Assignment 2 (Unit 3 & 4)

Q1) Explain Presidential and parliamentary forms of government. Should India adopt Presidential form of government instead of Parliamentary form of government? Give arguments in support and against your opinion.

Presidential and parliamentary forms of government are both a form of democracy differing in how the separation of power is implemented in each system.

In a parliamentary form of government:

1. The executive is accountable to the legislature (the parliament), and the parliament can exercise control over the executive.
2. The head of the government and the head of the state are separate entities, the former holds real power while the latter is a ceremonial position with limited powers.
3. The executive requires parliamentary approval for various decisions.
4. The parliament can remove the cabinet (executive) with a vote of no confidence.

In a presidential form of government:

1. The executive branch is separate from the legislative branch and is not accountable to the legislative branch.
2. The head of the government is also the head of the state.
3. Unlike in a parliamentary system, the head of the government cannot be removed by the legislative branch except in extraordinary cases.

India has implemented a parliamentary form of government, but the pros and cons of a presidential system are still worth considering. The benefits of a presidential system are:

1. In a presidential system, the president can appoint experts in their respective fields to head various departments and ministries without requiring them to be members of the legislature.
2. A presidential system is considered more stable than a parliamentary system as the tenure of the President is fixed and not subject to a vote of no-confidence. This reduces pressure from the decision-making process as there is no risk of a sudden collapse of the government.

The disadvantages of a presidential system are:

1. Unlike in a parliamentary system, the executive is not responsible to the legislature in a presidential system which can potentially lead to a transition to an authoritarian form of government.
2. While a presidential form of government offers stability, it also implies rigidity. Compared to a parliamentary system, it is rather difficult to remove the President from power if the citizens no longer have confidence in their elected President.
3. Since the executive and legislative branch are separate, disagreements between them may lead to inefficiency and wastage of time.
4. The transition would be a monumental task requiring enormous resources.

Q2) What is the method of appointment of Supreme Court judges in India? Do you think India should move from current collegium system for appointment of judges to a new more transparent and accountable method? Suggest alternative methods and give advantages and disadvantages for it.

India uses a collegium system to appoint judges in the Supreme Court, in this system the collegium, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and four senior most judges of the supreme court, set forth a recommendation list to the President of India, who then selects from this list to appoint judges.

The collegium system has faced various criticisms such as:

1. The collegium system lacks transparency as judges are appointed by a few judges in complete secrecy, this makes the process for the appointment of judges vulnerable to issues such as nepotism/favouritism.
2. The decisions made by this process are not held accountable by any administrative body.

Due to such issues with the collegium system I think transitioning to a more transparent and accountable method would be in the best interest of the nation.

In 2014, another system called the National Judicial Appointments System (NJAC) was proposed as a replacement for the collegium system. NJAC would have consisted of the Chief Justice of India, two senior supreme court judges, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, two eminent persons selected by Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister of India and the head of the opposition in Lok Sabha. The advantages of NJAC were:

1. It would've provided more transparency and accountability.
2. It integrates the judiciary with the executive and makes it inclusive.

The disadvantages of NJAC were:

1. The Indian Constitution guarantees an independent judiciary system, NJAC would have violated this by including the executive in the process of appointment of judges.

Q3) Mention federal and unitary features of the Indian Constitution. Justify why India is called a "Quasi-federal State" or a "Union of States" and not a federation.

In a federal form of government power is distributed between the central and the state government, whereas in a unitary form of government, power is concentrated in one single authority. The Indian constitution is often described as federal in structure with unitary characteristics. Some of its federal features are:

1. Dual Government: A central government exists for the centre and state governments for each state.
2. Distribution of Powers: The Indian Constitution declares the scope of matters for which central, state or even both types of governments are responsible.
3. Supremacy of the Constitution: In case of disputes, whatever is written in the Constitution is considered supreme.
4. Independence of Judiciary: The judiciary branch is entirely isolated from the other branches to ensure objectivity and justice.

Some of the unitary features of the Indian Constitution are:

1. States in India are not provided the safeguard that are typically provided for states in a federal system.
2. India only offers single-citizenship, whereas, federal constitutions allow dual citizenship, one for the state and one of the centre.
3. The Indian Constitution is applicable at both the union and the state level, which is a feature of a unitary government.
4. In case a subject is not mentioned in the scopes declared by the Indian Constitution, the residuary power is distributed to the central government.
5. In a state of emergency, the powers of the state governments are limited.

In a quasi-federal state, the distribution of power between the state government and the central government is unequal, and as we can observe from the aforementioned points, the Indian Constitution distributes more power to the central government. Thus, India is referred to as a "Quasi-Federal State".

Article 1 of the Indian Constitution describes India as a "Union of States". This is because the Indian Union was not formed as a result of an agreement between the states and the states are not provided the right to secede from the federation.

Q4) Give own arguments in support and against the statement while explaining the various powers and functions of the President. "If the office of president has no real power why not just abolish the post of president in India"

India is a parliamentary form of democracy, in which the head of the government is the Prime Minister, while the President is the head of the state. Bhimrao Ambedkar during the consistent assembly of India remarked that the President represents the nation but does not rule the nation, serving as a symbol of the nation and as a ceremonial device on a seal through which the nation's decision are made known. But many have noted that the office of President does not have any real power and so the post of President of India should be abolished, some of the reasons as to why the post of the President should not be abolished are:

1. The President serves as a check for the legislative branch as no bill can be passed without his approval. The President can also reject a bill if he feels that a bill violates the constitution.
2. The President summons both the house of the Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) and prorogues them, he can also dissolve the Lok Sabha.
3. The President appoints the Chief Justice of India and Supreme Court and High Court judges.
4. The President possesses pardoning power, allowing him the to grant pardon against punishment for an offence against union law, punishment by a martial court, or death sentence.
5. International Treaties and agreements that are approved by the Parliament are negotiated and concluded in his name.

Reasons to abolish the post of the President in India:

1. The President merely serves as a ceremonial symbol, the real power resides with the head of the government.
2. During the review process for passing a bill, the President can send the bill back for reconsideration but if the government sends the bill again, then he has to permit the bill.
3. While the President can make suggestions in the appointment of Chief Justice of India, the actual decision-making process is in control of the Supreme Court judges.
4. The President can only issue the removal order of Supreme Court judge only after the address of the Parliament.
5. Requiring the approval of the President on every bill makes law-making increase the delay in the law-making process of India.