First-Year Law Notes & Flashcards

Forms of Government and the Indian Constitutional System

I. Introduction: The Foundation of Democratic Governance

Democracy, the bedrock of modern governance, is broadly categorized into direct and representative forms. In the contemporary world, the vast majority of nations operate as representative democracies , where citizens elect delegates to govern on their behalf. Within this paradigm, two principal institutional designs dictate the arrangement of power: the Parliamentary System and the Presidential System . The choice between these two forms fundamentally determines the mechanism of accountability, the stability of the executive, and the nature of the relationship between the legislative and executive organs.

Furthermore, states must determine the locus of power authority—whether it is concentrated at the centre ( Unitary ) or shared between national and regional governments ( Federal ). India’s constitutional architecture presents a complex and unique synthesis, deliberately blending federal features, such as the division of power, with overriding unitary provisions, thereby establishing a system that is often termed "quasi-federal." This analysis will first delineate the structural and functional differences between the two primary governmental systems and then critically evaluate the eclectic federal-unitary balance enshrined within the Indian Constitution.

II. The Duality of Executive-Legislative Relationships

The essential difference between the Parliamentary and Presidential systems rests on the principle of the separation of powers. The Presidential system adheres strictly to the doctrine of separation, whereas the Parliamentary system fosters a deliberate fusion of personnel and functions between the executive and legislature.

A. The Presidential Form: Separation of Powers and Fixed Authority

The Presidential form of government embodies a system of single executive authority , where the President is both the Head of State (the ceremonial and symbolic representative of the nation) and the Head of Government (the chief political and administrative decision-maker). This structure is primarily modelled on the US system, reflecting the philosophical ideals of Montesquieu regarding the liberty-preserving necessity of separating governmental functions.

1. Characteristics of Separated Power

The President is directly elected by the people for a fixed, constitutionally mandated term . This tenure is independent of the confidence of the legislature and can only be terminated prematurely through a complex and onerous impeachment process, thus ensuring remarkable governmental stability and continuity. Furthermore, the executive branch is not drawn from the legislature . The President appoints a Cabinet (often called Secretaries) who are technical experts or political appointees, but they are not members of the legislature and are primarily accountable only to the President. This separation allows the President maximum flexibility in selecting a team based on technical competence rather than parliamentary influence.

2. Stability versus Rigidity

The principal advantage of the Presidential system is its stability and decisiveness . Because the executive's term is fixed, it can pursue long-term policies without fear of collapse from internal dissent or shifting legislative majorities. However, this stability inherently translates to rigidity . When a President becomes unpopular or incompetent, removing them is virtually impossible, a mechanism that can breed executive intransigence. Moreover, the strict separation of powers frequently leads to policy stagnation or political conflict (gridlock) , particularly when the executive and legislative branches are controlled by opposing political parties (a condition known as 'divided government'). This structural conflict can paralyze the law-making process, as each branch uses its constitutional checks to obstruct the other.

B. The Parliamentary Form: Fusion of Powers and Perpetual Accountability

The Parliamentary form, often dubbed the Cabinet Form of Government or Responsible Government , originated in the Westminster system (UK) and is characterized by an intrinsic link between the executive and the legislature.

1. Characteristics of Fused Authority

This system operates under a dual executive : the Nominal or Titular Executive (President or Monarch) acts as the ceremonial Head of State, and the Real Executive (the Prime Minister and the Cabinet) functions as the Head of Government. The Real Executive is not only a part of the legislature but must be drawn from it . This creates a continuous fusion of personnel and functions .

The crucial feature is executive accountability . The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the lower house of the legislature (e.g., the Lok Sabha or House of Commons) and remains in power only as long as it commands the confidence of that house. This translates to an unfixed tenure for the Prime Minister, whose term can be terminated instantly by a successful Vote of No-Confidence . Conversely, the executive also holds the power to advise the ceremonial head to dissolve the lower house and call for immediate fresh elections, thus establishing a powerful reciprocal check.

2. Accountability versus Instability

The foremost advantage of the Parliamentary system is its high degree of executive accountability . The executive is subject to daily scrutiny through question hour, debates, and motions, making it highly responsive to public opinion and less prone to autocratic tendencies. The harmony and cooperation between the fused branches ensure the smoother and quicker passage of legislation. However, this system suffers from inherent instability , particularly in multi-party systems, where coalition governments are prone to collapse. This instability can lead to frequent elections and policy discontinuity. Furthermore, the very fusion of powers can allow a strong executive (Cabinet) backed by a clear majority to dominate the legislature , potentially neutralizing the effectiveness of legislative oversight. Members of the majority party are often bound by party discipline and whips, restricting their independent thought and contribution to national interest.

III. Federal and Unitary Features of the Indian Constitution

The framers of the Indian Constitution faced the monumental task of consolidating a vast, diverse, and recently partitioned nation. They deliberately chose not to adopt a pure form of either federalism (like the US) or unitarism (like the UK), but rather a hybrid system designed for national cohesion, often described as a "quasi-federal" state.

