Chronol ogical Notes on Article 72 of the Indian Constitution

(Presidential Pardoning Power and its Judicial Review Evolution)

1. Constitutional Provision: Article 72

Article 72 of the Indian Constitution grants the President of India the power to grant clemency in the
following cases:

1. Court Martial cases (Military justice).

2. Offences against laws under the Union’s executive power.

3. Death sentence cases.

However, this power is not absolute and is subject to judicial scrutiny in specific situations.

Forms of Clemency under Article 72

1. Pardon: Completely absolves the convict of all punishments and restores their rights.

2. Commutation: Converts a harsh sentence into a lesser one (e.g., death sentence to life
imprisonment).

3. Remission: Reduces the punishment duration without changing its nature.

4. Reprieve: Temporary delay of a sentence (esp. execution of the death penalty) to allow
reconsideration.

5. Respite: Reducing the degree of punishment based on special circumstances (e.g., pregnancy,
old age).

2. Pre-Maru Ram Phase (Before 1980)

During this period, courts were reluctant to interfere in the executive’s pardoning power.

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay (1960)

 Facts:

o Commander Nanavati, a naval officer, was convicted of murder.

o A jury initially acquitted him, but the Bombay High Court overturned the decision and
sentenced him to life imprisonment.

o The Governor of Bombay suspended his sentence under Article 161 while his appeal
was pending before the Supreme Court.

 Supreme Court's Ruling:

 o The Governor’s power under Article 161 (similar to Article 72 for the President) cannot
override judicial orders.

o The power of pardon cannot be used while a case is pending in the judiciary.

👉 Impact: Established that executive clemency must be harmonized with judicial authority and cannot
be used arbitrarily.

3. Maru Ram Phase (1980) – Turning Point in Judicial Review

Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980)

 Facts:

o The petition challenged Section 433A of CrPC, which required at least 14 years of
imprisonment for certain convicts before release.

o It was argued that this law interfered with the President’s power of pardon under
Article 72.

 Supreme Court’s Ruling:

o The President or Governor cannot act on personal discretion in granting pardons. They
must follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

o The pardoning power is not beyond judicial review and can be challenged if it is:

 Arbitrary

 Discriminatory

 Based on irrelevant or mala fide considerations

👉 Impact: Introduced judicial oversight on clemency powers to prevent misuse.

4. Post-Maru Ram Phase (1980–Present)

After Maru Ram, courts adopted a more active approach in reviewing the President’s pardoning powers.

Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1988)

Facts:

Kehar Singh was convicted for conspiring in the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984.

He was sentenced to death by the trial court, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court and the
Supreme Court.

His family filed a mercy petition before the President of India under Article 72, requesting clemency.

The President rejected the petition without giving detailed reasons.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court ruled that the President has the power to review the case and grant mercy
independently from the courts.

The President can examine evidence and reach a different conclusion than the judiciary.

However, the clemency power is not absolute and can be reviewed by courts if:

The decision is taken without proper consideration.

It is based on malafide (bad faith) reasons.

It violates fundamental rights.

In this case, the Court did not interfere with the President’s decision, and Kehar Singh was executed.

Impact:

This case clarified that the President can re-examine evidence while deciding on mercy petitions.

It also confirmed that judicial review of clemency powers is possible in cases of misuse or unfairness.

👉 Impact:

 Reaffirmed that Presidential clemency does not violate the judiciary’s authority.

 Strengthened the right to seek mercy as part of fair administration of justice.

Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006)

Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006)

Facts:

Epuru Sudhakar was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Governor of Andhra Pradesh granted him a pardon under Article 161 (Governor’s pardoning power).

The victim’s family challenged the pardon, claiming it was granted for political reasons and not based on
legal grounds.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court ruled that clemency powers (Article 72 & 161) are not absolute and can be reviewed
by courts.

A pardon can be canceled if granted on:

Political or personal motives.

Arbitrary or irrelevant reasons.

Without considering important facts.

The Court struck down the pardon and emphasized that governments cannot misuse clemency powers.

Impact:

Strengthened judicial review over pardon decisions.

Ensured that mercy petitions are granted fairly and not for political benefits.

 Supreme Court laid down key grounds for judicial review of pardons:

1. Non-application of mind.

2. Malafide exercise of power.

3. Irrelevant or extraneous considerations.

4. Failure to consider relevant facts.

5. Arbitrariness in decision-making.

👉 Impact: Strengthened judicial intervention in cases where clemency was misused.

Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)

 Facts:

o Several death row convicts challenged the delay in the disposal of mercy petitions.

o Claimed that prolonged uncertainty violated their fundamental rights under Article 21
(Right to Life).

