The Indian Constitution vests the entire executive power of the Union in one person and then spends the rest of its text making sure that person almost never exercises it alone. On the head-of-state half of the Union executive, the gap between envisaged role and actual working is not a story of decay but of a design left deliberately unfinished in 1950, closed by amendment in 1976, reopened in 1978, and litigated still.

The three organs and the shape of the Indian executive

PSIR Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 1500+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹1000 →

The starting point is the tripartite division of governmental function that every modern constitution inherits from Montesquieu, and the specific, diluted form in which India adopted it.

The legislature makes law. At the Union it is Parliament — the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha with the President as an integral part of it under Article 79; at the state level the legislative assembly, with a council in a handful of states.
The executive implements and enforces law. It has two layers that must be kept analytically distinct.
- The political executive — the head of state (President at the Union, Governor in the states) and the head of government (Prime Minister or Chief Minister) with the council of ministers.
- The permanent executive — the civil services, which supply continuity and technical capacity but carry no political responsibility.
The judiciary interprets law and administers justice, and additionally polices the constitutional boundaries of the other two organs through judicial review.

Separation of powers as India actually adopted it

India follows a functional, not a personnel-based, separation. Ministers sit in the legislature; the legislature can unseat the executive; the executive appoints the judges.
Article 50 directs the separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services, and it sits in Part IV — a directive, not an enforceable command.
The Supreme Court in Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab held that the Indian Constitution does not recognise a rigid separation of powers in the American sense, though it does not contemplate an assumption by one organ of functions essentially belonging to another.
Kesavananda Bharati and Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain later placed separation of powers within the basic structure, which converts a structural description into a limit on the amending power.
The practical consequence is checks and balances rather than watertight compartments — the President’s assent is a legislative act, the ordinance power is a legislative act performed by the executive, and the pardoning power is an executive act with judicial effect.

Why a parliamentary executive needs two heads

A parliamentary system separates the dignified part of the constitution from the efficient part, in Bagehot’s terms — the head of state carries symbolism and continuity, the head of government carries power and responsibility.
Continuity of administration is the first justification. Ministries fall; the state does not. A head with a fixed five-year term ensures that at every moment there is someone competent to appoint the next government.
Neutrality above party is the second. The Prime Minister is by definition a partisan figure. Someone must be able to represent the nation as a whole, receive foreign heads of state, and address Parliament as its institutional voice.
A reserve of authority for abnormal moments is the third and most contested. If a ministry loses the confidence of the House and refuses to go, or if no ministry can be formed, the system needs an actor who is neither a claimant nor a partisan.

Why India chose a nominal head rather than an elected chief executive

The Constituent Assembly examined the American presidential model seriously and rejected it, and the reasons it gave are the reasons the office looks as it does.

Ambedkar’s decisive distinction was between two kinds of accountability. A presidential executive is assessed periodically, at fixed elections; a parliamentary executive is assessed daily, through question hour, adjournment motions, cut motions and the standing possibility of a no-confidence vote.
- His conclusion was that a newly independent and deeply unequal society needed more responsibility than stability, and that an executive insulated for a fixed term was the greater risk.
Familiarity weighed heavily. The Government of India Act 1919 and the Government of India Act 1935 had already built responsible government in the provinces, so the personnel, the conventions and the official vocabulary already existed.
Plural representation weighed too. A cabinet drawn from the legislature can continuously represent regions, religions, castes and languages inside the executive; a single directly elected president represents only whoever won.
Fear of a rival mandate completed the argument. A directly elected President with a national mandate confronting a Prime Minister with a parliamentary mandate is a formula for deadlock, and the Assembly had no appetite for two centres of legitimacy in a country that had just been partitioned.

“He is the head of the State but not of the Executive. He represents the Nation but does not rule the Nation.” — B.R. Ambedkar

The office that emerged was therefore indirectly elected, symbolically supreme and functionally bound — a head of state whose powers are real on paper and derivative in practice.
James Manor’s observation is the key to the controversies that followed: the Assembly left a striking number of provisions about the President open-ended, leaving future generations to settle by practice what the text declined to settle by words.

What the Assembly left unsettled

The original Article 74(1) said only that there shall be a council of ministers to aid and advise the President — it did not say the advice bound him.
Article 111 gave the President power to withhold assent to a bill and set no time limit for deciding, which is the textual root of the pocket veto.
Assent to a constitutional amendment bill was, until 1971, not expressly mandatory.
The oath under Article 60 requires the President to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law — language that no other functionary except a Governor swears, and that Rajendra Prasad read as conferring an independent duty.
The President is elected and impeachable, unlike a hereditary monarch who can do no wrong, which supplies an argument that he must have something to be impeached for.