A. The Federal Foundation: Dual Polity and Constitutional Division

The Indian Constitution establishes a clear dual polity of the Union at the Centre and the States, with each possessing sovereign powers within its constitutionally demarcated sphere. The following seven features firmly establish India as a federation:

1. Written Constitution: India possesses the world’s most voluminous and detailed written Constitution, explicitly outlining the structure, organization, powers, and limits of both the Union and the State governments. This written nature is essential for a federation to resolve inevitable jurisdictional disputes.
2. Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, serving as the ultimate source of authority. All laws enacted by the Centre and the States must conform to its provisions. This supremacy is guarded by the Independent Judiciary through the power of Judicial Review .
3. Division of Powers (The Three Lists): The Seventh Schedule contains three exhaustive lists for legislative jurisdiction: the Union List (97 subjects), the State List (61 subjects), and the Concurrent List (52 subjects). This division ensures that states retain exclusive authority over crucial regional matters like public order, health, and local government.
4. Rigidity of the Constitution (Partial): Amending fundamental federal provisions requires a special majority in Parliament followed by ratification by the legislatures of at least half of the states . This complex procedure protects the autonomy of the states from unilateral changes by the Centre.
5. Bicameralism: The establishment of a bicameral Parliament, consisting of the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) , is a federal necessity. The Rajya Sabha ensures that the states, regardless of their size, have a platform to participate in central law-making and decision-making, though state representation is based on population, unlike the equal representation in the US Senate.
6. Independent Judiciary: The Constitution establishes an independent judiciary, headed by the Supreme Court, to act as the final arbiter of constitutional disputes. Its primary federal role is to settle disputes between the Centre and the States , upholding the supremacy of the Constitution as the federal compact.

B. The Unitary Tilt: Centralizing Mechanisms

Despite possessing the above federal features, the Indian Constitution incorporates a large number of unitary or non-federal features that decisively tilt the balance of power in favour of the Centre . These were included to ensure national integration, administrative uniformity, and the capacity to meet extraordinary challenges.

1. Strong Centre and Residuary Powers: The division of powers is intrinsically unequal. The Union List contains the most numerous and critical subjects (e.g., defence , foreign affairs, currency). Furthermore, in cases of conflict on the Concurrent List, the Central law prevails . Most significantly, the power to legislate on Residuary Subjects (those not listed in any of the three lists) is vested exclusively in the Centre .
2. Single Constitution and Single Citizenship: Unlike the United States, India does not allow states to draft their own constitutions, and it mandates Single Citizenship for all Indians, ensuring that citizens are treated equally across the country. This contrasts sharply with the dual citizenship found in some traditional federations.
3. Indestructible Union of Destructible States: The Indian Constitution explicitly denies states the right to territorial integrity . Under Article 3 , the Parliament can unilaterally alter the boundaries, areas, or names of any state without its consent (although consultation is mandatory). This feature fundamentally contradicts the concept of an "indestructible Union of indestructible states" found in the US.
4. Flexible Constitution (Predominantly): While federal provisions are rigid, the bulk of the Constitution can be amended by the unilateral action of the Parliament (either simple or special majority). Moreover, only the Centre holds the power to initiate any constitutional amendment .
5. Emergency Provisions: The most powerful unitary feature is the provision for National, State, and Financial Emergencies (Articles 352, 356, 360). During an emergency, the federal system can be effortlessly transformed into a unitary state without formal amendment, allowing the Centre to assume total control over the states' legislative and executive functions.
6. Integrated Judiciary and Audit: The judiciary is integrated into a single hierarchy, with the Supreme Court at the top, responsible for enforcing both Union and State laws. Similarly, the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) audits the accounts of both the Centre and the states, but the CAG is appointed and removed solely by the President, ensuring central control over financial accountability.
7. All-India Services (AIS): The presence of All-India Services (IAS, IPS, IFS), whose members are recruited, trained, and controlled by the Centre but serve in the states, provides a potent tool for central supervision of state administration.
8. Governor’s Appointment: The Governor of a state is not elected by the state but is appointed by the President and acts as the Centre’s agent. The Governor also holds the power to reserve specific state bills for the consideration of the President , allowing the Centre to veto state legislation.

IV. Critical Evaluation and the Nature of Indian Federalism

The unique structure of the Indian Constitution has led constitutional experts to offer various characterizations. K.C. Wheare famously described the Constitution as "quasi-federal," signifying a system that is federal in structure but unitary in spirit. Ivor Jennings noted its "strong centralizing tendency," and Morris Jones termed it "bargaining federalism," emphasizing the political negotiations required between the Centre and the often-resource-dependent states.

The Supreme Court of India , however, provided a decisive legal interpretation in the landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case (1994) . The Court firmly established that Federalism is part of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution . It ruled that the states are not mere administrative appendages of the Centre; they possess an independent Constitutional existence . While the Centre is indeed equipped with greater authority to meet national challenges, this is a compelled deviation from classical federalism, not a negation of the federal principle itself. The emergency powers were deemed exceptions to the rule, existing to protect the federation, not destroy it.

This legal recognition confirms that Indian federalism is a pragmatic blend of necessary autonomy for regional needs and overwhelming central authority for national integrity. The framers prioritized national unity, especially in the wake of Partition and against the backdrop of immense social and economic diversity. The system is therefore fundamentally federal in normal times but potentially unitary during exceptional times (emergencies).

V. Conclusion

The distinction between the Presidential and Parliamentary systems highlights two competing democratic values: stability versus accountability . While the Presidential model offers a fixed and powerful executive capable of decisive, long-term policy, the Parliamentary model ensures constant, collective accountability of the executive to the popular will represented by the legislature.

India's adoption of the Parliamentary system was a conscious choice rooted in its colonial experience and the need to ensure accountability in a newly independent nation. This choice was compounded by the complex federal arrangement which, despite its strong centralizing features, legally and functionally upholds the principle of a dual polity . The Indian constitutional scheme is, therefore, a masterwork of balancing conflicting considerations: it is designed to be cooperative in its day-to-day function (Parliamentary) and coercive only when necessary to preserve national integrity and unity (Unitary Federalism). This carefully calibrated framework reflects the political genius required to govern a country of unparalleled diversity and scale.