Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 35

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE: ROLE OF PRESIDENT: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH US


PRESIDENT

SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- II

NAME OF THE FACULTY: MR. A. NAGESHWRA RAO

Name of the Candidate: KUMARI SAUMYA


Roll No.2013060 & Semester-VIth

1 | Page

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that my Project Work entitled ROLE OF PRESIDENT: COMPARATIVE


ANALYSIS WITH US PRESIDENT Submitted by kumari saumya is the record of work
carried out during semester-VI of third Year B.A. LL.B. Course for the academic year 20132018 under my Supervision and guidance in conformity with the syllabus prescribed by
Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University.
Place: Visakhapatnam.

2 | Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank my Guide and faculty of constitution, Mr A. Nageshwara Rao
for giving an opportunity to undertake this work and successfully accomplishing the same.
I would also like to thank him for his valuable guidance and for being a solvency of
inspiration and encouragement enabling the work and to complete the work successful.
Last but not the least I would like to thank all the background supports who have spent their
valuable time to support me throughout my project work.
Place: Visakhapatnam

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I...................................................................................................................8

3 | Page

1.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................8
CHAPTER II..................................................................................................................9
POWERS AND DUTIES OF INDIAN AND US PRESIDENT....................................................9
2.1 INDIAN PRESIDENT:............................................................................................9
2.1.1 Duties..........................................................................................................9
2.1.2 Legislative powers.......................................................................................9
2.1.3 Executive powers.......................................................................................10
2.1.4 Appointment powers..................................................................................11
2.1.5 Financial powers........................................................................................12
2.1.6 Judicial powers...........................................................................................12
2.1.7 Diplomatic powers......................................................................................12
2.1.8 Military powers..........................................................................................12
2.1.9 Pardoning Powers......................................................................................12
2.1.10 PARDONING POWER UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW:...........................................14
2.1.11 TYPES OF PARDON:...................................................................................14
2.1.12 Emergency powers...................................................................................15
2.1.13 Ordinance making power..........................................................................16
2.2 UNITED STATE PRESIDENT:................................................................................19
2.2.1 Article I legislative role...............................................................................19
2.2.2 Article II executive powers..........................................................................20
2.2.3 Administrative powers................................................................................20
2.2.4 Juridical powers..........................................................................................21
2.2.5 Legislative facilitator..................................................................................21
CHAPTER III...............................................................................................................22
3.1 ELECTION PROCESS OF INDIAN AND US PRESIDENT............................................22
3.1.1 INDIAN PRESIDENT.....................................................................................22
3.1.2 ELECTION OF US PRESIDENT.......................................................................23
CHAPTER VI...............................................................................................................24
4.1 IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE OF INDIAN AND US PRESIDENT................................24
4.1.1 Indian president:........................................................................................24
4.1.2 U.S. President............................................................................................25
CHAPTER V................................................................................................................27
5.1 INDIAN v. U.S. PRESIDENT................................................................................27
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................33
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................34
Books referred.......................................................................................................34
Websites................................................................................................................34

LIST OF CASES
1) Madhav Rao Scindia v. UOI
2) Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab
4 | Page

3) Kehar Singh v. Union of India


4) Kuljeet Singh v. Lt. Governor
5) G. Krishna Goud v. State of Andhra Pradesh
6) Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P
7) State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh
8) Maru Ram v Union of India
9) Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v State of West Bengal
10) Ranga Billa case
11) Kehar Singh v Union of India
12) K.M. Nanavati v State of Bombay
13) Bhagat Singh v. King Emperor
14) Lakhi Narayan v. State of Bihar
15) King Emperor v. Benoari Lal
16) S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. v. State of Bihar
17) Bank Nationalisation case
18) A.K. Roy v. Union of India
19) R.K. Garg v. union of India
20) D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar
21) Clinton v. City of New York
22) United States v. Nixon
23) Clinton v. Jones
24) Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan
25) Presidential Poll
26) 'Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr
27) United States v. Nixon

ABSTRACT
The best way to compare US Presidential election with Indias Lok Sabha elections is
analysing both countries election processes.
India is the worlds largest democratic country and the Election Commission is the apex body
that conducts the elections. Both the general and the assembly elections in India are held in
accordance with the clear rules laid down by the Election Commission of India.
The citizens of India are trusted with the responsibility to choose the head of the country as
well as of the state. There are both General and State elections that are held in the country
based on the Federal structure of the Indian Republic.
India follows a bicameral legislative structure. The members to the House of the People or
the Lok Sabha are elected through the General elections. These members are chosen from the
5 | Page

parliamentary constituencies. The number of parliamentary constituencies in a state depends


upon the size and the population of the state. The executive along with the Council of
Ministers is chosen from among the members of the winning party or the ruling coalition, as
the case may be.
The basic process of selecting the President of the United States is spelled out in the U.S.
Constitution, and it has been modified by the 12th, 22nd, and 23rd amendments. United
States Presidential Election Process is mainly carried out by the electors who are the peoples
representatives in various states. The first step is the selection of the "delegates". The
delegates are chosen by the various states of the US. Many of the states use "presidential
primary", while some use a series of "caucuses and conventions".
The process of electing candidates at the state level is done in three steps. They are the
Primaries and Caucuses, National Conventions and General (or Popular) Election. The
delegates are chosen at local caucuses and later narrowed at district conventions. The
candidates of the two major parties are finalized only at the state conventions. The delegates
representing each state go to national conventions. This is the final step. At the national
conventions, the respective parties officially announce their candidates and the process of
general election begins.

CHAPTER I
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The President of India is the Head of State and the Supreme Commander of the Indian Armed
Forces.1 The President is indirectly elected by the people through elected members of both
the houses of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of New Delhi and Puducherry and
serves for a renewable term of five years. The oath of the President is taken in the presence of
the Chief Justice of India and in his/her absence, by the most senior judge of the Supreme
Court.
Although Article 53 of the Constitution of India states that the President can exercise his
powers directly or by subordinate authority, with few exceptions, all of the executive
authorities vested in the President is, in practice, exercised by the Prime Minister with the
1 President of India
6 | Page

help of the Council of Ministers. The President of India resides in an estate in New Delhi
known as the Rashtrapati Bhavan.2
The President of the United States is considered one of the world's most powerful people,
leading the world's only contemporary superpower. The role includes being the commanderin-chief of the world's most expensive military with the largest nuclear arsenal and leading
the largest economy by real and nominal GDP. The office of the president holds significant
hard and soft power both in the United States and abroad.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power of the United States in the
president. The power includes execution of federal law, alongside the responsibility of
appointing federal executive, diplomatic, regulatory and judicial officers, and concluding
treaties with foreign powers with the advice and consent of the Senate. The president is
further empowered to grant federal pardons and reprieves, and to convene and adjourn either
or both houses of Congress under extraordinary circumstances.3 The president is largely
responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of the party to which the president is enrolled.
The president also directs the foreign and domestic policy of the United States.

