Whether PM has any duty to furnish information to the President?

The author in this article discusses whether PM has any duty regarding furnishing of information to the President and it further talks about the provisions of the Indian Constitution that talk about the same.

Introduction

The constitution of all nations is sacrosanct. Pretty much every Constitution has been changed now and again to pace up with the running time and India is no special case to it. Truly, the desire of the individuals is supreme which is represented in the parliamentary form of government that India has run and directed by the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers. The capacity of the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers is to help and furnish the information to the President, who is the top of the official.

In India, the situation of the President appears to be like that of the British ruler however fluctuates definitely when powers and capacity of the President are broke down in the protected structure. Presently, under the Indian Constitution Article 53(1) vests the executive power of the union in the hands of the President and provides that, “It shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinates to him in accordance with the Constitution.”

So on a cautious reading of Article 53(1), we become more acquainted with that the subordinate officials are none but the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers and if the President is permitted to exercise such power at his own will, India will be before long changed into a dictatorship of the President. Consequently, to dodge this, Article 74(1) gives that there will be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister to help and exhort the President and such counsel given by the Council of Ministers will be official on the furnishing of information to the President after revaluation and will not be addressed in any courtroom.

Here one significant angle is that the Council of Ministers is going by the Prime Minister, who thusly itself is named by the President under Article 75(1) and it is the Prime Minister on whose exhortation the President selects the Ministers to shape the Council of Ministers. Consequently for all intents and purposes or as indicated by the composed arrangement of the constitution the Prime Minister alongside the Council of Ministers hold office at the joy of the President under Article 75(2). Consequently putting the above proclamation in the laymen language, as indicated by which, the President is the top of the Executive and chips away at the guide and counsel of the Prime Minister alongside his Council of Ministers and they hold office at the joy of the President.

As indicated by the arrangement of the constitution under Article 75(3), the Council of Ministers will be on the whole capable to the House of People or the Lok Sabha in light of the fact that each counsel outfitted by the Council of Ministers is for the individuals of the nation. Consequently, the Council of Ministers is responsible to the House of People and on the off chance that the Council appreciates the larger part support in the House of People, at that point, it can’t be expelled by the President. This announcement sounds in opposition to the above explanation yet has been joined to safeguard the very sacredness of popular government. So, let us discuss the furnishing of information to the President.

Also Read  Manual Scavenging: A Treachery in Disguise

The Indian Constitution with respect to furnishing of information to the President

In India, there are provisions in the Constitution regarding Prime Ministers furnishing of information to the President.  The article 78 of the Indian Constitution reads as-

78. Duties of Prime Minister as respects the furnishing of information to the President, etc.-It shall be the duty of the Prime Minister-  

(a) to communicate to the President all decisions of the council of Ministers relating to the administration of the affairs of the union and proposals for legislation;

(b) to furnish such information relating to the administration of the affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation as the President may call for; and

(c) if the President so requires, to submit for the consideration of the Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision has been taken by a Minister but which has not been considered by the Council.

Necessity to act in accordance with the Council of Ministers

Being a central executive body of the government the cabinet performs wide ranging functions which make its role critical and decisive. The entire administration and even the Parliament rotates around it and seeks its leadership in resolving conflicts and managing the affairs of government.

Article 74 which is very important says that “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice.

-Provided that the President may require the council of Ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.

So, it is clear that without the aid and advice, the President of India can not perform his functions. The aid and advice is binding upon the President by the virtue of Article 74 of theConstitution.

The Role of Council of Ministers

(1) Formulation, execution, assessment and amendment of open strategy in different circles which the party in power tries to advance and practice.

(2) Coordination among different services and different organs of the administration which may enjoy clashes, inefficiency, duplication of capacities and domain building.

 (3) Preparation and checking of the authoritative plan which interpreted the strategies of the legislature in real life through legal authorizations.

(4) Executive authority over organization through arrangements, rule making forces and treatment of emergencies and calamities – regular just as political.

(5) Financial administration through monetary control and activity of assets like Consolidated Fund and Contingency Funds of India.

Necessity under the constitution to act in accordance with the advice of some other authority

Much of the time, the sentiment and judgment of the President is required, in spite of the fact that the President isn’t limited by the counsel of his committee of clergymen in these cases. Notwithstanding, he is limited by the exhortation of some other position. For example, article 103(2) of the constitution utilizes the word will. Subsequently restricting the President to act as per the guidance of the political race commission. The ‘will’ in this article supersedes the ‘will’ in article 74, and this is a special case engrafted in the constitution itself.

In the matter of assurance of the age of a high court judge, under article 217(3) , the constitution says that the President must counsel the Chief Justice of India. Nothing in the arrangement ties the President by the main equity’s recommendation. Be that as it may, in Samsher Singh v. Territory of Punjab , Justice Iyer, was of the contrary view. He accepted that the final say regarding such a delicate issue must have a place with the central equity of India.

Also Read  Scope of Article 32 and Article 226

Role of the President in the Parliamentary System

The President is nominal head or Titular head of the government elected through indirect elections which is given in Article 54 of the Constitution of India and real powers vested in his “council of ministers” which is headed by Prime Minister.

