Constitutional Position of the President
Now that we know the President’s powers, we must ask:
👉 “Is the President truly powerful — or just symbolic?”
The answer lies in India’s Parliamentary System of Government, where the President is the Nominal Executive, and the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister is the Real Executive.
⚙️ The Parliamentary System — Articles 53, 74, and 75
Let’s decode the three constitutional pillars that define the President’s position.
Article 53 — Executive Power
“The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.”
🟢 Meaning:
All executive powers are formally vested in the President,
but actually exercised by the Council of Ministers.
This is why all government orders are issued “in the name of the President of India”.
Article 74 — Aid and Advice of Council of Ministers
“There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President, who shall act in accordance with such advice.”
✅ The 42nd Amendment (1976) made it binding on the President to act according to ministerial advice.
✅ The 44th Amendment (1978) introduced a small flexibility:
The President may once ask the Council to reconsider its advice —
but must act according to the reconsidered advice.
🟢 Example from history:
- 1997: President K.R. Narayanan returned the Cabinet’s recommendation to impose President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh — the Cabinet withdrew its proposal.
- 1998–99: He again returned the advice to impose President’s Rule in Bihar; after reconsideration, it was approved and imposed.
Thus, the President is not a puppet — but also not autonomous.
He has a small “right to warn and advise”, just like the British Monarch.
Article 75 — Collective Responsibility
“The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.”
✅ Meaning: The Prime Minister and Council of Ministers are politically accountable to the elected House, not the President.
This is what makes the system parliamentary, not presidential.
👑 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Explanation
Dr. Ambedkar beautifully summarised the President’s position:
“The President of India is like the King under the British Constitution —
he is the head of the State but not of the Government.
He represents the nation but does not rule the nation.
He is a ceremonial head, a constitutional symbol — a seal through which the nation’s decisions are made known.”
So, the President of India ≠ President of the U.S.
The American President rules, but the Indian President represents.
⚖️ De Jure and De Facto Executive
| Type | Meaning | Example |
| De Jure (Legal Head) | The President — authority in law | President of India |
| De Facto (Real Head) | The Prime Minister — authority in practice | PM of India |
So, the President acts, but only on advice — the real power lies with the Council of Ministers.
⚙️ Situational Discretion of the President
Normally, the President must act on advice, but in certain exceptional or undefined situations, he/she may exercise discretion.
We can call these “grey zones of presidential discretion.”
Key Situations:
1️⃣ Appointing the Prime Minister
When no party has a clear majority in Lok Sabha.
Or when a PM dies suddenly and there’s no obvious successor.
2️⃣ Dismissing the Council of Ministers
When it loses majority but refuses to resign.
3️⃣ Dissolving the Lok Sabha
When no stable government can be formed.
4️⃣ (By convention) Seeking reconsideration of ministerial advice once.
🟢 In all these, the President acts as a constitutional sentinel, not a political player.
🧭 Conceptual Takeaway
- The President of India is not a ruler but a referee — a dignified, impartial guardian of the Constitution.
- He/she embodies the unity, integrity, and continuity of the nation.
- The Prime Minister and Council of Ministers wield the real power — but in the President’s name, ensuring that authority and accountability remain balanced.
As Dr. Ambedkar said:
“The President may act only as a constitutional head,
but in that silence and restraint lies the dignity of Indian democracy.”