Electing the President

The electoral college under Articles 54 and 55

Article 54 constitutes the electoral college from elected members only, in two blocs.
- The elected members of both Houses of Parliament — nominated members of the Rajya Sabha and, until the 104th Amendment ended the practice, nominated Anglo-Indian members of the Lok Sabha are excluded.
- The elected members of the legislative assemblies of the states, plus, since the 70th Amendment, the assemblies of Delhi and Puducherry.
Members of legislative councils are excluded entirely, because the college is meant to reflect popular election, and councils are indirectly constituted.
The exclusion of nominated members rests on a principle: the President must derive authority from the elected representatives of the people alone, so that the office can claim a democratic base without a direct popular mandate.
Article 71 places disputes about the election exclusively before the Supreme Court, and the 11th Amendment added that the election cannot be challenged merely because a vacancy existed in the electoral college.

The weighted value formula

The arithmetic is where the federal idea enters the office, and it is worth setting out precisely because it is the one part of the topic that is genuinely technical.

Value of one MLA’s vote = (population of the state ÷ total number of elected members of that assembly) ÷ 1000, fractions above one-half counted as one.
Value of one MP’s vote = (total value of the votes of all MLAs of all states ÷ total number of elected members of both Houses), fractions above one-half counted as one.
Population means the 1971 census figure. The 42nd Amendment froze it there; the 84th Amendment extended the freeze until the first census taken after 2026, so that states which controlled population growth are not penalised in the electoral college or in seat allocation.
The consequence is a deliberate parity between the states as a bloc and the Union as a bloc: the total value of all MLA votes is engineered to be almost exactly equal to the total value of all MP votes.
Uttar Pradesh’s MLA vote is valued at 208 and Sikkim’s at 7, so population weight is preserved within the states’ bloc even as the bloc as a whole is balanced against Parliament.

Feature of the electoral college	Provision	What it secures
Only elected members vote	Article 54	A democratic base without direct election
State assemblies included	Article 54	The federal principle — states elect the head of the Union
Delhi and Puducherry included	70th Amendment	Representation for legislatures without statehood
Weighted MLA vote by population	Article 55(2)	Equality among citizens across unequal states
MP value derived from MLA total	Article 55(2)	Parity between the Union and the states
1971 population frozen	42nd and 84th Amendments	No penalty for population control

The single transferable vote and the quota

Article 55(3) prescribes election by proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, with voting by secret ballot.
Because there is only one seat, “proportional representation” here operates as the alternative vote: an elector marks preferences, and the count proceeds until someone crosses the quota.
The quota is (total value of valid votes ÷ 2) + 1. A candidate reaching it on first preferences is declared elected; otherwise the lowest candidate is eliminated and second preferences are transferred at full value.
Marking a first preference is compulsory for the ballot to be valid; further preferences are optional.
The system guarantees that the President is elected by more than half the value of the votes cast, which is the constitutional answer to the objection that an indirectly elected head lacks legitimacy.
The only occasion on which the transfer of second preferences actually decided the outcome was 1969, when the Congress split produced a “conscience vote” and V.V. Giri overtook Neelam Sanjiva Reddy in the second count.

The arithmetic in the most recent election

In 2022 the electoral college carried a total value of 10,86,431 votes, with the states’ bloc at 5,43,231 and Parliament’s at 5,43,200 — parity to within thirty-one votes.
The value of an MP’s vote stood at 700, down from 708 in 2017, because the Jammu and Kashmir assembly stood dissolved and its MLAs’ values dropped out of the numerator.
Droupadi Murmu polled 6,76,803 votes — 64.03% — against 3,80,177 for Yashwant Sinha, and became the first tribal President and the second woman to hold the office.
With an assembly elected in Jammu and Kashmir in October 2024, the value of an MP’s vote will move again at the next presidential election, which is a reminder that the “parity” is recomputed at every poll rather than fixed once.

The weighted formula is the only place in the Constitution where a citizen of Sikkim and a citizen of Uttar Pradesh are made mathematically equal, and it exists to legitimise an office that never faces a voter.

Qualifications, term, oath and removal

Qualifications and conditions of office

Article 58 requires that the candidate be a citizen of India, have completed 35 years, be qualified for election to the Lok Sabha, and not hold any office of profit under the Union, a state or a local authority.
Sitting Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Governors and Ministers are expressly not disqualified, which allows a Vice-President or Governor to contest without resigning.
A nomination requires 50 proposers and 50 seconders — a threshold raised in 1997 to end frivolous candidatures — along with a security deposit.
Article 59 bars the President from being a member of either House or of a state legislature; a sitting member who is elected is deemed to have vacated the seat. He may hold no other office of profit, is entitled to rent-free official residence and to emoluments that cannot be diminished during his term.

