Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, while adopting a Parliamentary form of government, retains vestiges of the Presidential system through Article 53(1), which vests executive power in the President. This provision, often termed the "vesting clause," initially appeared to grant significant authority to the President. However, the principle of responsible government, inherent in the Parliamentary system, has significantly diluted its practical effect. The question critically examines this paradox, exploring the President’s current status and position, and the ramifications of a refusal to act on the Prime Minister’s advice, highlighting the delicate balance of power in the Indian polity.
The Vesting Clause and its Theoretical Significance
Article 53(1) states that the executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President. This seemingly grants the President absolute executive authority. Historically, in Presidential systems like the United States, the President directly exercises this power. The framers of the Indian Constitution, influenced by the Government of India Act, 1935, initially contemplated a similar model. However, the adoption of a Parliamentary system fundamentally altered this arrangement. The Constitution-makers decided on a hybrid system where the President is the Head of State while the Prime Minister is the Head of Government.
The Principle of Responsible Government and the Diminished Role of the President
The principle of responsible government dictates that the executive must be accountable to the legislature (Parliament). This is enshrined in Article 74, which establishes a council of ministers to advise the President. Article 75 mandates that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. Consequently, the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister. This makes the "vesting clause" largely symbolic, as the President's actions are dictated by the elected government.
For example, the President signing ordinances, assenting to bills passed by Parliament, and appointing ministers are all done on the advice of the Council of Ministers. While the President *can* withhold assent, this is considered a serious constitutional matter and is rarely exercised.
Consequences of the President Refusing to Accept the Prime Minister's Advice
If the President were to refuse to accept the advice of the Prime Minister, several consequences would follow, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis:
- Article 74(1) Override: The Council of Ministers can advise the President again, and the President is constitutionally bound to act on the second advice.
- Motion of No Confidence: The government’s survival depends on the support of the majority in the Lok Sabha. Refusing to act on advice could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to destabilize the government, potentially leading to a vote of no confidence.
- Judicial Review: The President's actions are subject to judicial review. A refusal to act on advice could be challenged in court, with the judiciary likely siding with the principle of responsible government.
- Political Crisis: Such a scenario would create a severe political crisis, undermining the constitutional framework and potentially leading to a constitutional amendment to clarify the President's powers.
However, the President does have some discretionary powers. These include:
- Reference to the Supreme Court: Under Article 143, the President can seek the Supreme Court's opinion on matters concerning the interpretation of the Constitution.
- Summoning/Dissolving Parliament: The President can summon or dissolve Parliament, but this is usually done on the advice of the Prime Minister.
- Appointing the Prime Minister: In a hung parliament, the President has the discretion to appoint a leader who is likely to command a majority.
Case Study: The 1997 Jharkhand Assembly Dissolution
In 1997, President Shanker Dayal Sharma dissolved the Jharkhand Assembly, a move that was challenged in court. While he cited a lack of a clear majority, the action sparked debate about the President's discretionary powers and the potential for political interference. This case highlighted the sensitivity of the President's role and the importance of adhering to constitutional conventions.
The President as a Stabilizing Force
Despite the diminished practical power, the President continues to play a vital role as a stabilizing force, especially during times of political uncertainty. The President acts as a neutral figurehead, ensuring the smooth functioning of the government and upholding the Constitution.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the vesting clause under Article 53(1) remains a theoretical provision in the Indian Constitution, overshadowed by the principle of responsible government and the functioning of the Council of Ministers. While the President retains some discretionary powers and acts as a stabilizing force, refusing to act on the Prime Minister’s advice would have severe constitutional consequences. The Indian system strives for a balance - respecting the symbolic authority of the President while upholding the supremacy of the Parliament and the principle of accountable governance.
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.