Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, while establishing a parliamentary form of government with a clear separation of powers, has always exhibited a degree of executive dominance. However, in contemporary Indian politics, there's a growing perception that this tilt towards the executive has become more pronounced. This isn’t merely about the strength of a particular government but a systemic shift in power dynamics, impacting legislative independence, judicial review, and the overall balance of the constitutional framework. Recent developments like the increased use of ordinances, centralisation of decision-making, and amendments impacting federal structures contribute to this narrative, necessitating a critical examination of whether the executive is indeed gaining disproportionate influence.
Historical Context: Executive’s Position
The Constitution grants significant powers to the President (Article 53) and the Prime Minister (through Article 74 & 75). The Council of Ministers, collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, forms the core of the executive. Historically, the executive has enjoyed considerable leeway, particularly in areas of foreign policy and national security. However, the initial decades saw a relatively strong Parliament and an independent judiciary acting as effective checks and balances.
Areas Where Executive Tilt is Evident
- Increased Use of Ordinances: The frequency with which the government promulgates ordinances (Article 123) has increased, bypassing the legislative process. For example, the repeated re-promulgation of ordinances related to agricultural reforms in 2020-21 raised concerns about circumventing parliamentary debate.
- Centralization of Decision-Making: Key policy decisions are increasingly concentrated within the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and a small group of advisors, reducing the role of ministries and parliamentary committees.
- Amendments Impacting Federalism: Constitutional amendments like the 86th Amendment (2002) on Right to Education, while having positive outcomes, demonstrate a tendency towards centralisation. More recently, changes related to Jammu and Kashmir (Article 370 abrogation, 2019) and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA, 2019) have sparked debates about federal principles.
- Weakening of Institutions: Concerns have been raised about the independence of institutions like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Election Commission of India (ECI), with allegations of executive interference.
- Delegated Legislation: A significant portion of law-making now occurs through delegated legislation (rules and regulations framed by the executive under the authority of an Act of Parliament), reducing parliamentary scrutiny.
Reasons for the Executive Tilt
- Strong Mandates: Governments with clear majorities in Parliament find it easier to push through legislation and exercise greater control over the executive.
- National Security Concerns: In an increasingly complex security environment, the executive often argues for greater decisiveness and secrecy, justifying reduced parliamentary oversight.
- Economic Liberalization & Globalization: The need for quick policy responses to global economic changes has led to a preference for executive action over lengthy legislative processes.
- Decline in Parliamentary Effectiveness: Frequent disruptions, low attendance rates, and a decline in the quality of debate in Parliament have weakened its ability to effectively scrutinize the executive. (PRS Legislative Research data indicates a decline in parliamentary productivity over the past two decades).
- Judicial Activism & its Limits: While judicial review (Article 32 & 226) remains a crucial check, the judiciary’s capacity to address all instances of executive overreach is limited.
Counterarguments & Balancing Perspectives
It’s important to acknowledge that a strong executive is not inherently detrimental. Effective governance often requires decisive leadership and swift action. Furthermore, the executive is accountable to the Parliament through mechanisms like Question Hour, debates, and committees. The argument that the executive is merely responding to the demands of a changing world and fulfilling the mandate given by the electorate also holds weight. However, the erosion of institutional safeguards and the increasing concentration of power raise legitimate concerns about the long-term health of Indian democracy.
| Aspect | Executive Strengthening | Counterargument/Balance |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinance Promulgation | Increased frequency, bypassing Parliament | Used in emergencies; reflects responsiveness to urgent needs |
| Centralization | PMO dominance, reduced ministerial role | Efficient decision-making; strong leadership |
| Delegated Legislation | Increased reliance on rules & regulations | Technical expertise; faster implementation |
Conclusion
The thrust of government in contemporary Indian politics undeniably appears tilted towards the executive. While a strong executive is essential for effective governance, the increasing concentration of power, coupled with concerns about institutional independence and parliamentary effectiveness, poses a challenge to the constitutional balance. Strengthening parliamentary oversight, promoting institutional autonomy, and fostering a culture of transparency and accountability are crucial steps to safeguard the principles of democratic governance and prevent an unchecked expansion of executive power. A robust and independent judiciary remains the ultimate guarantor of constitutional values, but its role must be complemented by a revitalized Parliament and a vigilant citizenry.
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.