Term, re-election, resignation

Article 56 fixes a term of five years from the date of entering office, with resignation addressed to the Vice-President and removal only by impeachment; the President continues in office until his successor enters upon office, so there can never be a vacancy by effluxion of time.
Article 57 permits re-election without limit, in contrast with the American two-term bar. Rajendra Prasad remains the only President to have served two full terms.
Article 62 requires that an election to fill a vacancy by expiry of term be completed before the expiry, and one caused by death, resignation or removal be held within six months, the new incumbent serving a fresh full term rather than the remainder of his predecessor’s.

The oath and what it is read to mean

Article 60 has the oath administered by the Chief Justice of India, or in his absence the senior-most available judge of the Supreme Court.
Its operative words are to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law” and to devote oneself to the service and well-being of the people of India.
Only the President and the Governors swear this formula. Ministers, legislators and the Vice-President swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution — a materially weaker undertaking.
That textual asymmetry is the strongest available argument for residual presidential responsibility, and every activist President from Rajendra Prasad onward has rested on it.

Impeachment under Article 61

The ground is “violation of the Constitution”, which the Constitution nowhere defines — a silence that gives the process a political rather than a strictly legal character.
The charge may be preferred by either House. A resolution must be signed by at least one-fourth of the total membership of that House and fourteen days’ notice given.
It must then be passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of that House — the most demanding majority the Constitution prescribes anywhere.
The other House investigates the charge. The President has the right to appear and be represented, and if the investigating House also passes the resolution by two-thirds of its total membership, the President stands removed from the date of the resolution.
Nominated members of Parliament participate in impeachment though they cannot vote in the election, and state legislators do not participate at all though they elect him — an asymmetry that tells you the removal is conceived as a parliamentary, not a federal, act.
The procedure has never been invoked, and its practical impossibility is precisely what makes presidential activism dangerous: a functionary who cannot realistically be removed cannot safely be given discretion.

Removal	President (Article 61)	Judges (Article 124(4))	Vice-President (Article 67(b))
Ground	Violation of the Constitution, undefined	Proved misbehaviour or incapacity	No ground specified
Initiating House	Either House	Either House	Only the Rajya Sabha
Majority	Two-thirds of total membership in both Houses	Two-thirds of members present and voting plus majority of total membership	Majority of all then members of Rajya Sabha, agreed to by Lok Sabha
Investigation	By the other House	By a statutory inquiry committee	None prescribed
Times used successfully	None	None	None

The powers of the President

Executive powers

Article 53 vests the executive power of the Union in the President, exercisable by him directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution.
Article 77 provides that all executive action is expressed to be taken in the name of the President, and authenticated as the rules prescribe; the Allocation of Business Rules and Transaction of Business Rules made under it are what actually distribute governmental work.
Appointments flow from the office: the Prime Minister under Article 75(1) and other ministers on his advice; the Attorney General under Article 76; the Comptroller and Auditor General under Article 148; Governors under Article 155; judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts; the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners under Article 324, now on the recommendation of the statutory selection committee created in 2023; the chairman and members of the UPSC, the Finance Commission under Article 280, and the national commissions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes.
The President administers the Union territories through administrators under Article 239, and can declare an area a Scheduled Area under the Fifth Schedule.
Article 78 places a duty on the Prime Minister to communicate all decisions of the council of ministers relating to administration and legislative proposals, to furnish such information as the President calls for, and — this is the sharpest clause — to submit for the consideration of the council any matter on which a minister has decided but the council has not.

Legislative powers

The President is a constituent part of Parliament under Article 79; no bill becomes law without him, and Parliament cannot function without his summons.
Article 85 empowers him to summon each House, to prorogue either House, and to dissolve the Lok Sabha, with the constitutional constraint that six months may not elapse between the last sitting of one session and the first sitting of the next.
Article 86 gives him the right to address either House or both together and to send messages to a House on a pending bill or otherwise.
Article 87 requires a special address to both Houses assembled together at the first session after each general election and at the first session of each year — the speech is drafted by the government and read by the President, which is exactly why departures from the text have been read as acts of assertion.
He nominates twelve members to the Rajya Sabha under Article 80(1)(a) from persons with special knowledge or practical experience of literature, science, art and social service; the parallel power to nominate Anglo-Indians to the Lok Sabha under Article 331 lapsed with the 104th Amendment.
Prior recommendation of the President is a precondition for money bills, financial bills, bills affecting taxation in which states are interested, and bills altering state boundaries under Article 3.
He appoints the presiding officer of a House when both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker offices are vacant, and lays before Parliament the reports of the CAG, the UPSC, the Finance Commission and the statutory commissions.

