Introduction & Summary
The Constitution of India provides for a parliamentary system of government, both at the Centre and in the states. This system, largely inspired by the British Westminster model, is founded on the principle of cooperation and coordination between the legislative and executive organs.
In this setup, the executive is drawn from the legislature and remains responsible to it. Key features include a dual executive, majority party rule, collective responsibility, and the leadership of the Prime Minister/Chief Minister. The choice of this system was deliberate, prioritizing responsibility over stability and aiming to accommodate India's vast diversity.
While it has several merits, it also faces challenges in the Indian context, leading to occasional debates about its suitability compared to a presidential system.
Key Source: M. Laxmikanth - Indian Polity, Chapter 12; NCERT Class XI - Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 4
Forms of Government: Parliamentary vs. Presidential
Modern democratic governments are broadly classified based on the relationship between their executive and legislative branches.
Parliamentary System
- Executive (Council of Ministers) is responsible to the legislature for its policies and acts.
- Head of Government (Prime Minister) is typically different from the Head of State (President or Monarch).
- Fusion of powers: Executive drawn from and responsible to the Legislature.
- Examples: India, UK, Canada, Japan.
Presidential System
- Executive is not responsible to the legislature and is constitutionally independent.
- Head of Government is also usually the Head of State (President).
- Separation of powers: Executive largely independent of direct legislative control.
- Examples: USA, Brazil, most Latin American countries.
The primary basis for this classification is the nature of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government.
Features of Indian Parliamentary System
India adopted the parliamentary system based on the British model (Westminster model). Its features are evident both at the Centre (Union) and in the States.
Dual Executive
Nominal Executive (Head of State): President (Centre, Art. 53) & Governor (State, Art. 154). They are de jure heads.
Real Executive (Head of Government): Prime Minister (Centre, Art. 74) & Chief Minister (State, Art. 163). They are de facto heads.
Majority Party Rule
The political party (or coalition) securing an absolute majority in the Lower House (Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabha) forms the government. Its leader is appointed PM by President (Art. 75(1)) or CM by Governor (Art. 164(1)).
Collective Responsibility
"The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People (Lok Sabha)." (Art. 75(3)). They "swim and sink together." A no-confidence motion against one is against all.
Individual Responsibility
"Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the President." (Art. 75(2)). This means individual ministers can be removed by the President/Governor on the advice of the PM/CM.
Political Homogeneity
Generally, ministers belong to the same political party and share ideology. In coalitions, they are bound by a common minimum programme, ensuring overall consensus.
Membership of Legislature
Ministers must be members of either House of Parliament/State Legislature. If not, they must become one within six months (Art. 75(5)/164(4)), ensuring executive accountability.
Leadership of PM/CM
The Prime Minister/Chief Minister is the pivotal leader of the Council of Ministers, directing policy, allocating portfolios, and guiding all ministerial activities.
Dissolution of Lower House
The President (Art. 85(2)(b)) or Governor (Art. 174(2)(b)) can dissolve the Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabha before its term on the advice of the PM/CM, seeking a fresh mandate.
Secrecy of Procedure
Ministers operate under an oath of secrecy (Third Schedule), preventing them from divulging cabinet proceedings or government decisions before official announcement.
Why India Adopted the Parliamentary System
The Constituent Assembly carefully considered various models before choosing the parliamentary system. Here's why:
India had extensive experience with the parliamentary system during British rule, notably through the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935.
This pre-existing familiarity made it easier for the framers and citizens to understand and operate the system, as argued by K.M. Munshi in the Constituent Assembly.
The framers prioritized a government that was continuously accountable to the people's representatives. The executive can be removed through a no-confidence motion, ensuring daily assessment of responsibility.
"The Parliamentary system differs from a non-Parliamentary system in as much as the former is more responsible than the latter but also less stable... The American system gives more stability but less responsibility." - Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates.
The strict separation of powers in a presidential system (like the USA) can lead to frequent deadlocks between the executive and legislature. The parliamentary system, with its fusion of powers, promotes harmony and cooperation.
India's vast diversity (linguistic, religious, ethnic, caste) made the parliamentary system more appealing. It allows for a broader and more inclusive representation of varied sections and interests in the government's executive branch.
