Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The President of India, as enshrined in Article 52 of the Constitution, is the Head of the State. However, the nature of the executive powers vested in the President has been a subject of debate. The concept of the President being a ‘Convenient working hypothesis,’ popularized by K. Santhanam, suggests that the President largely acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, functioning as a constitutional figurehead. This view stems from the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. However, a closer examination of the constitutional provisions and historical precedents reveals a more complex reality, where the President can, and at times does, exercise independent judgment.
Understanding the Constitutional Position
The Constitution establishes a parliamentary form of government, where real executive power is vested in the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers (Article 74). The President is required to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, as per Article 74(1). This seemingly limits the President’s discretionary powers. However, the Constitution also grants the President certain powers that can be exercised independently, particularly in situations where no clear advice is available or when the advice itself is questionable.
Arguments Supporting the 'Convenient Working Hypothesis'
- Constitutional Scheme: The framers of the Constitution intended a parliamentary system, where the executive is accountable to the legislature. The President’s role was conceived as largely ceremonial.
- Article 74(1): This article explicitly states that the President shall act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Convention & Practice: Historically, Presidents have largely adhered to the advice of the Prime Minister, reinforcing the convention of a largely symbolic role.
- Lack of Direct Mandate: The President is not directly elected by the people, unlike the Prime Minister, which further diminishes their political legitimacy.
Instances Demonstrating Presidential Discretion & Influence
Despite the prevailing view, several instances demonstrate the President’s ability to exercise discretion and influence policy:
- Article 85(2): The President has the power to dissolve the Lok Sabha, though this is generally exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, in situations where the government has lost the confidence of the House, the President can exercise their discretion in deciding whether to dissolve the Lok Sabha or invite another leader to form a government.
- Article 143: The President can refer a question of law to the Supreme Court for advisory opinion. This power allows the President to seek clarification on constitutional matters.
- Veto Power (Suspensive Veto): While the President is generally bound to give assent to bills passed by Parliament, they can withhold assent and send the bill back for reconsideration. Though Parliament can override this veto, it provides the President with a potential check on legislative action.
- Appointment of Prime Minister: In hung parliaments or situations where no party secures a clear majority, the President plays a crucial role in appointing the Prime Minister. This was evident in 1996, 1998, and 2014.
- Dismissal of Governments: Though controversial, the President has, in the past, dismissed state governments under Article 356 (President’s Rule). The S.R. Bommai case (1994) placed limitations on this power, but the President still retains some discretion.
Case Studies & Examples
Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1971): Though ultimately overturned, Indira Gandhi’s government attempted to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision by enacting constitutional amendments. This highlighted the potential for executive overreach and the importance of the President’s role in upholding the Constitution.
The 1996 United Front Government: President Shankar Dayal Sharma played a key role in facilitating the formation of a coalition government after the 1996 elections, demonstrating the President’s ability to navigate complex political situations.
The 2008 Trust Vote: President Pratibha Patil’s decision to summon Parliament for a trust vote after the Left parties withdrew support from the UPA government was a significant exercise of presidential authority.
Evolving Role of the President
The role of the President has evolved over time. While the initial intention was to create a largely ceremonial head of state, the complexities of coalition politics and the increasing importance of constitutional interpretation have necessitated a more proactive presidential role. The President’s ability to act as a guardian of the Constitution and a facilitator of democratic processes is crucial in a diverse and dynamic polity like India.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the view of the President as a ‘Convenient working hypothesis’ holds some validity, it is an oversimplification. The President is not merely a rubber stamp. The Constitution grants the President certain discretionary powers, and historical precedents demonstrate instances where the President has exercised significant influence. The President’s role is evolving, and their ability to act as a neutral arbiter, a guardian of the Constitution, and a facilitator of democratic processes remains vital for the smooth functioning of Indian democracy.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.