Parliamentary System in India

👉 The Indian Constitution clearly adopts a Parliamentary form of government at both:

• Centre – Articles 74 & 75
• States – Articles 163 & 164

This means both Union and States function under a system where the Executive is accountable to the Legislature.

Parliamentary vs. Presidential: The Key Distinction

• Parliamentary System
  • The Executive (Council of Ministers) is responsible to Legislature.
  • It survives only as long as it has majority support in the legislature.
  • Example: India, UK, Japan, Canada.
• Presidential System
  • The Executive (President) is independent of Legislature in terms of tenure.
  • Cannot be removed easily; enjoys a fixed term.
  • Example: USA, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Russia.

👉 So, the basis of classification = Relationship between Executive and Legislature.

Different Names of Parliamentary System

1. Cabinet Government – because the real executive authority rests with the Cabinet. (Ivor Jennings called it this.)
2. Responsible Government – because the Cabinet is responsible to Parliament, and remains in power till it has its confidence.
3. Westminster Model – because it originated in Britain, where Parliament is located at Westminster, London.

Role of Prime Minister

Traditionally, British thinkers described the Prime Minister as primus inter pares = “first among equals” in the Cabinet.

• This meant that though PM is the leader, his position was more of a coordinator, not a dictator.

But over time, the PM’s position has strengthened immensely.

• Today, he is the dominant authority in decision-making.
• Political analysts like Crossman and Mackintosh describe the British (and Indian) system as a Prime Ministerial Government.

👉 In India too, the Prime Minister’s power has expanded so much that many argue: while we say Cabinet Government, in practice it is often Prime Ministerial Government.

Why Parliamentary Government is called Responsible Government?

Because:

1. Collective Responsibility – Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.
2. Individual Responsibility – Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President, but in practice, they must maintain PM’s and Parliament’s confidence.
3. No-Confidence Motion – If Lok Sabha passes it, the entire Cabinet must resign.

Thus, accountability is the essence.

Features of Parliamentary Government in India

The Indian Constitution explicitly provides for a Parliamentary form of Government (Centre: Articles 74–75, States: 163–164).
Now let’s understand its key features:

1. Nominal and Real Executives

• President → Nominal Executive (de jure, titular head).
• Prime Minister → Real Executive (de facto, actual head).
• Article 74: A Council of Ministers (CoM) headed by the PM aids and advises the President, and the advice is binding.

👉 So, President = Head of State, Prime Minister = Head of Government.

2. Majority Party Rule

• The majority party in Lok Sabha forms the Government.
• The leader of majority party → appointed PM by President.
• If no clear majority, President invites a coalition to form Government.

👉 Example: 2014 & 2019 – BJP had majority → Modi appointed PM.
1996 – No single party → Coalition governments.

3. Collective Responsibility

• This is the bedrock principle of Parliamentary Government.
• Article 75: Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.
• They work as a team → “swim or sink together.”
• If Lok Sabha passes a no-confidence motion, entire ministry must resign.

👉 UPSC 2020 directly asked: Responsible Government = Parliamentary System.

4. Political Homogeneity

• Usually, ministers belong to the same political party → shared ideology.
• In a coalition government, consensus binds ministers together.

👉 This ensures unity in decision-making.

5. Double Membership

• Ministers are members of both Legislature & Executive.
• Rule: A minister must be an MP, or must get elected/nominated within 6 months. Otherwise, he ceases to be minister.

👉 Example: Dr. Manmohan Singh was a Rajya Sabha MP, yet served as Prime Minister.

6. Leadership of the Prime Minister

• PM is the keystone of the arch in this system.
• Roles:
  1. Leader of Council of Ministers,
  2. Leader of Parliament,
  3. Leader of ruling party.
• Hence, PM’s leadership is crucial for smooth functioning of Government.

👉 That is why scholars call it “Prime Ministerial Government.”

7. Dissolution of the Lower House

• The Lok Sabha can be dissolved by the President on the advice of the PM.
• This gives the executive power over the legislature.
• It also allows for fresh elections before 5 years.

👉 Example: 2004 Vajpayee Government dissolved Lok Sabha early to go for polls.