 Supreme Court’s Ruling:

o Undue delay in deciding mercy petitions is unconstitutional and can be a valid ground
for commutation of the death sentence.

o Reiterated that clemency power is a constitutional duty, not a privilege.

👉 Impact: Set a time limit for deciding mercy petitions to prevent unnecessary mental agony for
convicts.

5. Recent Cases – Mercy Petitions and Judicial Oversight

Vinay Sharma v. Union of India (2020) – Nirbhaya Case

 Facts:

o One of the convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape case filed a mercy petition before
the President.

o Alleged mental illness, torture, and arbitrary rejection of clemency.

  Supreme Court’s Ruling:

o Judicial review is limited but applicable if:

 Mercy petitions are rejected without proper consideration.

 The process is arbitrary or discriminatory.

👉 Impact: Ensured fair and reasonable treatment of death row mercy petitions.

6. Conclusion

Key Takeaways

 Article 72 grants extensive powers to the President, but it is not absolute.

 Judicial review is now well-established to prevent arbitrary or unjust use of clemency.

 Guidelines for mercy petitions have evolved to ensure fairness and prevent delays.

 Cases like Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, and Epuru Sudhakar have shaped modern jurisprudence on
executive clemency.

 Recent cases emphasize the balance between the President’s discretion and the convict’s
fundamental rights.

Present Status

 Executive clemency is a constitutional responsibility, not a discretionary privilege.

 Courts can intervene if the decision is mala fide, arbitrary, or delayed without justification.

Pardoning Power of the Governor (Article 161 of the Indian Constitution)

1. Constitutional Provision: Article 161

 Article 161 of the Indian Constitution gives the Governor of a state the power to grant pardons,
reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment.

 This power applies only to offences against laws made under the executive power of the state.

2. Types of Pardoning Powers of the Governor

The Governor's pardoning powers are similar to the President’s under Article 72, but with some
limitations. The Governor can:

1. Pardon: Completely forgives the offender and removes all punishment.

 2. Commute: Changes the punishment to a lesser one (e.g., death penalty to life imprisonment).

3. Remission: Reduces the duration of the sentence without changing its nature (e.g., 10 years
reduced to 7 years).

4. Reprieve: Temporarily delays execution, especially in capital punishment cases.

5. Respite: Reduces punishment based on special conditions (e.g., old age, physical disability).

3. Difference Between the Pardoning Powers of the President and Governor

Aspect President (Article 72) Governor (Article 161)

Offences under Union laws, court-

Applies to Offences under state laws only.
martial, and death sentences.

Court Martial Can grant pardons for military court-

No power over military court-martial cases.
Cases martial cases.

Death Can pardon, commute, or remit death Cannot pardon a death sentence but can
Sentence sentences. commute or remit it (per Supreme Court ruling).

Scope of Wider power, covering all types of

Limited to offences under state laws.
Power punishments.

👉 Key Point: The Governor cannot pardon a death sentence but can commute or remit it.

4. Important Supreme Court Cases on Governor’s Pardoning Power

(1) Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980)

 Supreme Court held that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the State Government.

 The Governor cannot use pardoning power independently.

(2) Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989)

 Clarified that only the President can pardon a death sentence under Article 72.

 The Governor can commute a death sentence but cannot grant a full pardon.

(3) Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006)

 Judicial review of the Governor’s pardoning power is allowed.

 The court can intervene if the pardon is:

o Arbitrary

o Discriminatory
 o Based on irrelevant or mala fide (bad faith) reasons

5. Judicial Review of the Governor’s Pardoning Power

 The Governor’s decision can be challenged in court if found to be:

o Unreasonable or arbitrary

o Against public interest

o Given for political reasons

 The court cannot question the decision itself but can review whether it was taken properly.

6. Conclusion

 Governor’s pardoning power is limited to state laws and does not extend to military or death
sentence cases.

 Governor must act on the advice of the state government.

 Judicial review is possible if the pardon is misused.

This provides a clear overview of the Governor’s pardoning powers under Article 161 in a simplified
and structured way. 🚀 Let me know if you need further explanations! 😊

ARTICLE 368 – AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. Meaning and Purpose

 Article 368 of the Indian Constitution lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution.

 It ensures that the Constitution remains flexible yet stable, allowing necessary changes without
affecting its fundamental principles.

2. Types of Amendments under Article 368

There are three types of constitutional amendments:

1. By Simple Majority:

o Requires a majority of members present and voting in both Houses.

o Used for minor changes like formation of new states (e.g., reorganization of states).

2. By Special Majority:
 o Requires a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in both Houses.

o Used for major constitutional amendments (e.g., Fundamental Rights, Judiciary).

