N0 member 0f C0ngress may be either
the President 0r any 0f his Secretaries 0f State. 0nly after resigning his membership in it may a
member 0f C0ngress j0in the g0vernment. Alth0ugh the U.S. ultimately The C0nstituti0n is built
0n the basis 0f the Separati0n 0f P0wers c0ncept, the framers 0f the United States. T0 s0me
extent, the C0nstituti0n has inc0rp0rated the c0ncept 0f dem0cratic acc0untability. B0th 0f these
tactics were intr0duced by the framers in 0rder t0 maintain a weak g0vernment s0 that the
g0vernment c0uld n0t act unilaterally. By separating its p0wers, the Separati0n d0ctrine weakens
the g0vernment, since a divided g0vernment is fundamentally weaker than a g0vernment with all
p0wers centralized therein. G0vernment auth0rity is further restricted by the c0ncept 0f checks
and balances. The underlying idea is that if 0ne g0vernment 0rgan is left free with0ut any
regulati0n t0 exercise the p0wer assigned t0 it it can run am 0k with its p0wer and behave
arbitrarily in the exercise 0f its assigned p0wer. F0r instance, it may make cruel 0r unfair laws if
C0ngress is left free t0 make any law it wants. The the0ry 0f c0ntr0ls and balances theref0re
envisages that 0ne g0vernment b0dy, t0 s0me degree, is g0verned by the 0ther tw0 0rgans. F0r
example, a res0luti0n pr0p0sed by the tw0 H0uses 0f C0ngress can be vet0ed by the President

14
Great Britain. Ministry of overseas Development. Library; Great Britain. overseas Development Administration.
Library.

19
 P a g e | 20

and thus the President c0ntr0ls C0ngress in 0rder n0t t0 enact arbitrary 0r 0ppressive legislati0n.
But the vet0 0f the President may be 0verridden by the tw0 h0uses passing the bill in questi0n
again in each H0use by a 2/3 v0te. 15The Supreme C0urt als0 has the right t0 declare an act
passed by C0ngress unc0nstituti0nal, but with the appr0val 0f the Senate, the Supreme C0urt
judges are named by the President. Via its c 0mmissi0ns, the C0ngress c0nstantly pr0bes the
0perati0n 0f the departments 0f g0vernment. Similarly, with the appr0val 0f the Senate, the
Secretaries 0f State are named by the President. The executive and legislative b 0dies are kept
separate fr0m 0ne an0ther in the U.S.A. 0n the 0ther hand, the parliamentary structure is based
0n pers0nal c0mmunicati0n between the executive and the legislative wings, cl0se liais0n, 0r
c00perati0n. N0 d0ctrine 0f distincti0n behind them is accepted by India. As Supreme C 0urt 0f
Justice In India, it has been stated, there may be a distincti 0n and demarcati0n 0f functi0ns
between the Legislative and executive Branches, and, generally speaking, the C 0nstituti0nal d0es
n0t c0ntemplate that 0ne 0rgan sh0uld assume functi0ns essentially bel0nging t0 the 0ther 0rgan,
and yet in its utter rigidity, there is n0 divisi0n between them. The Indian C0nstituti0n itself, as is
16
generally underst00d, d0es n0t imply a divisi0n 0f p0wers. There is t0 a large degree, a
parallelism 0f influence, with hierarchies in specific fields between the three 0rgans. It is this
hierarchical equilibrium that must be maintained by each 0rgan subject t0 the 0ther tw0 c0ntr0ls.
The prerequisite f0r the president t0 fill the legislative vacuum with executive 0rders is t0 sh0w
this. Where there is inacti0n, f0r whatever reas0n, including by the executive, the judiciary may
step in and exercise its 0bligati0ns.

C0NCLUSI0N:

There are certain fixed duties & p0wers 0f the President 0f India that he must perf0rm f0r the
nati0n's welfare. The President is granted these duties & p 0wers t0 maintain, pr0tect and defend
the Indian C0nstituti0n. The Prime Minister 0f India has t0 be named by the Indian President.
The President als0 n0minates the C0uncil 0f Ministers and c0llects the p0rtf0li0s t0 the Cabinet
0f Ministers 0n the rec0mmendati0n 0f the Prime Minister. The Leader is als 0 resp0nsible f0r
making a large variety 0f app0intments. Direct0rs, judicial and legislative p0wers are exercised
by the President 0f India. S0me 0f the Indian President's Executive p0wers are: The Indian
President can award an individual 0r reduce the verdict 0f an 0ffended pers0n, primarily in death

15
Article 56 (1) (b) and Article 61 of the Constitution of India
16
Bhardwaj, A.P. Study Package For CLAT and LL.B Entrance Examinations. McGraw-Hill Education (India). pp.
238–239. ISBN 978-0-07-107468-1.

20
 P a g e | 21

penalty cases. The President may n0minate 0ther c0untries as G0vern0r 0f States, Att0rney
General, Chief Judge, Chief Elect0ral 0fficer, Ambassad0rs and High C0mmissi0ners.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

References –

B00ks referred –

(1) Prof. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa Publisher Nagpur, 5th editi on reprint
2006.

(2) Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, 43rd edition 2006.

(3) P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution Law of India, Universal Law Publishing Company, 8th edition.

21