CHAPTER II

POWERS AND DUTIES OF INDIAN AND US PRESIDENT


2.1 INDIAN PRESIDENT:
2.1.1 Duties
The primary duty of the President is to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and the
law of India as made part of his oath (Article 60 of Indian constitution). The President is the
common head of all independent constitutional entities. All his actions, recommendations
2 Larson, Gerald James (1995). India's Agony Over Religion. SUNY Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-79142411-7.
3 Transcript of the Constitution of the United States Official". Archives.gov. Retrieved march 4,
2016.
7 | Page

(Article 3, Article 111, etc.) and supervisory powers (Article 78 c, Article 108, Article 111,
etc.) over the executive and legislative entities of India shall be used in accordance to uphold
the constitution. 4There is no bar on the actions of the President to contest in the court of law.5
2.1.2 Legislative powers
Legislative power is constitutionally vested by the Parliament of India of which the president
is the head, to facilitate the law making process as per the constitution (Article 78, Article 86,
etc.). The President summons both the Houses (the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha) of the
Parliament and prorogues them. He can dissolve the Lok Sabha. 6 As per Article 74, the
President shall abide by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime
Minister, provided the given advice is in accordance with the constitution. Article 143 gave
power to the president to consult the Supreme Court about the constitutional validity of any
issue.
All bills passed by the Parliament can become laws only after receiving the assent of the
President. After a bill is presented to him, the President shall declare either that he assents to
the Bill, or that he withholds his assent from it. As a third option, he can return a bill to
Parliament, if it is not a money bill or a constitutional amendment bill, for reconsideration.
When, after reconsideration, the bill is passed and presented to the President, with or without
amendments, the President cannot withhold his assent from it. The President can also
withhold his assent to a bill when it is initially presented to him (rather than return it to
Parliament) thereby exercising a pocket veto.7
When either of the two Houses of the Parliament of India is not in session, and if the
government feels the need for an immediate procedure, the President can promulgate
ordinances which have the same force and effect as laws passed by Parliament. These are in
the nature of interim or temporary legislation and their continuance is subject to
4 Bhatt, Sheela (June 9, 2006). "How Kalam asserted presidential power". Rediff India. Retrieved
march 15, 2016.
5 Invalid Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (page 8)". Retrieved 3 march, 2016.
6 Sharma, Brij Kishore (2007). Introduction to the Constitution of India. PHI Learning. ISBN 97881-203-3246
7 Gupta, V. P. (26 August 2002). "The President's role". The Times of India. Retrieved 4 January
2016.
8 | Page

parliamentary approval. Ordinances remain valid for no more than six weeks from the date
the Parliament is convened unless approved by it earlier.
2.1.3 Executive powers
As per Article 53, the executive power of the country is vested in the President and is
exercised by President either directly or through officers subordinates to him in accordance
with the Constitution. Union cabinet with Prime Minister as its head, should aid and advice
the President in performing his functions. As per Article 74 (2), the council of ministers or
Prime Minister are not accountable legally to the advice tendered to the President but it is the
sole responsibility of the President to ensure compliance with the constitution in performing
his duties.
The Supreme Court has observed in Madhav Rao Scindia v. UOI8 "The functions of the
state are classified as legislative, judicial and executive The executive function is the residue
which does not fall within the other two functions."To the same effect in Ram Jawaya v.
State of Punjab.9 The recognised schools in Punjab used only such text books as were
prescribed by the Education Department. In 1950, the Government embarked on the policy of
nationalising text books and, thus, took over the work of printing and publishing them. The
author of the book selected by the Government for the purpose by contract vested the
copyright of the book in the Government in lieu of royalty. The scheme was challenged on
the ground, inter alia, that the Executive could not engage in any trade or business activity
without any law being passed for the purpose.
The Supreme Court negatived the contention saying that the expenses necessary to carry on
the business of publishing text books had been approved by the Legislature in the
Appropriation Act. The Government required no additional power to carry on the business as
whatever was necessary for that purpose, it could secure by entering into contracts with
authors and other people. No private right was being infringed as the publishers were not
being debarred from publishing books. In the circumstances, the carrying on of the business
of publishing text books without a specific law sanctioning the same was not beyond the
competence of the Executive.

8 AIR 1971 SC 530.


9 AIR 1954 SC 156.
9 | Page

Following Ram Jawaya, the Supreme Court has held that the government can prescribe text
books for schools in the exercise of its executive power so long as it does not infringe the
rights of any one.
2.1.4 Appointment powers
The President is responsible for making a wide variety of appointments. These include:10

Governors of States
The Chief Justice, other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts of India
The Chief Minister of the National capital territory of Delhi (Article 239 AA 5 of the

constitution)
The Attorney General
The Comptroller and Auditor General
The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners
The Chairman and other Members of the Union Public Service Commission
Vice Chancellor of the central university and academic staff of the central university

through his nominee


Ambassadors and High Commissioners to other countries (only through the list of
names given by the Prime Minister).11

2.1.5 Financial powers

A money bill can be introduced in the Parliament only with the Presidents

recommendation.
The President lays the Annual Financial Statement, i.e. the Union budget, before the

Parliament.
The President can take advances out of the Contingency Fund of India to meet

unforeseen expenses.
The President constitutes a Finance commission after every five years to recommend
the distribution of the taxes between the Centre and the States.12

10 Kumar, Rajesh (2011). Universal's Guide to the Constitution of India. Universal Law Publishing.
ISBN 978-93-5035-011-9.
11 Bakshi, P. M. (2010). The Constitution Of India. Universal Law Publishing Company. ISBN 97881-7534-840-0
12 Pratiyogita Darpan (March 2007). "Pratiyogita Darpan" (9). Pratiyogita Darpan: 60. Retrieved
10 March 2016.
10 | P a g e