3. By Special Majority + Ratification by States:

o After passing by Parliament, the amendment must be approved by at least half of the
State Legislatures.

o Required for changes affecting federal structure, such as distribution of powers between
the Centre and States.

3. Conflict Between Article 368 and Article 13(2)

 Article 13(2) states:

“The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights
conferred by Part III.”

 The conflict:

o Can Parliament amend fundamental rights under Article 368?

o If yes, does that mean Parliament can override Article 13(2)?

o This question led to a series of landmark cases.

4. Important Supreme Court Cases on Article 368

(1) Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

 Background:

o After independence, the government introduced land reforms to redistribute land.

o Many zamindars (landowners) challenged these reforms, saying they violated the right
to property (then a fundamental right).

o Patna High Court declared Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 as unconstitutional.

o In response, Parliament passed the First Amendment Act (1951), adding Article 31A
and 31B to protect land reform laws.

 Issue:

o Did the First Amendment violate Article 13(2)?

o Can Parliament amend fundamental rights under Article 368?

 Supreme Court Verdict:

o Parliament has the power to amend fundamental rights.

 o Article 13(2) applies only to ordinary laws, not constitutional amendments.

o The First Amendment was valid.

👉 Impact: Strengthened Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

(2) Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

 Background:

o Parliament passed the 17th Amendment Act (1964), which included land reform laws in
the Ninth Schedule (shielded from judicial review).

o Sajjan Singh, a former ruler, challenged this, saying it violated his fundamental rights.

 Issue:

o Does the 17th Amendment violate fundamental rights?

o Can Parliament amend fundamental rights under Article 368?

 Supreme Court Verdict:

o Upheld Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights.

o Article 13(2) does not apply to constitutional amendments.

👉 Impact: Strengthened the view that Parliament can amend fundamental rights.

(3) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

 Background:

o Golaknath family owned over 500 acres of land in Punjab.

o Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act (1953) limited land ownership, declaring excess
land as "surplus".

o The family challenged this law, arguing it violated their right to property under Article
19(1)(f) and Article 31.

 Issue:

o Can Parliament amend fundamental rights?

o Is a constitutional amendment a “law” under Article 13(2)?

 Supreme Court Verdict:

o Overruled Shankari Prasad & Sajjan Singh.

o Parliament CANNOT amend fundamental rights.

 o Fundamental rights are beyond the reach of Parliament.

👉 Impact:

 Limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

 Led to the 24th Amendment Act (1971) to restore Parliament’s power.

(4) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – The Basic Structure Doctrine

 Background:

o Kesavananda Bharati, head of a religious sect, challenged Kerala’s Land Reforms Act
(1969), which took over his land.

o He filed a petition under Article 32, arguing that the law violated his fundamental
rights.

 Issue:

o Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights?

o Does Article 368 allow unlimited power to amend?

 Supreme Court Verdict:

o Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

o BUT it cannot change the ‘Basic Structure’ of the Constitution.

👉 Impact – Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine:

 Parliament cannot destroy the basic framework of the Constitution.

 Basic Structure includes:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution

2. Democracy & Secularism

3. Judicial Review

4. Fundamental Rights

5. Separation of Powers

(5) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

 Background:

o The 42nd Amendment (1976) gave Parliament unlimited power to amend the
Constitution.
 o It stated that any law implementing Directive Principles could not be challenged for
violating fundamental rights.

 Issue:

o Did the 42nd Amendment violate the Basic Structure Doctrine?

 Supreme Court Verdict:

o Struck down the 42nd Amendment.

o Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine.

o Held that Parliament’s amending power is limited.

👉 Impact: Strengthened judicial review over constitutional amendments.

5. 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971)

 Passed to overturn Golaknath case.

 Amended Articles 13 & 368 to state that Parliament CAN amend fundamental rights.

 Made President’s assent to amendments mandatory.

6. Importance of the Basic Structure Doctrine

 Prevents Parliament from misusing its power.

 Ensures that the core principles of democracy remain unchanged.

 Provides a balance between flexibility and rigidity in the Constitution.

7. Conclusion

 Article 368 allows amendments but within limits.

 Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that the fundamental values remain intact.

 Judicial Review plays a key role in maintaining constitutional balance.

 Parliament cannot change the essence of the Constitution, ensuring democracy and
fundamental rights are protected.

This structured chronological explanation covers everything from your document in an easy-to-
understand manner. 🚀 Let me know if you need any further simplifications! 😊
Ordinance: Meaning and How It Comes into Effect

Ordinance is an legislative power given to executive bcz legislature is not in function.