8. Secrecy of Procedure

• Ministers are bound by oath of secrecy (administered by President).
• They cannot disclose Cabinet discussions, decisions, or sensitive information.
• Purpose: To maintain confidentiality & accountability in governance.

Features of Presidential Government

The American Constitution is the best example of a Presidential form of government.
Now let’s understand its key features:

(a) Dual Role of the President

• The President is both Head of State and Head of Government.
• As Head of State → Ceremonial leader, represents the nation.
• As Head of Government → Real executive authority; controls administration, policy, and governance.

👉 Unlike India where President = nominal head, PM = real head, in USA the President combines both roles.

(b) Fixed Tenure

• The President is directly elected by an Electoral College.
• Tenure: 4 years (re-election possible, but maximum two terms as per 22nd Amendment).
• Cannot be removed by Congress except through impeachment, and that too only for grave unconstitutional acts.

👉 This ensures stability of government.

(c) Cabinet = Advisory Body

• The President governs with the help of a Cabinet, sometimes called the “Kitchen Cabinet.”
• Members are non-elected Secretaries (like Ministers).
• They are:
  • Chosen and appointed by the President,
  • Responsible only to him,
  • Removable by him at will.
• Unlike India, they are not Members of Legislature.

👉 Thus, Cabinet is weak compared to Indian Council of Ministers.

(d) No Responsibility to Congress

• President and his secretaries are not responsible to Congress.
• They cannot be removed by a vote of no-confidence.
• They are not members of Congress and do not attend its sessions.

👉 This is a key difference from India’s system where Ministers sit in Parliament and are answerable daily.

(e) No Power to Dissolve Legislature

• The President cannot dissolve the House of Representatives (Lower House of Congress).
• Both Executive and Legislature have fixed, independent tenures.

👉 This makes the system more rigid compared to India’s flexible Parliamentary system.

(f) Separation of Powers

• The Presidential system is based on Montesquieu’s doctrine of Separation of Powers.
• Legislature, Executive, Judiciary are separate and independent.
• None can encroach upon the domain of the other.

👉 In India, we follow separation of functions with checks and balances, not absolute separation.

Merits of the Parliamentary System

1. Harmony Between Legislature and Executive

• Since the executive is part of the legislature, both work in close cooperation.
• Reduces the chance of deadlocks and disputes.
  👉 Example: In India, Ministers are MPs, so law-making and implementation remain connected.

2. Responsible Government

• The Council of Ministers is accountable to Parliament, especially Lok Sabha.
• Parliament can check executive actions through Question Hour, Debates, Adjournment Motions, No-confidence Motions, etc.
  👉 UPSC 2020: “Responsible Government” refers to this very accountability.

3. Prevents Despotism

• Power is not concentrated in one person; it is shared by a group (Cabinet).
• Collective responsibility + no-confidence motion → keeps a check on authoritarian tendencies.
  👉 Contrast with Presidential system where power lies with one elected President.

4. Ready Alternative Government

• If ruling party loses majority, opposition can be invited to form government → no need for fresh elections.
• Dr. Jennings: “Leader of the opposition is the alternative Prime Minister.”
  👉 Example: In UK, ruling party changes frequently but Parliament continues smoothly.

5. Wide Representation

• The Cabinet includes MPs from different regions, communities, and interests.
• Helps in inclusive decision-making.
  👉 Example: In India, PM often balances cabinet portfolios to ensure representation of states, caste groups, minorities, women, etc.

Demerits of the Parliamentary System

1. Unstable Government

• Government survives only till it has majority support.
• Susceptible to no-confidence motions, defections, and coalition instability.
  👉 Examples: Governments of Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, VP Singh, IK Gujral, Deva Gowda—all fell before completing term.

2. No Continuity of Policies

• Policy changes with every new government.
• Long-term planning becomes difficult.
  👉 Example: Janata Party (1977) reversed Indira Gandhi’s policies, but Congress (1980) again reversed Janata’s policies.