2.1.6 Judicial powers


The President appoints the Chief Justice of the Union Judiciary and other judges on the
advice of the Chief Justice. He dismisses the judges if and only if the two Houses of the
Parliament pass resolutions to that effect by a two-thirds majority of the members present.13
According to Article 143 of Indian Constitution, if the President considers a question of law
or a matter of public importance has arisen, he can ask for the advisory opinion of the
Supreme Court.
2.1.7 Diplomatic powers
All international treaties and agreements are negotiated and concluded on behalf of the
President. However, in practice, such negotiations are usually carried out by the Prime
Minister along with his Cabinet (especially the Foreign Minister). Also, such treaties are
subject to the approval of the Parliament. The President represents India in international
forums and affairs where such a function is chiefly ceremonial. The President may also send
and receive diplomats, i.e. the officers from the Indian Foreign Service. The President is the
first citizen of the country.
2.1.8 Military powers
The President is the Supreme Commander of the Indian Armed Forces. The President can
declare war or conclude peace, on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers headed by the
Prime Minister. All-important treaties and contracts are made in the President's name. He also
appoints the chiefs of the service branches of the armed forces.
2.1.9 Pardoning Powers
As mentioned in Article 72 of the Indian Constitution, the President is empowered with the
powers to grant pardons in the following situations:14

Punishment is for an offence against Union Law


Punishment is by a Military Court
Sentence is that of death

13 Woods, Patricia J. (2008). Judicial Power and National Politics: Courts and Gender in the
Religious-Secular Conflict in Israel.
14 Thorpe, Vandana (2008). The Pearson Guide To Bank Probationary Officer Recruitment
Examinations. Pearson Education India. p. 12. ISBN 978-81-317-1568-0.
11 | P a g e

The decisions involving pardoning and other rights by the President are independent of the
opinion of the Prime Minister or the Lok Sabha majority. In most cases, however, the
President exercises his executive powers on the advice of the Prime Minister and the cabinet.
The Supreme Court of India, in Kehar Singh v. Union of India,15 has preferred to adopt the
view propounded by Holmes, J., in the context of India. Pathak, CJ, has observed on behalf of
a unanimous Court:" The power to pardon is a part of the constitutional scheme, and we have
no doubt, in our mind, that it should be so treated also in the Indian Republic. It has been
reposed by the people through the Constitution in the Head of the State, and enjoys high
status. It is a constitutional responsibility of great significance, to be exercised when occasion
arises in accordance with the discretion contemplated by the context."
The matter again cropped up before the Court in Kuljeet Singh v. Lt. Governor,16 In a writ
petition, it was argued before the Supreme Court that under Art. 72, President's power is
coupled with a duty and that it must be exercised fairly and reasonably. Has the Government
formulated any uniform standard or guidelines by which the exercise of the constitutional
power under Art. 72 is intended to be or is in fact governed? The Court said that the question
was of far-reaching importance and that it was necessary that it be examined with care.
In G. Krishna Goud v. State of Andhra Pradesh 17 Two persons were sentenced to death for
committing murder in implementing their ideology of social justice through terrorist
technology. The President refused to commute the death sentence. Before the Supreme Court,
it was argued on their behalf that their crime was of a political nature which merited different
considerations. Rejecting the petition, the Supreme Court described the nature of the power
as follows:
"Article 72 designedly and benignantly vest in the highest executive the humane and vast
jurisdiction to remit, reprieve, respite, commute and pardon criminals on whom judicial
sentences may have been imposed. Historically, it is a sovereign power politically, it is a
residuary power humanistically, it is in aid of intangible justice where imponderable factors
operate for the wellbeing of the community, beyond the blinkered court process.
15 AIR 1989 SC 653.
16 AIR 1982 SC 774.
17AIR 1995 SC 208
12 | P a g e

In Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P 18 Kapadia J. in a concurring judgment, held that


considerations of religion, caste or political loyalty are irrelevant and prohibited. It was also
held that the power of executive clemency is not only for the benefit of the convict, but while
exercising such a power the President or the Governor, as the case may be, has to keep in
mind the effect of the decision on the family of the victim and society and the precedent it
sets for the future.
The Supreme Court has ruled in State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh19 that the power under
Art. 72 "is absolute and cannot be fettered by any statutory provision such as Ss. 432, 433
and 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be altered, modified or
interfered with in any manner whatsoever by any statutory provisions or Prison Rules.". A
decision of the President of India on a petition under Art. 72 is subject to judicial review but
on very limited grounds.
2.1.10 PARDONING POWER UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW:
There has always been a debate as to whether the power of the executive to pardon should be
subjected to judicial review or not. Supreme Court in a catena of cases has laid down the law
relating to judicial review of pardoning power.
In Maru Ram v Union of India20, the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the
power under Article 72 is to be exercised on the advice of the Central Government and not by
the President on his own, and that the advice of the Government binds the head of the
Republic.
In Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v State of West Bengal21, the Supreme Court
reiterated its earlier stand in Maru Rams case and said:
The power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution can be exercised by the Central
and State Governments, not by the President or Governor on their own. The advice of the
appropriate Government binds the Head of the state.
18 AIR 2006 SC 3385
19 AIR 1963 SC 913
20 AIR 1986 SC 320
21 AIR 1976 SC 225
13 | P a g e

The Supreme Court in Ranga Billa case22 was once again called upon to decide the nature
and ambit of the pardoning power of the President of India under Article 72 of the
Constitution. In this case, death sentence of one of the appellants was confirmed by the
Supreme Court. His mercy petition was also rejected by the President. Then, the appellant
filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the discretion of the President to grant
pardon on the ground that no reasons were given for rejection of his mercy petition. The court
dismissed the petition and observed that the term pardon itself signifies that it is entirely a
discretionary remedy and grant or rejection of it need not to be reasoned.
2.1.11 TYPES OF PARDON:
Commutation: commutation means exchange of one thing for another. Here it means
substitution of one form of punishment for another of a lighter character for example rigorous
imprisonment into simple imprisonment.
Remission: it means reduction of amount of sentence without changing its character,e.g a
sentence of one year may be remitted to 6 months.
Respite: respite means awarding a lesser punishment on some special grounds,e.g the
pregnancy of a women offender.
Reprive: Reprive means temporary suspension of death sentence,e.g pending a proceeding
for pardon or commutation.
Supreme Court once again in Kehar Singh v Union of India reiterated its earlier stand and
held that the grant of pardon by the President is an act of grace and, therefore, cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. The power exercisable by the President being exclusively of
administrative nature, is not justiciable.
In the early case of K.M. Nanavati v State of Bombay , Governor granted reprieve under
Article 161 which was held unconstitutional as it was in contrast with the Supreme Court
rulings under Article 145.