1. What is an Ordinance?

 An ordinance is a temporary law that is issued by the President (Article 123) or the Governor
(Article 213) when the Parliament or State Legislature is not in session.

 It allows the executive (President or Governor) to make laws in cases of urgency when the
legislature is not functioning.

 It has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament or State Legislature but is subject to
certain constitutional limitations.

2. How Does an Ordinance Come into Effect?

1. The Parliament or State Legislature is not in session (either one or both Houses are not sitting).

2. The President or Governor is satisfied that there is a need for immediate action.

3. The Ordinance is promulgated (issued) and comes into force immediately.

4. The Ordinance must be laid before the Parliament or State Legislature when it reassembles.

5. The Ordinance ceases to exist after six weeks from the date the legislature reconvenes unless
approved by it.

Legislative Power of the Executive: Article 123 & 213

1. Article 123: President’s Ordinance-Making Power

 Applies to the whole of India (except J&K under Article 370, before its abrogation).

 Can be issued only when both Houses of Parliament are not in session.

 Must be approved by Parliament within 6 weeks of reassembly, or it will lapse.

 President must be satisfied that an urgent need exists.

2. Article 213: Governor’s Ordinance-Making Power

 Applies at the state level.

 Governor can issue an ordinance only when the State Legislature is not in session.

 Cannot issue ordinances on matters that require President’s approval (e.g., altering High Court
jurisdiction).

 Must be approved by the State Legislature within 6 weeks, or it will lapse.

👉 Key Difference:

 President’s ordinances apply at the national level; Governor’s ordinances apply at the state
level.

Evolution of Ordinance-Making Power in India

1. Pre-Constitution Era (British Rule)

 The power to issue ordinances was first introduced in the Government of India Act, 1935, which
allowed the Governor-General and Governors of Provinces to issue ordinances.

 This power was carried forward into the Indian Constitution in 1950 under Articles 123 and 213.

2. Post-Constitution Evolution (Judicial Interpretations)

RC Cooper v. Union of India (1970)

 Background: Challenged the Bank Nationalization Ordinance, 1969.

 SC Held:

o The satisfaction of the President is not beyond judicial review.

o The ordinance must not violate fundamental rights.

AK Roy v. Union of India (1982)

 Background: Challenged the National Security Ordinance, 1980, which allowed preventive
detention.

 SC Held:

o Ordinances have the same effect as parliamentary laws.

o The President’s satisfaction cannot be arbitrary.

o However, natural justice cannot be expected in preventive detention cases.

DC Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987)

 Background: Bihar government reissued ordinances repeatedly instead of passing laws.

 SC Held:

o Re-promulgation of ordinances is unconstitutional.

o Ordinances are meant for emergencies, not as a substitute for the legislature.

T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985)

 SC Held:

o Ordinances are equal to laws (until they lapse).

 o If an ordinance is repealed, the rights granted under it do not automatically vanish.

o Enduring rights theory accepted with some modification

State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose (1962)

 SC Held:

o The Governor’s ordinance-making power is legislative in nature, not executive.

o The validity of an ordinance cannot be questioned on the ground of improper

satisfaction of the Governor.

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) – Key Judgment on Ordinances

Re promulgation of ordinances is fraud to the constitution

Background

 The Bihar Government re-promulgated ordinances repeatedly for over 15 years instead of
passing proper laws.

 Issue:

o Do rights created under an ordinance continue to exist after it lapses?

o Was the repeated use of ordinances constitutional?

Supreme Court Verdict

1. Enduring Rights Theory Rejected

o Ordinances do not create permanent rights.

o If an ordinance lapses, the rights or benefits it conferred also lapse, unless converted
into a law by the legislature.

o Overruled T. Venkata Reddy Case (1985), which had earlier held that rights created
under an ordinance remain even after it lapses.

2. Public Interest Theory Accepted

o Re-promulgation of ordinances without placing them before the legislature is

unconstitutional.

o An ordinance should be issued only in cases of immediate necessity, not as a tool for
avoiding legislative scrutiny.

3. Judicial Review of Ordinances

o The satisfaction of the President or Governor can be questioned in court.

o Misuse of ordinance-making power is subject to judicial review.

👉 Impact: Strengthened legislative supremacy over executive ordinance-making powers.

Minority Judgment by Justice Madan B. Lokur & Justice N.V. Ramana

 They agreed that re-promulgation of ordinances is unconstitutional but dissented on the

immediate effect of lapsed ordinances.

 Key Points:

o Some rights created under an ordinance should not vanish immediately after it lapses,
especially if they affect individuals or public interest.

o Called for a balanced approach in deciding the fate of rights created by ordinances.

👉 Difference from Majority Judgment:

 The majority said rights vanish once an ordinance lapses.