Merits & Demerits in Indian Context
Merits of Parliamentary System
- Harmony Between Legislature & Executive: Since the executive is drawn from the legislature, there's greater cooperation, facilitating smoother policy implementation.
- Responsible Government: Ministers are constantly accountable through various parliamentary mechanisms (question hour, no-confidence motions), ensuring responsiveness.
- Prevents Despotism: Authority is diffused among the Council of Ministers, and parliamentary scrutiny checks against autocratic tendencies, limiting executive power.
- Provides an Alternative Government: If the ruling party loses majority, a new government can be formed by the opposition leader without immediate fresh elections, ensuring continuity.
- Wide Representation: The PM can select ministers to ensure geographical, social, and communal balance, making the government more inclusive and representative of India's diversity.
Demerits/Challenges in Indian Context
Hung parliaments and reliance on unstable coalitions can lead to frequent government changes due to defections or withdrawal of support (e.g., 1990s), hindering governance.
Changes in ruling parties, especially ideologically diverse coalitions, can lead to abrupt policy reversals or abandonment of previous projects, affecting long-term development.
When a single party has an overwhelming majority, the cabinet (and PM) can become extremely powerful, potentially autocratic, reducing meaningful parliamentary oversight.
The fusion of powers is seen by some as contrary to the principle of separation of powers, a key democratic safeguard against tyranny. India, however, relies on checks and balances within its constitutionalism.
Ministers are often chosen based on political considerations, not necessarily expertise. This can lead to inefficient governance, unlike presidential systems where experts can be appointed irrespective of legislative membership.
Concerns exist about diminishing quality of debates, frequent disruptions, reduced effectiveness of committees, and increased use of ordinances, eroding Parliament's oversight.
While aimed at stability, the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule) can stifle dissent within parties, bind legislators by party whip (reducing accountability to constituents), and hasn't fully prevented mass defections.
Indian vs. British Parliamentary Models
While India adopted the British model, there are some fundamental differences:
| Feature | Indian Parliamentary System | British Parliamentary System |
|---|---|---|
| Head of State | Republican: Elected President (indirectly). | Monarchical: Hereditary Monarch (King/Queen). |
| Sovereignty | Constitutional Supremacy: Parliament's powers limited by written Constitution, FRs, Judicial Review, Basic Structure Doctrine. | Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament is supreme. "Parliament can do everything but make a woman a man and a man a woman." |
| Prime Minister's Membership | PM can be a member of either House (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha). (e.g., Manmohan Singh from Rajya Sabha). | By convention, PM must be a member of the Lower House (House of Commons). |
| Legal Responsibility of Ministers | No system of legal responsibility. President acts on aid and advice; orders don't require ministerial countersignature for legality. | System of legal responsibility exists. Every official act of the Crown must be countersigned by a minister, who is legally responsible. |
| Shadow Cabinet | Not formally institutionalized to the same extent. Opposition plays its role but no formal, funded "Shadow Cabinet." | Well-developed and recognized Shadow Cabinet by official opposition, ready to take office. |
| Nature of Constitution | Written Constitution. | Unwritten Constitution (largely based on conventions, statutes, common law). |
| Judicial Review | Extensive power of judicial review by Supreme Court and High Courts. | Limited scope of judicial review concerning primary legislation due to parliamentary sovereignty. |
Presidential System of Government – A Comparison
To better understand the parliamentary system, it's useful to briefly compare it with the presidential system, exemplified by the USA.
Key Features (e.g., USA)
- Single Executive: President is both Head of State and Head of Government.
- Separation of Powers: Distinct executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
- Separately Elected: President and legislators elected independently for fixed terms.
- Not Accountable to Legislature: President and cabinet are not members of or directly responsible to the legislature (except impeachment).
- Fixed Term: President enjoys a fixed tenure.
- Presidential Veto: President often has veto power over legislation.
Merits
- Stability: Fixed tenure provides governmental stability, free from legislative whims.
- Expertise: President can appoint experts to departments, irrespective of legislative membership.
- Clear Separation: Distinct division of powers can prevent tyranny and promote efficiency within each branch.
- Swift Decision Making: Single executive can take quick and decisive actions, especially in emergencies.
Demerits
- Conflict: Frequent deadlocks if President and legislature are controlled by different parties.
- Non-Responsible: Executive is not directly accountable to legislature daily, leading to unresponsiveness.