22 AIR 1993 SC 403


14 | P a g e

2.1.12 Emergency powers


The President can declare three types of emergencies: national, state and financial, under
articles 352, 356 & 360 in addition to promulgating ordinances under article 123.
National emergency
A national emergency can be declared in the whole of India or a part of its territory for causes
of war or armed rebellion or an external aggression. Under Article 352 of the India
Constitution, the President can declare such an emergency only on the basis of a written
request by the Cabinet Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. Such a proclamation must be
approved by the Parliament within one month. Such an emergency can be imposed for six
months. It can be extended by six months by repeated parliamentary approval-there is no
maximum duration.
In such an emergency, Fundamental Rights of Indian citizens can be suspended. The six
freedoms under Right to Freedom are automatically suspended. However, the Right to Life
and Personal Liberty cannot be suspended.23
State emergency
If the President is fully satisfied, on the basis of the report of the Governor of the concerned
state or from other sources that the governance in a state cannot be carried out according to
the provisions in the Constitution, he can proclaim under Article 356 a state of emergency in
the state. Such an emergency must be approved by the Parliament within a period of 2
months.
Under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, it can be imposed from six months to a
maximum period of three years with repeated parliamentary approval every six months. If the
emergency needs to be extended for more than three years, this can be achieved by a
constitutional amendment, as has happened in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir.
During such an emergency, the President can take over the entire work of the executive, and
the Governor administers the state in the name of the President. The Legislative Assembly

23 Arora, N.D. (2010). Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination. Tata McGraw-Hill
Education.
15 | P a g e

can be dissolved or may remain in suspended animation. The Parliament makes laws on the
66 subjects of the state list.24
Financial emergency
Article 282 accords financial autonomy in spending the financial resources available with the
states for public purpose.
Under article 360 of the constitution, President can proclaim a financial emergency when the
financial stability or credit of the nation or of any part of its territory is threatened. However,
until now no guidelines defining the situation of financial emergency in the entire country or
a state or a union territory or a panchayat or a municipality or a corporation have been framed
either by the finance commission or by the central government.
Such an emergency must be approved by the Parliament within two months by simple
majority. It has never been declared.25 A state of financial emergency remains in force
indefinitely until revoked by the President.
The President can reduce the salaries of all government officials, including judges of the
Supreme Court and High Courts, in cases of a financial emergency. All money bills passed by
the State legislatures are submitted to the President for approval. He can direct the state to
observe certain principles (economy measures) relating to financial matters.26
2.1.13 Ordinance making power
Issuing an ordinance has been devised with a view to enabling the Executive to meet any
unforeseen or urgent situation arising in the country when Parliament is not in session, and
which it cannot deal with under the ordinary law. Ordinarily, under the Constitution, the
President is not the repository of the legislative power of the Union. This power belongs to
Parliament. But, with a view to meet extraordinary situations demanding immediate
enactment of laws, the Constitution makes provision to invest the President with legislative

24 New ICSE History and Civics. Frank Brothers. p. 3.


25 Sharma, Kanhaiyalal (2002). Reconstitution of Constitution of India. Deep and Deep
Publications.
26 general studies Indian polity. Upkar Prakashan. p. 106. Retrieved 12 March 2016.
16 | P a g e

power to promulgate ordinances. An ordinance is only a temporary law. The executive in


Britain or the U.S.A. enjoys no such power.
Article 123 empowers the President to promulgate such ordinances as the circumstances
appear to him to require when:
(1) Both Houses of Parliament are not in session and
(2) He is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take
immediate action.
In Bhagat Singh v. King Emperor,27 Lord Dunedin observed: "Who is to be judge of
whether a state of emergency exists? A state of emergency is something that does not permit
of any exact definition. It connotes a state of matters calling for drastic action which is to be
judged as such by someone. It is more than obvious that someone must be the Governor
General and he alone. Any other view would render utterly inept the whole provision.
Emergency demands immediate action, and that action is prescribed to be taken by the
Governor General. It is he alone who can promulgate the ordinance." In Lakhi Narayan v.
State of Bihar,28 the Federal Court had observed that whether the requisite circumstances
existed for promulgating the ordinance was a 'matter which is not within the competence of
courts to investigate. The language of the provision shows clearly that it is the Governor and
Governor alone who has got to satisfy himself as to the existence of circumstances
necessitating the promulgation of an ordinance. The existence of such necessity is not a
justiciable matter which the courts could be called upon to determine by applying an
objective test." In King Emperor v. Benoari Lal,29 the Privy Council emphasized that the
Governor General was not required by the constitutional provision to state that there was an
emergency, or what the emergency was, either in the text of the ordinance or at all, and
assuming that "he acts bona fide and in accordance with his statutory powers it cannot rest
with the courts to challenge his view that the emergency exists".

27 AIR 1960 SC 2015


28 AIR 1964 SC 227
29 AIR 1968 SC 2049
17 | P a g e

In S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. v. State of Bihar 30 the Supreme Court stated as regards Governor's
satisfaction to make an ordinance under Art. 213 (which is similar to Art. 123) that "the
necessity of immediate action and of promulgating an ordinance is a matter purely for the
subjective satisfaction of the Governor. He is the sole judge as to the existence of the
circumstances necessitating the making of an ordinance. His satisfaction is not a justiciable
matter. It cannot be questioned on the ground of error of judgment or otherwise in a court."
Thus, on the basis of these cases, it could be asserted that an enquiry into the question of
satisfaction of the President as to the need for promulgating an ordinance is not a justiciable
matter.
But in the Bank Nationalisation case,31the constitutional validity of the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969, was challenged. By this
ordinance, the Central Government nationalised a number of private banks. It was argued that
the Ordinance was invalid because the condition precedent to the exercise of the power under
Art. 123 did not exist. It was argued that Art. 123 does not make the President as the final
arbiter of the exercise of the conditions on which the power to promulgate an ordinance may
be exercised. On the other hand, the Government's argument was that "the condition of
satisfaction of the President" "is purely subjective" and the Government was "under no
obligation to disclose the existence of, or to justify the circumstances of the necessity to take
immediate action". But as the Ordinance had been replaced by an Act of Parliament, the
Supreme Court left the question open saying that the question had become 'academic'.33
Again, in A.K. Roy v. Union of India,32 the Supreme Court has emphasized that an
ordinance is law and is a product of exercise of legislative power. It is 'law' for the purposes
of Art. 21. The Court has rejected the contention in R.K. Garg v. union of India 33 that under
Art. 123, the President has no power to issue an ordinance amending or altering the tax laws.
An ordinance has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. There is no qualitative
difference between an ordinance and an Act passed by Parliament. President's legislative
30 AIR 2006 SC 465
31 AIR 2003 SC 489
32 AIR 1997 SC 3067
33 AIR 1998 SC 122
18 | P a g e