 The minority said some rights should continue, based on the facts and nature of the case.

Conclusion

 Ordinance power is an emergency power given to the executive (President/Governor) to

handle urgent situations when the legislature is not in session.

 Judicial review is allowed to prevent its misuse.

 The Krishna Kumar Singh case (2017) set strict limits on re-promulgation and confirmed that
ordinances cannot create enduring rights.

 The public interest theory was upheld, ensuring legislative supremacy over the executive.

Judicial Review of Pardoning Power under Articles 72 and 161

Judicial Review of Pardoning Power (Articles 72 & 161)

1. Introduction

 The power to pardon is an executive power exercised by the President (Article 72) and
Governor (Article 161).
  It includes pardon, commutation, remission, respite, and reprieve.

 However, this power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review under certain
circumstances.

2. Judicial Review of Pardoning Power: Legal Position

 The power of pardon is not personal but a constitutional duty exercised on the aid and advice of
the Council of Ministers.

 Courts can review the manner and legality of its exercise but not the merits of the decision
itself.

3. Judicial Review: Key Case Laws & Grounds

I. Judicial Duty to Interpret Law (Marbury v. Madison, 1803 - USA)

 Justice John Marshall held:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

 This case established judicial review, forming the basis for reviewing executive decisions.

Chief Justice John Marshall identified three main legal questions:

1️⃣ Did Marbury have the right to his commission (appointment as a judge)?

 Yes. The court ruled that Marbury was legally appointed as a judge.

2️⃣ Did the law provide a remedy for Marbury?

 Yes. If a person's legal rights are violated, the law should offer a way to fix it.

3️⃣ Did the Supreme Court have the power to issue a writ of mandamus (order) under the Judiciary Act
of 1789?

 No. The Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court this power, conflicted with the
U.S. Constitution.

Justice Marshall did not answer the issues in a traditional sequence.

 Normally, courts decide jurisdiction (power to hear the case) first.

 But Marshall first analyzed Marbury’s rights, then judicial remedies, and only at the end
questioned the Supreme Court’s power under the Judiciary Act.

 This allowed him to establish the principle of judicial review.

Two Judicial Reviews Happened Simultaneously

1️⃣ Judicial Review of Legislative Acts

 The court struck down part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 because it conflicted with the
Constitution.
2️⃣ Judicial Review of Executive Action

 The court ruled that the executive (government) was wrong to deny Marbury’s appointment.

By doing both reviews together, the case set a strong precedent for the judiciary’s power to check the
government and ensure that laws follow the Constitution.

II. Indian Cases on Pardoning Power

1. Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981)

 Supreme Court ruled that pardoning power is subject to judicial review like other executive
decisions.

 Laid the principle: If the power is exercised arbitrarily, mala fide, or in violation of
constitutional principles, it can be struck down.

2. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service (1985, UK)

Lord Deeplock gave

 Identified 3 grounds for judicial review:

1. Illegality – If the decision exceeds the legal powers.

2. Irrationality – If the decision is unreasonable (Wednesbury principle).

3. Procedural Impropriety – If due process is not followed.

3. Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989)

 SC held that the President’s pardoning power is not beyond judicial review.

 The President must consider relevant materials before granting pardon.

 Reiterated that the power is not personal but an executive power exercised with ministerial
advice.

4. Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (2006)

 The Court held that pardoning power is not immune from judicial review.

 It can be challenged if:

o Pardon is based on political considerations.

o Relevant materials are ignored.

o It violates Article 14 (Equality before law).

5. Keshavan Madhavan Menon Case

 Explained why pardoning power is necessary:

o To correct judicial errors.

o To show mercy in exceptional cases.

o To remedy harsh punishments.

6. Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case (2014)

 Laid down 5 grounds for judicial review of pardoning power:

1. If the order is passed without application of mind.

2. If relevant materials are ignored.

3. If it is based on extraneous or mala fide considerations.

4. If there is arbitrariness.

5. If due process is violated.

4. Pardoning Power: A Right or Grace?

 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (US Judge) held:

“A pardon is not a private act of grace but a constitutional duty exercised on public
considerations.”

 This means pardon is a legal right of citizens if granted on proper grounds and not a
discretionary grace of the President/Governor.

-Forms of Government

-2 types of government- Parliamentary form of government and Presidential form of government

Both parliamentary and presidential systems of government have unique features, advantages, and
disadvantages. Below is a detailed explanation of each system:

________________________________________

Parliamentary System of Government

Features:

1. Fusion of Powers: In a parliamentary system, the executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet) is
drawn from and accountable to the legislature (parliament). There is no clear separation between the
executive and legislative branches.

