Parliamentary and Presidential Forms of Government

October 14, 2024

Introduction

The parliamentary and presidential forms of government are the two forms of governmental systems that are followed all over the world to govern a nation. The system differs in terms of the powers given to the leader, the removal of the leader, and also the working of the government itself.

The present law note aims to highlight those differences between the two forms of government and provide an analysis of which form of system India follows and why and why India chose that system. Also, a reference is made to various articles of the Indian Constitution to support the article’s findings.

What is the presidential form of system of governance?

In the presidential system of governance, the head of the government and the head of the state remain one and only the same individual. There remains no such difference between the real head and the nominal head. For example, the United States of America. There, the President is both the head of the government as well as the head of the state. One such individual is given the huge amount of power to run the entire country. Such person may be known from different terminologies, like president or ruler.

What is Parliamentary form of government?

In the parliamentary form of government, the head of government is not the same as the head of state. There is a difference between the nominal head and the real head. For example, in the case of India, the head of government is the Prime Minister, who is responsible for running the country. But the head of the state is the president, who is called the nominal head of the country.

What are the differences between the parliamentary and presidential forms of government?

The first difference is with respect to power. The presidential form of government gives so much power in the hands of the single individual; however, the same is not the case with the municipal form of government. Because in the parliamentary form of government, the Prime Minister never individually takes its decisions; however, it is backed by the Council of Ministers, who assist him in the exercise of his functions.

The second difference is related to the accountability to the people. In the presidential form of government, the president is not a member of any house; therefore, he is not accountable to the houses. However, in the parliamentary form of government, the head of the country is also a member of the Lok Sabha, and therefor, he is accountable to the house and may be removed from the house if he loses the majority of people in the house.

The third difference lies in the manner of removal. Since in the Parliamnartay form of government, the Prime Minister is a member of the Lok Sabha, he may be released easily by passing a no-confidence motion against him. However, not the case in the presidential form of government, where the process of removal is relatively tough.

Therefore, it may be summarized as wherein the presidential form of government aims to concentrate the power on a single individual; the same is not the case with the parliamentary form of government.

Why did India choose the parliamentary form of government?

India was a newly independent nation at the time of framing its Constitution. Constitutional framers anticipated that the presidential form of system is less effective in the parameters of accountability to people and results in concentration of power. Moreover, the process of removing the leader is also cumbersome. Therefore, considering all demerits of the presidential form of government, India chose to have the parliamentary form of government.

Constitutional Articles, which reflect the parlimentary form of government in India

There are various constitutional articles that reflect the parliamentary form of government in India.

  1. Article 52 mentions that the executive power shall be vested in the President. Also, Article 74 clarifies that there shall be a Council of Ministers, which is to be headed by the Prime Minister to aid and advise the President in the discharge of its functions, and the Presidency shall act in accordance with the advice that is given by the Council of Ministers in the discharge of its functions.
  2. Article 75(3) clarifies that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, or the house of the people.
  3. Article 163 states that there should be a council of ministers to aid and advise the governor, and the governor shall act according to the advice that is given.

Therefore, it may be stated that both the center and state envisage a system wherein the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister are also members of the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assembly, respectively. Both function according to their council of ministers, which is responsible to the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assembly.

Supreme Court decisions on the parliamentary form of government

The Supreme Court, through a number of decisions, has clarified that India follows a parliamentary model of government. The question came before the government in the form of whether the President or the Governor is bound by the advice that is given to them by the Council of Ministers? Is it compulsory for the President/Governor to act upon such advice, or do they make their own independent decisions?

The Supreme Court categorically at various instances has held that the President and the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers because India follows a parliamentary model of government wherein the President is only a nominal head and the real power lies in the hands of the Prime Minister, and the same is the case at the state level.

In the case of Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1955), it was clarified that Article 74 mandates the President to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; therefore, he can’t act on its own. Thus, the President is only a formal or constitutional head of the executive, and the real power lies in the Prime Minister.

In the case of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), again it was reiterated that governors are not the real heads but only the ceremonial heads and the real power vests in the Council of Ministers. India essentially rests upon the parliamentary principles of governance.

Conclusion

Therefore, the constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court decisions clearly establish the parliamenatry form of the government of India. Such a form of government is necessary for a vast democracy like India.

Leave a Comment