power under Art. 123 is coextensive with Parliament's power to make laws and, therefore, no
limitation can be read into the legislative power of the President so as to make it ineffective to
alter or amend tax laws. Conversely, it would also mean that an ordinance cannot do what
Parliament could not do by enacting an Act.
Supreme Court in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar.34 The Court trenchantly criticised this
practice characterising it as anti-democratic. The Court insisted that the government cannot
bypass
the legislature and keep ordinances alive indefinitely without enacting their provisions into
Acts of legislature. Wadhwa's case has been taken note of in the discussion on the ordinance
making power of the State Governments [Art. 213] which is on all fours with the ordinance
making power of the Centre.

2.2 UNITED STATE PRESIDENT:


2.2.1 Article I legislative role
The first power the Constitution confers upon the president is the veto. The Presentment
Clause requires any bill passed by Congress to be presented to the president before it can
become law. Once the legislation has been presented, the president has three options:
1. Sign the legislation the bill then becomes law.
2. Veto the legislation and return it to Congress, expressing any objections the bill does
not become law, unless each house of Congress votes to override the veto by a twothirds vote.
3. Take no action. In this instance, the president neither signs nor vetoes the legislation.

After 10 days, not counting Sundays, two possible outcomes emerge:


If Congress is still convened, the bill becomes law.

34 AIR 1968 SC 2029


19 | P a g e

If Congress has adjourned, thus preventing the return of the legislation, the bill does
not become law. This latter outcome is known as the pocket veto.

In Clinton v. City of New York 35 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such a legislative alteration
of the veto power to be unconstitutional.
2.2.2 Article II executive powers
War and foreign affairs powers
Perhaps the most important of all presidential powers is the command of the United States
Armed Forces as its commander-in-chief. While the power to declare war is constitutionally
vested in Congress, the president has ultimate responsibility for direction and disposition of
the military. The present-day operational command of the Armed Forces (belonging to the
Department of Defence) is normally exercised through the Secretary of Defence, with
assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the Combatant Commands, as
outlined in the presidentially approved Unified Command Plan (UCP). 36The framers of the
Constitution took care to limit the president's powers regarding the military.37

2.2.3 Administrative powers


The president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government and is
constitutionally obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The executive
branch has over four million employees, including members of the military.38
Presidents make numerous executive branch appointments: an incoming president may make
up to 6,000 before taking office and 8,000 more while serving. Ambassadors, members of the
Cabinet, and other federal officers, are all appointed by a president with the "advice and
consent" of a majority of the Senate. When the Senate is in recess for at least ten days, the
35 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
36 Joint Chiefs of Staff. About the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
37 DOD Releases Unified Command Plan 2011". United States Department of Defense. April 8,
2011. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
38 The Executive Branch". The White House website. Retrieved march 17.2016.
20 | P a g e

president may make recess appointments.39 Recess appointments are temporary and expire at
the end of the next session of the Senate.
The power of a president to fire executive officials has long been a contentious political issue.
Generally, a president may remove purely executive officials at will. However, Congress can
curtail and constrain a president's authority to fire commissioners of independent regulatory
agencies and certain inferior executive officers by statute.
2.2.4 Juridical powers
The president also has the power to nominate federal judges, including members of the
United States courts of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. However, these
nominations do require Senate confirmation. Securing Senate approval can provide a major
obstacle for presidents who wish to orient the federal judiciary toward a particular ideological
stance. When nominating judges to U.S. district courts, presidents often respect the longstanding tradition of Senatorial courtesy. Presidents may also grant pardons and reprieves, as
is often done just before the end of a presidential term, not without controversy.40
Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon,41 that executive privilege did not apply in
cases where a president was attempting to avoid criminal prosecution. When President Bill
Clinton attempted to use executive privilege regarding the Lewinsky scandal, the Supreme
Court ruled in Clinton v. Jones,42 that the privilege also could not be used in civil suits.
These cases established the legal precedent that executive privilege is valid, although the
exact extent of the privilege has yet to be clearly defined. In Mohamed v. Jeppesen
Dataplan,

43

Critics of the privilege claim its use has become a tool for the government to

cover up illegal or embarrassing government actions.


39 National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, 572 U.S. (2016)
40 Peter Eisler (March 7, 2008). "Clinton-papers release blocked". USA TODAY. Retrieved march
8,2016.
41 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
42 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
43Savage, Charlie (September 8, 2010). "Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by C.I.A". The
New York Times. Retrieved march 8, 2016.
21 | P a g e

2.2.5 Legislative facilitator


The Constitution's Ineligibility Clause prevents the President (and all other executive
officers) from simultaneously being a member of Congress. Therefore, the president cannot
directly introduce legislative proposals for consideration in Congress. However, the president
can take an indirect role in shaping legislation, especially if the president's political party has
a majority in one or both houses of Congress. For example, the president or other officials of
the executive branch may draft legislation and then ask senators or representatives to
introduce these drafts into Congress. The president can further influence the legislative
branch through constitutionally mandated, periodic reports to Congress. These reports may be
either written or oral, but today are given as the State of the Union address, which often
outlines the president's legislative proposals for the coming year. Additionally, the president
may attempt to have Congress alter proposed legislation by threatening to veto that
legislation unless requested changes are made.