2. Prime Minister: The Prime Minister is the Head of Government and leads the executive branch.
The Prime Minister is elected by the members of the parliament and must maintain the support of the
majority in the lower house of parliament to stay in power.

3. Head of State: The Head of State is usually a ceremonial figure, such as a monarch or a
ceremonial president (in a republic), with limited powers.

4. Collective Responsibility: The government (Prime Minister and Cabinet) is collectively

responsible to parliament. If the government loses a vote of confidence in parliament, it must resign.

5. Dissolution of Parliament: The Prime Minister can advise the Head of State to dissolve
parliament and call for early elections, particularly if the government faces a crisis or loss of majority.

Advantages:

1. Quick Decision-Making: Since the executive and legislature are closely linked, decisions can be
made quickly without the gridlock that can occur in a presidential system.

2. Accountability: The government is directly accountable to parliament and can be removed by a

vote of no confidence, ensuring accountability to the electorate.

3. Stable Government: If the ruling party has a clear majority, it can provide stable governance
without the risk of executive-legislative conflict.

4. Flexibility: The system allows for the government to change without the need for a full election,
as the Prime Minister can be replaced by the ruling party if necessary.

5. Party Discipline: Since the executive is part of the legislature, party members often work in a
more coordinated manner, leading to smoother lawmaking.

Disadvantages:

1. Instability in Multi-Party Systems: In countries with many parties, coalitions are often required,
which can lead to unstable governments and frequent changes in leadership.

2. Lack of Clear Separation of Powers: Since the executive is drawn from the legislature, there is
less of a check on the power of the government, which can lead to abuses of power.
3. Minority Governments: If no party has a clear majority, minority governments may form, leading
to compromises that can delay decision-making.

4. Over-Concentration of Power: The Prime Minister and Cabinet may dominate the political
landscape, marginalizing other branches or parties.

5. Short-Term Focus: Governments may focus on short-term political goals to maintain their
majority rather than long-term national interests.

________________________________________

Presidential System of Government

Features:

1. Separation of Powers: The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are separate and
independent in a presidential system, with clear checks and balances.

2. President: The President is the Head of State and Head of Government, and is elected separately
from the legislature. The President holds significant executive powers and does not need the confidence
of the legislature to remain in power.

3. Fixed Term: The President is usually elected for a fixed term (e.g., 4 or 6 years) and cannot be
removed easily except through impeachment for serious misconduct.

4. Cabinet: The President selects the Cabinet, but members are not part of the legislature and are
typically outside elected positions.

5. Independent Legislative Branch: The legislature (Congress or Parliament) operates

independently from the executive branch, and lawmaking is carried out by elected representatives.

Advantages:

1. Clear Separation of Powers: The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are independent,
reducing the potential for abuse of power and ensuring checks and balances.

2. Stability: The President’s fixed term provides stability, as elections do not occur until the end of
the term, preventing frequent changes in leadership.

3. Accountability: Since the President is directly elected by the people, they are accountable to the
electorate, not to the legislature, which can lead to a stronger democratic mandate.

4. Prevention of Gridlock: The President is not reliant on the legislature’s confidence, which can
prevent gridlock when different parties control the executive and legislative branches.

5. Focus on National Issues: A President can focus on long-term national issues without the
immediate concern of losing power due to parliamentary votes.

Disadvantages:

1. Potential for Gridlock: If the President and the legislature are controlled by different political
parties, it can lead to conflict and gridlock, making it difficult to pass important legislation.
2. Weak Accountability: The President cannot be easily removed from office (except through
impeachment), even if they lose public support, leading to a lack of accountability.

3. Centralization of Power: The President has significant power, which can sometimes lead to
authoritarianism or the concentration of power in one office.

4. Fixed Terms: While fixed terms provide stability, they can also be a disadvantage if the President
is ineffective or unpopular. There is no immediate way to remove them from office, except through
impeachment.

5. Less Flexibility: Unlike the parliamentary system, where governments can change more easily,
the fixed term in a presidential system means that leadership changes only happen at the end of the
term or through exceptional circumstances.