Non-executive presidents typically embody and represent the legitimate constitutional authority of the state, performing ceremonial and official functions in which the identity and authority of the state as such, rather than that of the incumbent government, is emphasized. For example, the president will usually accredit and receive ambassadors, open sessions of parliament and designate or appoint the prime minister. The president might also formally appoint certain high-ranking officials, and will almost always formally promulgate laws and sign treaties. Non-executive presidents usually have little or no discretion in the performance of these official duties (for example, the president may formally sign a treaty ratified by the parliament, but must do so: he/she does not have the discretion to refuse signature), but by their presence they may strengthen the legitimacy of government acts by adding their moral, ceremonial and institutional authority as the embodiment of the state as such (or, if directly elected, as a representative of the people as whole) to the government’s partisan mandate.

The Presidents Role is such due to

  • Protecting the political neutrality of the state It follows from the over that the detachment of workplaces between head of government and non-official president assists with keeping up a representative division between the occupant government, which is party-political, and the perpetual foundations of the state in that capacity, which should be politically impartial and all inclusive. The president emblematically guarantees that the individuals who lead the legislature are in any event notionally substandard compared to a more significant position authority that speaks to the majority rule established request, and that the pioneer of a decision gathering or alliance is subordinate to a non-fanatic epitome of the entirety. Thus, nonexecutive presidents are especially connected with those organizations that should be non-fanatic.
  • Continuity (evasion of power vacuums) Having a non-official president guarantees that there is no force vacuum when the workplace of the leader is empty (for example on the off chance that an administration development process takes longer than anticipated and a guardian bureau is in office) or when parliament is broken up. The president represents that, while there probably won’t be an administration, the state is as yet working. This can have suggestions both for local certainty and outer esteem. Correspondingly, in nations where cupboards are fleeting, a non-official president can be a significant wellspring of coherence who keeps up institutional memory and aggregate understanding in spite of high turnover in the workplace of the executive.
  • Representation Non-official presidents can fill in as agents of the country, advancing its picture and notoriety both at home and abroad. Being liberated, by their non-official status, from duty regarding everyday legislative issues implies that they can discover more opportunity to participate in such exercises and are less effectively undermined by the political choices of their legislatures.
  • Civic authority As a urban pioneer, a non-official president reflects and explains the common virtues and goals of the individuals. The metro authority elements of the president may incorporate belittling expressions and culture, supporting or empowering beneficent exercises, visiting neighborhood networks, making addresses and facilitating social occasions. Being liberated from everyday legislative issues and from partisanship, yet having a national stage from which to talk, a non-official president can go about as the inner voice of the country, maybe supporting the individuals who are in any case overlooked by the political procedure. The line between common administration and political impedance is, be that as it may, a meager one: to ensure their freedom, non-official heads of state are in numerous purviews prohibited by law or custom from offering open remarks that could be deciphered as politically dubious.
  • Constitutional mediation A non-official president might be endowed with certain optional forces, which, by law or traditional act of the constitution, are exercisable at the president’s very own tact. The wording used to indicate these forces shifts. This Primer uses the term ‘optional forces’, while, in some parliamentary popular governments that have held a nonentity ruler, for example, Australia and Canada, the term ‘save forces’ is progressively normal. These forces are excluded from the principles of ecclesiastical obligation, implying that pastoral countersignature isn’t required, and clerical guidance might be overlooked.
  • The exceptional situations when president can exercise his discretionary powers:
Also Read  Evolution of Right to Privacy in India: An Overview

(I) President can seek reconsideration an issue from the council of Ministers, according to article 74 and Article III.

(II) The President can ask for information from the Prime Minister regarding functioning of the Government according to Article 78 of the Constitution of India.

(III) The president generally appoints the head of the party that wins majority of the seats as the prime Minister. If majority is not obtained by any party in the Lok Sabah election then the President uses his discretionary power to choose the Prime Minister. As the president did in 1996.

(IV) It becomes clear that the council of Ministers is answerable to the Lok Sabha, when we combine Article 74 and 75. It is supposed that President is not compelled to work according to the aid and advice of the council of Ministers of the Government concerned, if any govt. loses support of the Lok Sabah.

Conclusion

In an extravagantly composed constitution, there is express arrangement making the ministerial advice binding upon the President. “In the absence of written provisions to the contrary, the President could not and shall not, act, except on the advice of his ministers.” 

Within the sight of a clear cut arrangement, it is hard to concur, that the Ministerial guidance isn’t official on the furnishing of information to the President in all issues and circumstances. Political practicality may likewise require acknowledgment of ministerial issues. It is contended that acknowledgment of the guidance of the council of ministers is the quintessence of parliamentary government.  Dr. Ambedkar and Dr. Rajendra Prasad ceaselessly bantered on the implication of the word ‘will’ during the Constituent Assembly discusses. While Dr. Rajendra Prasad was reluctant about the bindingness of the word ‘will’, Dr. Ambedkar demanded that each President of India must follow up on the guidance on some assemblage of pastors.

Such a significant inquiry was at last left completely to be managed by shows. The connection between the President and the council of ministers and their jobs in their separate circles of action was left to be controlled by constitutional conventions.

Also read Importance and Requirement of Analysis on Article 13 of the Constitution