22 | P a g e

CHAPTER III
3.1 ELECTION PROCESS OF INDIAN AND US PRESIDENT
3.1.1 INDIAN PRESIDENT
Whenever the office becomes vacant, the new President is chosen by an electoral college
consisting of the elected members of both houses of Parliament (M.P.s), the elected members
of the State Legislative Assemblies (Vidhan Sabha) of all States and the elected members of
the legislative assemblies (M.L.A.s) of two Union Territories (i.e., National Capital Territory
(NCT) of Delhi and Union Territory of Puducherry).
The nomination of a candidate for election to the office of the President must be subscribed
by at least 50 electors as proposers and 50 electors as seconders. Each candidate has to make
a security deposit of 15,000 (US$220) in the Reserve Bank of India. 44The security deposit is
liable to be forfeited in case the candidate fails to secure one-sixth of the votes polled.
The election is held in accordance to the system of Proportional representation by means of
the Single transferable vote method. The voting takes place by secret ballot system. The
manner of election of President is provided by Article 55 of the Constitution.45
Each elector casts a different number of votes. The general principle is that the total number
of votes cast by Members of Parliament equals the total number of votes cast by State
Legislators. Also, legislators from larger states cast more votes than those from smaller states.
Finally, the number of legislators in a state matters if a state has few legislators, then each
legislator has more votes if a state has many legislators, then each legislator has fewer votes.
The actual calculation for votes cast by a particular state is calculated by dividing the state's
population by 1000, which is divided again by the number of legislators from the State voting
in the Electoral College. This number is the number of votes per legislator in a given state.
Every elected member of the parliament enjoys the same number of votes, which may be
obtained by dividing the total number of votes assigned to the members of legislative
assemblies by the total number of elected representatives of the parliament.
44 Election to the president of India" (PDF). Election commission of India. p. 16. Retrieved 27
march 2016.
45 Great Britain. Ministry of Overseas Development. Library; Great Britain. Overseas Development
Administration. Library.
23 | P a g e

Although Indian presidential elections involve actual voting by MPs and MLAs, they tend to
vote for the candidate supported by their respective parties.46
In its advisory opinion in In re, Presidential Poll,47 the Supreme Court has ruled that the
election of the President can be held when a State Assembly has been dissolved under Art.
356 and its members are unable to participate in the election.
Article 71(4) protects President's election from being challenged on the ground of the
existence of any vacancy for whatever reason among the members of the Electoral College
electing him. The language of this provision is wide enough to cover vacancies arising in the
electoral college because a State Assembly is dissolved.
3.1.2 ELECTION OF US PRESIDENT
The president is elected indirectly. A number of electors, collectively known as the Electoral
College, officially select the president. On Election Day, voters in each of the states and the
District of Columbia cast ballots for these electors. Each state is allocated a number of
electors, equal to the size of its delegation in both Houses of Congress combined. Generally,
the ticket that wins the most votes in a state wins all of that state's electoral votes and thus has
its slate of electors chosen to vote in the Electoral College.
The winning slate of electors meets at its state's capital on the first Monday after the second
Wednesday in December, about six weeks after the election, to vote. They then send a record
of that vote to Congress. The vote of the electors is opened by the sitting vice president acting
in that role's capacity as President of the Senate and read aloud to a joint session of the
incoming Congress, which was elected at the same time as the president.
Pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment, the president's term of office begins at noon on
January 20 of the year following the election. This date, known as Inauguration Day, marks
the beginning of the four-year terms of both the president and the vice president. Before
executing the powers of the office, a president is constitutionally required to take the
presidential oath.

46 Balance of power in presidential race". NDTV. 22 May 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2016
47 AIR 1994 SC 445
24 | P a g e

CHAPTER VI
4.1 IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE OF INDIAN AND US PRESIDENT
4.1.1 Indian president:
The President may be removed before the expiry of the term through impeachment. A
President can be removed for violation of the Constitution of India 48 The process may start in
either of the two houses of the Parliament. The house initiates the process by levelling the
charges against the President. The charges are contained in a notice that has to be signed by at
least one quarter of the total members of that house. The notice is sent up to the President and
14 days later, it is taken up for consideration. A resolution to impeach the President has to be
passed by a two-third majority of the total number of members of the originating house. It is
then sent to the other house. The other house investigates the charges that have been made.
During this process, the President has the right to defend oneself through an authorised
counsel. If the second house also approves the charges made by special majority again, the
President stands impeached and is deemed to have vacated his/her office from the date when
such a resolution stands passed. No president has faced impeachment proceedings so the
above provisions have never been used.49
Supreme Court can remove the president for the electoral malpractices under Article 71(1) of
the constitution. Under Article 361 of the constitution, though president cannot be summoned
for questioning except on his voluntary willingness to testify in the court in support of his
controversial deeds, the unconstitutional decisions taken by the president would be declared
invalid by the courts. The case would be decided by the courts based on the facts furnished by
the union government for the president's role.

48 Article 56 (1) (b) and Article 61 of the Constitution of India.


49 Bhardwaj, A.P. Study Package For CLAT and LL.B Entrance Examinations. McGraw-Hill
Education (India). pp. 238239. ISBN 978-0-07-107468-1.
25 | P a g e

As clarified by the Supreme Court in the case 'Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of
India & Anr on 24 January 2006', though president cannot be prosecuted and imprisoned
during his term of office, he can be prosecuted after his term of office for the guilty
committed during his term of presidency as declared earlier by the courts. No president has
resigned on impropriety to continue in office for declaring and nullifying his unconstitutional
decisions by the courts till now. No criminal case at least on the grounds of disrespecting
constitution is lodged till now against former presidents to punish them for their
unconstitutional acts though many decisions taken during the term of presidency had been
declared by Supreme Court as unconstitutional, mala fides, void, ultra vires, etc.
4.1.2 U.S. President
The law of presidential powers and duties is ill-defined. Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in
1952 that there is "a poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority applicable to
concrete problems of executive power as they actually present themselves." 50 Two U.S.
Presidents have been impeached by the House of Representatives Andrew Johnson in 1868
and Bill Clinton in 1998 both later acquitted at trials held by the Senate. While articles of
impeachment against Richard Nixon were passed by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974,
Nixon resigned the Presidency before the impeachment resolutions could be considered by
the full House.51
When an impeachment process involves a U.S. President, the Chief Justice of the United
States is required to preside during the Senate trial. 52In all other trials, the Vice President
would preside in his capacity as President of the Senate.
United States v. Nixon53 was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It resulted
in a unanimous 80 ruling against President Richard Nixon and was important to the late
stages of the Watergate scandal. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any
US president.