________________________________________

Summary of Comparison

Aspect Parliamentary System Presidential System

Separation of Powers Fusion of executive and legislative powers Clear separation of executive,
legislative, and judicial powers

Head of State Typically a ceremonial monarch or president President is both Head of State and
Head of Government

Head of Government Prime Minister, chosen from the legislature President, elected separately by
the people

Accountability Government is accountable to parliament; can be removed via no-confidence vote

President is directly accountable to the electorate, but cannot be easily removed

StabilityCan be unstable, especially with coalitions or minority governments Generally stable, but
can lead to gridlock if branches conflict

Flexibility Flexible, can dissolve parliament and call for elections Fixed term, no easy way to
remove the President

________________________________________

Conclusion:

Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. A parliamentary system is often seen as more
flexible and responsive to changing political dynamics but can suffer from instability in multi-party
contexts. A presidential system, on the other hand, offers stability and clear separation of powers, but
can lead to gridlock and lacks flexibility in times of crisis. The choice between these systems depends on
the political culture and needs of the country in question.
The parliamentary and presidential systems are two common types of government, and they differ
significantly in how power is distributed and the roles of the executive and legislative branches. Here's a
breakdown of the key differences:

1. Separation of Powers

• Parliamentary System: The executive (the Prime Minister and their Cabinet) is drawn from and
accountable to the legislature (parliament). The executive and legislative branches are intertwined,
meaning that the government is formed by members of the legislative body.

• Presidential System: The executive (the President) is elected independently of the legislature,
and there is a clear separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The
President holds significant executive powers but is not accountable to the legislature in the same way as
in a parliamentary system.

2. Head of State and Head of Government

• Parliamentary System: The roles of the Head of State and Head of Government may be separate.
The Head of State is often a monarch (in constitutional monarchies) or a ceremonial president. The
Prime Minister, as the Head of Government, runs the country’s executive functions.

• Presidential System: The President acts as both the Head of State and Head of Government. The
President holds both ceremonial and executive powers, serving as the leader of the country and
overseeing the administration.

3. Formation of the Government

• Parliamentary System: The government is formed by the party or coalition that has the majority
in the parliament. The leader of the majority party or coalition becomes the Prime Minister.

• Presidential System: The President is directly elected by the people (or indirectly through an
electoral college). The President then selects their Cabinet members, often without the need for
legislative approval.

4. Accountability

• Parliamentary System: The Prime Minister and Cabinet are accountable to the legislature
(parliament) and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This means the government can be
dissolved if it loses the support of the majority in the legislature.

• Presidential System: The President is elected for a fixed term and cannot easily be removed by
the legislature. Impeachment is possible but often a difficult and lengthy process. The President
generally remains in office until their term ends.

5. Political Stability

• Parliamentary System: Can be less stable, as the government can change if it loses a vote of no
confidence or if elections lead to a change in the ruling party. Coalitions are often required, which can
lead to frequent changes in leadership.
• Presidential System: Tends to provide greater stability because the President holds office for a
fixed term, regardless of the legislature's composition. However, this can lead to gridlock if the executive
and legislature are controlled by different parties.

6. Legislative-Executive Relationship

• Parliamentary System: The executive is dependent on the support of the legislature and is part
of it. The Prime Minister must maintain the confidence of the majority in the legislative body.

• Presidential System: The executive is separate and does not depend on legislative confidence.
The President operates independently of the legislature, although they may still face opposition from it.

7. Examples of Countries

• Parliamentary System: United Kingdom, Canada, India, Australia.

• Presidential System: United States, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia.

8. Flexibility

• Parliamentary System: More flexible, as the government can change mid-term without needing
new elections if the legislature loses confidence in the government.

• Presidential System: Less flexible, as the President serves a fixed term, and changes in leadership
generally require new elections.

In summary, the main difference is that in a parliamentary system, the executive and legislative branches
are closely linked, with the executive drawn from the legislature and accountable to it. In a presidential
system, the executive (the President) is separate from the legislature and elected independently,
providing a clear distinction between the branches of government.

S – Separation of Powers

H – Head of State & Government 👑👨‍⚖️

A – Accountability

R – Relationship (Legislative & Executive) ⚖️

P – Political Stability 🏢✅

F - Formation of Government
F – Flexibility in Governance 🔄 give more mnemics

PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE

Here’s a well-structured and easy-to-understand set of notes on the Parliamentary Form of

Government and related cases, categorized into Prime Minister-related cases and President-related
cases for clarity.

📌 Parliamentary Form of Government

🔹 Definition

A Parliamentary Government is a system where the executive (government) is derived from the
legislature (Parliament) and is accountable to it.

 The Prime Minister (PM) is the real head of the government.

 The President is the ceremonial (nominal) head of the country.

 The Council of Ministers, led by the PM, holds real power.

🔹 Key Constitutional Articles

Article Provision

Article The executive power of the Union is vested in the President, but he exercises it through the
53 Council of Ministers.

Article
The President must act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers, led by the PM.
74

Article The Prime Minister and Ministers are appointed by the President, but they must be members
75 of Parliament and are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.

Article
Parliament can abolish or create a Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) in states through law.
169

🔹 Why Did Ambedkar Choose Parliamentary Over Presidential System?