3. Dictatorship of the Cabinet

• If ruling party has an absolute majority, Cabinet can dominate Parliament.
• H.J. Laski: “Parliamentary system gives the executive an opportunity for tyranny.”
• Ramsay Muir: “Dictatorship of the Cabinet.”
  👉 Example: During Indira Gandhi’s majority era, Cabinet became highly dominant.

4. Against Separation of Powers

• In this system, legislature and executive are fused.
• Cabinet is part of legislature and controls it too.
• Bagehot: “Cabinet is a hyphen that joins, a buckle that binds the executive and legislative departments.”
  👉 Contrast with USA’s strict separation of powers.

5. Government by Amateurs

• Ministers are chosen from MPs, not from experts.
• Often, they are political leaders without technical expertise.
• They spend more time on parliamentary and party work than administration.
  👉 Example: A lawyer or career politician may head Ministry of Science or Defence without subject expertise.

Reasons for Adopting Parliamentary System in India

Though some members in the Constituent Assembly argued for a US-style Presidential system, the framers finally preferred the British Parliamentary model. The reasons were both practical and historical.

1. Familiarity with the System

• India had already experienced the Parliamentary form during British rule (especially after the Indian Councils Act 1861, Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms 1919, and Government of India Act 1935).
• Leaders like K.M. Munshi argued: “For the last 30–40 years, some kind of responsibility has been introduced in governance. Our constitutional traditions have become Parliamentary. Why should we adopt a novel experiment?”
  👉 Familiarity made the transition smooth.

2. Preference for Responsibility over Stability

• B.R. Ambedkar explained: A democratic executive must ensure stability + responsibility.
• But no system guarantees both equally:
  • US system → stability but weak responsibility.
  • UK system → responsibility but less stability.
• Our Constitution preferred responsibility to stability because in a democracy, accountability to the people is more important.

3. Avoiding Executive–Legislature Conflicts

• In the Presidential system (USA), the President and Legislature often clash → “Government shutdowns” are common.
• Framers felt an infant democracy like India could not afford such deadlocks.
• The Parliamentary system ensures cooperation between Executive and Legislature because the Executive is drawn from the Legislature.

4. Nature of Indian Society

• India is highly diverse—multi-religious, multi-linguistic, caste-based, and regionally divided.
• Parliamentary system allows wide representation: Council of Ministers can include members from different castes, religions, states, regions.
• This fosters national integration and unity in a plural society.

Post-Independence Debate

• Since the 1970s, some have argued India should switch to a Presidential system (especially citing instability in coalition era).
• In 1975, the Swaran Singh Committee reviewed the matter.
• It concluded: Parliamentary system has worked well in India; no need to replace it.

Distinction between Indian and British Models of Parliamentary System

Though India borrowed heavily from the British Parliamentary system (Westminster model), our framers modified it to suit Indian conditions. The key differences are:

1. Republican vs. Monarchical

• India → Head of State is the President, who is elected (republican).
• Britain → Head of State is the King/Queen, who enjoys a hereditary position (monarchical).

👉 So, India = Republic, Britain = Monarchy.

2. Sovereignty of Parliament vs. Supremacy of Constitution

• Britain → Parliament is sovereign (can make or unmake any law).
• India → Parliament is not supreme. Its powers are limited by:
  • Written Constitution,
  • Federal system,
  • Judicial Review,
  • Fundamental Rights.

👉 So, in India → Supremacy of Constitution; in Britain → Supremacy of Parliament.

3. Position of Prime Minister

• Britain → PM must be from House of Commons (Lower House).
• India → PM can be from either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.

👉 Example: Manmohan Singh (PM, 2004–14) was from Rajya Sabha.

4. Appointment of Ministers

• Britain → Only MPs can become Ministers.
• India → Even a non-MP can be appointed Minister, but must get elected/nominated to either House within 6 months.

5. Legal Responsibility

• Britain → Ministers have legal responsibility; they must countersign the official acts of the Head of State.
• India → No such requirement; Ministers are not legally bound to countersign President’s acts.

6. Shadow Cabinet

• Britain → Unique feature: Shadow Cabinet.
  • Opposition party forms its own “cabinet” to monitor ruling Cabinet.
  • Members are trained for future ministerial roles.
• India → No such institution exists. Opposition remains loosely organized.