50 John R. Labovitz, "Presidential Impeachment", p.132. (New Haven: Yale University Press 1978)
51 Kilpatrick, Carroll (August 9, 1974). "Nixon Resigns". The Washington Post.
52The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 3.
53 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
26 | P a g e

The Watergate scandal began during the 1972 Presidential campaign between Democratic
Senator George McGovern of South Dakota and President Nixon. On June 17, 1972, about
five months before the general election, five burglars broke into Democratic headquarters
located in the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C.
In May 1973, Nixon's Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, appointed Archibald Cox to the
position of special prosecutor, charged with investigating the break-in. In October 1973,
Nixon arranged to have Cox fired in the Saturday Night Massacre. However, public outrage
forced Nixon to appoint a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who was charged with
conducting the Watergate investigation for the government. Chief Justice Burger delivered
the unanimous decision. After ruling that the Court could indeed resolve the matter and that
Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations
relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of
executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified
Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."
Nixon resigned sixteen days later, on August 9, 1974.

27 | P a g e

CHAPTER V
5.1 INDIAN v. U.S. PRESIDENT
The functionary at the head of the Indian Union, like that of the U.S.A., is called the
President, but India's form of government is very different from that of the U.S.A. India has
parliamentary, and not presidential, form of government. India's form of government differs
substantially from that of America. Beyond the identity of names between the Indian and the
American Presidents, there is not much in common between them.
The position of the President of India is more akin to the British monarch rather than the
American President. He is the head of the state and only a formal, not an effective, head of
the Executive. The effective repository of the executive power is the Council of Ministers. On
the other hand, the U.S. President is both the head of the state as well as the effective head of
the Executive. The system is known as the presidential form of government because the
President is the chief executive. The administration of the country is vested in him.
The U.S. Constitution makes the President responsible for ensuring that the laws of the
country are faithfully executed.54
He alone is vested with the power to appoint and remove executive officers and, thus, can
effectively control the government departments. The President has under him Secretaries of
State in charge of different executive departments who are appointed by him and who are his
personal advisers. He is not bound to accept the advice tendered by them he enjoys ultimate
power of decision and therefore, has complete political responsibility for all executive action.
The President dominates the Cabinet completely as the Secretaries of State hold their offices
entirely at his pleasure and are accountable to him. They are merely the instruments through
54 Ch. XIII; B.C. Das, Impeachment of India's President: A Study of the Procedure, V JCPS 245
(1971).
28 | P a g e

whom the President's policy is carried out. As has been aptly said, "The cabinet is not a
device for sharing responsibility among a group it is a necessary result of the President's
inability to supervise all affairs directly."
The Indian President, on the other hand, acts generally on the advice of the Ministers. The
U.S. President is free to dismiss any of his Secretaries as and when he likes. The President of
India has a formal power to that effect but exercises it on the advice of the Prime Minister, or
when the Cabinet has forfeited the confidence of the Lok Sabha. The Secretaries of State in
the U.S.A., on the other hand, are neither responsible to Congress, nor are its members, nor
do they function on the basis of collective responsibility. This is very different from the
underlying principles on which the Executive functions in India.55
The truth of the matter is that America hardly has a Cabinet corresponding to the classic idea
of a Cabinet in the parliamentary form of government. "Because of his unfettered power of
removal over them and the fact that his tenure of office is not in any way dependent upon the
effect which his dismissal of the Cabinet members may have upon the Congress, the
President is able to dominate his Cabinet to an extent which would be almost impossible in
the case of a Prime Minister."56
The presidential form of government is based on the principle of Separation of Powers
between the executive and the legislative organs. The doctrine of Separation of Powers,
ascribed to Montesquieu, a Frenchman, exercised a potent influence on the public mind in the
18th century when the American Constitution was drafted. It envisaged that the legislative,
executive and judicial functions in a state ought to be kept separate and distinct from each
other. There ought to be separate organs for each, working together, but none of them should
be dependent on, and discharge the function
belonging to, the other, as for example, the Executive should have no legislative or judicial
power.57
The thesis underlying the doctrine is that the merger of all powers in one body will lead to
autocracy and negation of individual liberty. Basing itself on this doctrine, the American
Constitution vests the executive power in the President who is elected for a fixed term of four
55 Biman C. Bose v. H.C. Mookerjee, 56 CWN 651.
56 B.C. Das, Impeachment of India's President: A Study of the Procedure, V JCPS 245 (1971).
57 In the U.S.A., the process of impeachment of the President (Andrew Johnson) was invoked in 1868
but it failed by one vote in the Senate.
29 | P a g e

years legislative power is vested in the Congress, and the judicial power is vested in a system
of courts with the Supreme Court at the apex. An implication of the doctrine of Separation is
that each of the three branches of government ought to be composed of different persons.
Neither the President nor any of his Secretaries of State can be a member of the Congress. A
member of the Congress can join the government only after resigning his membership
therein.
While basically the U.S. Constitution is designed on the basis of the principle of Separation
of Powers, the framers of the U.S. Constitution also introduced, to some extent, the principle
of checks and balances. The framers adopted both these strategies with a view to ensure a
weak government so that the government may not act in an arbitrary manner. The doctrine of
Separation weakens the government by dividing its powers, for a divided government is
intrinsically weaker than a government having all powers concentrated therein. The principle
of checks and balances further limits government power. The underlying idea is that if one
organ of government is left free to exercise the power assigned to it without any control, it
may run amok with its power and act arbitrarily in exercising its assigned power. For
example, if the Congress is left free to make any law it likes, it may make harsh or unjust
laws. Therefore, the doctrine of checks and balances envisages that one organ of government
be controlled, to some extent, by the other two organs. For example, the President may veto a
bill passed by the two Houses of Congress and, thus, the President controls the Congress so
that it may not pass arbitrary or discriminatory legislation.
But President's veto may be overridden by the two Houses passing the bill in question again
by a 2/3 vote in each House.
Also, the Supreme Court has power to declare an Act passed by the Congress as
unconstitutional, but the Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President with the
consent of the Senate. The Congress through its committees continuously probes into the
functioning of the government departments. Similarly, the Secretaries of State are appointed
by the President with the consent of the Senate. In the U.S.A., the Executive and Legislative
organs are kept separate from each other.58 The parliamentary system, on the other hand, is
based on an intimate contact, a close liaison, or coordination, between the Executive and the
Legislative wings. India recognises no doctrine of Separation between them. As the Supreme
Court