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar preferred the Parliamentary system due to:

1️⃣ Flexibility & Accountability – The government is accountable to Parliament, preventing autocratic
rule. In contrast, a Presidential system has a fixed term and less accountability.

2️⃣ Diverse & Fragmented Society – India is socially and politically diverse. A Parliamentary system
allows multiple voices through coalition governments, whereas a Presidential system concentrates
power in one person.

🔹 Why is India a Federation?

India follows federalism because:

1️⃣ Not an Agreement-Based Federation – Unlike the USA, where states voluntarily joined the Union,
India's federal structure was created by the Constitution itself.

2️⃣ Integration of Princely States – Before independence, princely states were independent, but they
were integrated into one nation with a strong central government.

🔹 Difference: Parliamentary vs. Presidential System

Feature Parliamentary System (India, UK) Presidential System (USA)

Executive Head Prime Minister President

Head of State President (Nominal Head) President (Real Head)

Separation of No strict separation, executive is part of Strict separation, President is

Powers the legislature independent of Congress

Not fixed, depends on parliamentary

Tenure Fixed tenure (e.g., USA: 4 years)
majority

Can be removed by no-confidence

Removal Can be removed only by impeachment
motion 75

Decision Making Collective responsibility of ministers President takes independent decisions

🔹 Advantages & Disadvantages

✅ Advantages of Parliamentary System

✔ Quick decision-making in crises (e.g., during emergencies).
✔ Accountability – PM can be removed by Parliament.
✔ Prevents dictatorship, as power is distributed among ministers.

❌ Disadvantages
❌ Instability – Coalition governments often fall.
❌ Influence of Political Parties – Party loyalty is prioritized over merit.
❌ President has limited power, making the role symbolic.

✅ Advantages of Presidential System

✔ Stable government, as the President has a fixed term.
✔ Stronger leadership, as the President has independent authority.
✔ Decisive decision-making, especially in crises.

❌ Disadvantages
❌ Less accountability – The President cannot be removed easily.
❌ Risk of dictatorship if the President misuses power.
❌ Difficult to pass laws if the legislature and President belong to different parties.

📌 Government Functions

🔹 Judicial Powers of Government

 President appoints Supreme Court & High Court judges (Article 124).

 Judiciary can review laws & government actions (Judicial Review).

 Prime Minister influences judicial appointments through the collegium system.

🔹 Legislative Process

1️⃣ Bill Introduction – Introduced in either House of Parliament.

2️⃣ Discussion & Debate – MPs debate the provisions.
3️⃣ Voting – If passed in one House, it goes to the other.
4️⃣ President’s Assent – Becomes law after the President signs it.

🔹 Executive Powers

 President is the head of the state but acts on PM’s advice.

 PM leads the government and takes all major decisions.

 Governor functions like the President at the state level.

📌 Important Cases Categorized

🔹 Cases Related to the Prime Minister

1️⃣ Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)

 President is only a ceremonial head, and the real power is with the PM & Council of Ministers.

2️⃣ U.N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi (1971)

 The President has no independent power and must act on the advice of the Council of
Ministers.
3️⃣ Sarkaria Commission (1983) – Governor’s Appointment

FLOOR TEST A Floor Test is a process in the Legislative Assembly or Parliament to check whether the
government still has the majority support of the members. It is mainly used when there is doubt about
the ruling party's strength.

 Governors should be politically neutral.

 The PM should consult the state CM before appointing a Governor.

4️⃣ Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985)

 Parliament cannot take away fundamental rights through amendments.

5️⃣ Virappa Murali v. Speaker of Karnataka (2020)

 Supreme Court upheld the Speaker’s power to disqualify MLAs under the Anti-Defection Law.

6️⃣ B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) – The Supreme Court held that the President can remove a
Governor without giving reasons, but the removal should not be arbitrary or politically motivated.

7️⃣ N.D. Tiwari Case (2012)

 Supreme Court ordered a DNA test to establish paternity in an inheritance dispute.

🔹 Cases Related to the President’s Powers

1️⃣ Balwant Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2017)

 The Governor cannot misuse discretionary powers, must act as per the Constitution.

2️⃣ K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)

 Governor’s power to grant pardons is not absolute, must follow legal procedures.

🔹 Other Landmark Cases

✅ Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

 Established guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces (later became the POSH
Act, 2013).

✅ Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

 Established Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

📌 Conclusion
  India follows a Parliamentary system because it ensures accountability and prevents
dictatorship.

 The PM holds real power, while the President is a constitutional figurehead.

 Judiciary, Legislature, and Executive must work together to maintain a balance of power.

This system ensures stability, accountability, and efficiency in governance. ⚖️