- Potential for Autocracy: Concentration of vast powers in one individual can lead to authoritarian tendencies.
- Narrow Representation: Cabinet might not be as broadly representative of diverse societal interests.
Debates on Suitability / Calls for Presidential System
Occasional debates arise in India regarding the suitability of the parliamentary system, with some advocating for a shift to a presidential system.
Arguments for Presidential System
- Stability: Could provide greater governmental stability, free from defections and coalition politics.
- Decisiveness: A directly elected President with a fixed term could take more decisive actions.
- Attracting Talent: Allows for domain experts to be appointed to ministerial positions without needing to be legislators.
- Curbing Defections: Reduces the incentive for legislators to defect to topple governments.
- (Notable figures like L.K. Advani and Shashi Tharoor have, at different times, suggested a re-look.)
Arguments Against Presidential System
- Loss of Accountability: Reduces day-to-day executive accountability to the legislature; loses Ambedkar's vision of 'daily assessment of responsibility'.
- Risk of Authoritarianism: A powerful, directly elected President in diverse India could lead to authoritarianism despite separation of powers.
- Unsuitability for Diversity: Parliamentary system is better for diverse representation through a cabinet; Presidential system might lead to exclusion.
- Executive-Legislature Deadlocks: Risk of severe gridlock if President and legislature are at odds.
- Basic Structure Doctrine: A complete shift might be challenged as violating the 'parliamentary system' as part of the Constitution's basic structure (though debatable).
The Swaran Singh Committee (1975)
This committee, while primarily focused on other constitutional amendments during the Emergency, briefly considered the parliamentary vs. presidential debate. It did NOT recommend a switch to the presidential system, believing the parliamentary system was better suited for India and needed strengthening, not replacement.
The debate resurfaces periodically, but there is no widespread consensus for a shift. Most experts and parties favor reforms within the existing parliamentary structure.
Prelims-Ready Notes: Quick Recap
Key Takeaways
- Forms of Govt: Parliamentary (Exec responsible to Leg; UK, India) vs. Presidential (Exec independent of Leg; USA). Basis: Exec-Leg relationship.
- Indian Features: Dual Exec (Nominal & Real), Majority Rule, Collective Responsibility (Art 75(3)/164(2)), Individual Responsibility (Art 75(2)/164(1)), Political Homogeneity, Legislature Membership, PM/CM Leadership, Dissolution of Lower House, Secrecy.
- Reasons for Adoption: Familiarity, Preference for Responsibility, Avoid Exec-Leg conflicts, Suitability for diversity.
Comparisons & Challenges
- Merits: Harmony, Responsible, Prevents despotism, Alternative govt, Wide representation.
- Demerits/Challenges: Instability, Policy discontinuity, Cabinet dictatorship, Against strict separation, Amateurs, Decline in debate, Anti-Defection issues.
- India vs. UK: India (Republican, Const. Supremacy, PM from any House); UK (Monarchical, Parl. Sovereignty, PM from Commons, Legal responsibility, Shadow Cabinet).
- Presidential System: Single Exec, Separation of Powers, Fixed Term. Merits: Stability, Expertise. Demerits: Conflict, Non-responsible, Potential autocracy.
- Suitability Debate: Calls for Presidential (stability, decisiveness) vs. Retaining Parliamentary (accountability, representation). Swaran Singh Committee (1975) did NOT recommend presidential system.
Summary Table: Parliamentary vs. Presidential System
| Feature | Parliamentary System (e.g., India, UK) | Presidential System (e.g., USA) |
|---|---|---|
| Executive | Dual (Nominal & Real) | Single (President is both) |
| Executive-Legislature | Fusion of powers; Executive from & responsible to Legislature. | Separation of powers; Executive largely independent of Legislature. |
| Accountability | Collective responsibility to Lower House. | President not responsible to Legislature for daily acts. |
| Membership in Leg. | Ministers MUST be members of Legislature (or within 6 months). | President & Secretaries are NOT members of Legislature. |
| Dissolution of Leg. | Lower House can be dissolved by Head of State on PM's advice. | Legislature cannot be dissolved by President. |
| Tenure of Executive | Not fixed; depends on confidence of Legislature. | Fixed term for President. |
| Head of Government | Prime Minister | President |
| Focus | Responsibility | Stability |