58 Biman C. Bose v. H.C. Mookerjee, 56 CWN 651.


30 | P a g e

has stated, there may be in India a differentiation and demarcation of functions between the
Legislature and the Executive, and, generally speaking, the Constitution does not contemplate
that one organ should assume the functions belonging essentially to the other organ, yet,
nevertheless, there is no separation between them in its absolute rigidity.59
The Indian Constitution itself does not indicate a separation of powers as is commonly
understood. There is, to a large extent, a parallelism of power, with hierarchies between the
three organs in particular fields. It is this balance of hierarchies which must be maintained by
each organ subject to checks by the other two. To illustrate this is the requirement for the
executive to fill the legislative vacuum by executive orders. Where there is inaction even by
the executive for whatever reason, the judiciary can step in and in exercise of its obligations
to implement the Constitution provide a solution till such time as the legislature or the
executive act to perform their roles either by enacting appropriate legislation or issuing
executive orders to cover the field. Similarly while the legislature and executive may reject a
judicial decision by amending the law, the judiciary may in turn test that law against the
touchstone of the Constitution.
The U.S. Executive does not depend for its survival on a majority in the Congress as the
President has a fixed tenure of four years. He cannot be dismissed before the expiry of his
term by an adverse vote in the Congress. He can be removed only by the rare process of
impeachment. Correspondingly, the President has no power to dissolve the Congress. The
House of Representatives has a fixed term of two years. The American system produces a
stable government having a fixed tenure because it is independent of the legislative whim. It
has happened often that the President may belong to one political party, but the majority in
either House or both Houses, may belong to another political party. Members of Congress
enjoy a good deal of freedom to oppose or support the programme and policies proposed by
the President even when the majority in the Houses of Congress may belong to the same
party as the President.
On the other hand, the distinctive feature of the parliamentary system is that the Cabinet
depends on the majority in the Lok Sabha, and holds office so long as it enjoys the
confidence of the majority in the House which can depose the Cabinet at its pleasure, but the
Cabinet has the corresponding right to dissolve the House. In a parliamentary system, the
59 Rao Birinder Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1968 Punj, 441; Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India, AIR 1971
SC 530 : (1971) 1 SCC 530:Bijayanand v. President of Union of India, AIR 1974 Ori. 52; K.A. Mathialagam v.
The Governor, AIR 1973 Mad. 198.

31 | P a g e

government has no fixed tenure as it may have to go out any moment the majority in
Parliament withdraws its support.
The parliamentary system works best with two strong and disciplined political parties with
one party having a clear majority. If the Legislature is fragmented into many small groups,
the Cabinet has to be based on a coalition of parties and the Cabinet becomes unstable as it is
constantly exposed to the danger of disintegration due to disagreements amongst the
members of the coalition, or the constantly changing alignments of various parties in the
Legislature, or because of the danger of defection of members from one party to another, and
even the Executive's power to dissolve the House may not be effective to create the necessary
discipline for a stable government in such a situation.
The American Executive not being directly accountable to the Legislature, tends to become
less responsible to it than the parliamentary government which has constantly to seek the
majority support. In America, the responsibility of the Executive is assessed by the electorate
once in four years when election is held for the Presidential office. In India, on the other
hand, the responsibility of the Executive is assessed daily by the Legislature through
resolutions, questions, debates, etc., and periodically by the electorate through general
elections. Though the Executive in the U.S.A. is constitutionally not directly accountable to
the Legislature, yet it will be wrong to suppose that the Legislature has absolutely no control
over the Executive. The Congress can bring indirect pressure over the Executive through its
powers to levy taxes, make appropriations for government expenses, enact legislation,
investigate executive work and policies through its committees and the Senate's power to
confirm treaties and appointments. On the other hand, the President also is not completely
powerless in relation to Congress. Though he cannot dissolve the Congress yet he does
exercise some influence over it through his power to send messages and veto legislation the
efficacy of his veto, however, is limited as it can be overridden by the vote of 2/3rd members
in each House of Congress. On the whole, therefore, legislative control over the Executive
and vice versa is much weaker in the U.S.A. than it is in India where the Legislature and the
Executive can dissolve each other. Since, in a presidential system the life of the Cabinet no
longer depends on parliamentary majority. The President is elected directly by the people and
holds office for a fixed tenure. This results in stability of the government.
In the presidential system, the President enjoys a fixed tenure and he does not depend on
majority support in the Legislature, and this result in government stability. The President may
be freer to adopt policies on their merits rather than adopt populist measures. The Legislature

32 | P a g e

also has more say in the governance of the country and may have more control over the
administration.
However the presidential system as it prevails in the U.S.A. has its own problems, the major
problem being lack of coordination between the Executive and the Legislature resulting in
fragmented policies. Also, in a Parliamentary system, different interests may have an
opportunity to participate in the government.
The general public opinion (and even of political parties) by and large does not favour a
change from parliamentary to the presidential system. If India seeks to adopt the presidential
system, the system will have to be so devised as to promote better coordination between the
Executive and the Legislature than what exists in the U.S.A. This means that the system has
to incorporate some features of both the presidential and parliamentary systems.

CONCLUSION
There are some fixed Duties & powers of the President of India which he has to execute for
the welfare of the country. These duties & powers are conferred upon the President to
preserve, protect and defend the Indian Constitution.
The Indian President has to appoint the Prime Minister of India. The President also appoints
the Council of Ministers and with the Prime Minister's advice he/she distributes the portfolios
to the Council of Ministers. The President is also accountable to make a wide range of
appointments.
The President of India has Executive, Judicial and Legislative powers. Some of the Executive
powers of the Indian President are:
The Indian President can award a person or decrease the verdict of an offended person,
chiefly in cases concerning punishment of death.
The president can assign governors of States, Attorney General, Chief Justice, Chief Election
Commissioner, Ambassadors and High Commissioners to other countries.

33 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
Books referred
(1) Prof. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa Publisher Nagpur, 5th edition 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.

Websites
(1) http://www.eurac.edu/Press/Publications/Monographs/0059701.htm
(2) http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2005/sep05/edu3.html - 14k

34 | P a g e

(3) http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/12/17/stories/2002121700891000.htm - 20k


(4) http://pd.cpim.org/2004/1226/12262004_ragesh.htm

35 | P a g e