Article 111 — assent, withholding and return

When a bill passed by both Houses is presented, the President has three options and no time limit.
- Declare assent, whereupon the bill becomes an Act.
- Withhold assent — an absolute veto in form; since no period is prescribed, simply not deciding produces the pocket veto.
- Return the bill for reconsideration, with a message suggesting amendments — available for any bill except a money bill.
If the returned bill is passed again by both Houses, with or without amendments, the President must assent. The return is therefore a suspensive veto, worth a single round of delay and public argument.
Since the 24th Amendment, a constitutional amendment bill carries no option at all: Article 368(2) provides that the President “shall give his assent”.
The contrast with the state-level provisions is instructive and is now the site of the sharpest litigation in this area.

	Article 111 — Union bills	Article 200 — state bills before the Governor	Article 201 — bills reserved for the President
Assent	Yes	Yes	Yes
Withhold	Yes	Yes	Yes
Return for reconsideration	Yes, except money bills	Yes, except money bills	Yes, direction to the Governor to return
Bound on re-passage	Must assent	Must assent	Not bound — may still withhold
Reservation for a higher authority	Not applicable	Yes, to the President	Not applicable
Time limit in the text	None	None (“as soon as possible” in the first proviso)	None

Financial powers

No money bill may be introduced in Parliament without the President’s prior recommendation, which makes the executive the gatekeeper of all taxation and expenditure proposals.
He causes the annual financial statement — the Budget — to be laid before Parliament under Article 112.
No demand for a grant may be made except on his recommendation, and he can make advances from the Contingency Fund of India under Article 267 to meet unforeseen expenditure pending parliamentary authorisation.
He constitutes a Finance Commission every fifth year under Article 280 to recommend the distribution of tax revenues between the Union and the states.

Judicial powers and the pardoning power under Article 72

Beyond appointing and, on a parliamentary address, removing judges, the President may seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 on any question of law or fact of public importance, or on a dispute arising out of a pre-Constitution agreement.
Article 72 confers the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions of punishment, and to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence, in three classes of case.
- Court martial convictions.
- Offences against laws relating to matters within the executive power of the Union.
- All cases where the sentence is one of death — a clause that gives the President a nationwide clemency jurisdiction over capital punishment regardless of which government prosecuted.

	President — Article 72	Governor — Article 161
Court martial sentences	Can pardon	Cannot
Death sentence	Can pardon, remit, commute	Cannot pardon; can suspend, remit or commute
Offences under Union law	Yes	No
Offences under state law	Yes, where the sentence is death	Yes
Nature of exercise	On ministerial advice (Maru Ram)	On ministerial advice

The jurisprudence has narrowed the power’s mystique steadily.
- Maru Ram v. Union of India held that Articles 72 and 161 are exercised on the advice of the government, not as a personal prerogative — the clemency power is executive, not regal.
- Kehar Singh v. Union of India confirmed that the President may examine the evidence afresh and reach a view different from the court’s, that there is no right to an oral hearing, and that reasons need not be given — but that the power is not wholly beyond scrutiny.
- Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh settled the grounds of judicial review of clemency: non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous or irrelevant considerations, and material facts kept out of view.
- Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India held that undue, inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding a mercy petition is itself a violation of Article 21 and a ground for commuting death to life, and commuted the sentences of fifteen convicts on that basis.

Diplomatic and military powers

All treaties and international agreements are negotiated and concluded in the name of the President, subject to parliamentary approval where implementing legislation is needed.
He appoints and receives ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives, and India is represented in international bodies in his name.
Article 53(2) vests the supreme command of the Defence Forces in the President, its exercise “regulated by law” — which means the operational reality is ministerial and the constitutional form is presidential.
He appoints the service chiefs and can declare war or conclude peace, again subject to parliamentary authorisation of the resources involved.

Emergency powers

Article 352 — National Emergency on the ground of war, external aggression or armed rebellion. The 44th Amendment replaced “internal disturbance” with armed rebellion, required a written recommendation of the Cabinet rather than the Prime Minister alone, cut the approval window to one month, required a special majority in both Houses, limited continuance to six months at a time, and allowed the Lok Sabha alone to revoke it by simple majority on a notice by one-tenth of its members. Articles 20 and 21 can never be suspended. Proclaimed in 1962, 1971 and 1975.
Article 356 — President’s Rule on the failure of the constitutional machinery in a state, ordinarily on the Governor’s report. Used more than 130 times, and disciplined by S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, which held that the proclamation is justiciable, that majority is to be tested on the floor of the House and not in the Governor’s subjective assessment, that the assembly may be dissolved only after parliamentary approval, and that secularism is part of the basic structure.
Article 360 — Financial Emergency, permitting the Union to direct states on financial propriety and to reduce the salaries of public servants and judges. It has never been invoked, not even during the 1991 balance-of-payments crisis.
Emergency powers are the clearest illustration of the office’s dual character: they are the President’s in form, the Cabinet’s in substance, and the 44th Amendment exists precisely because in 1975 that formal-substantive gap allowed a proclamation to be signed without the Cabinet having met.

Ordinance-making under Article 123

The ordinance power is the single most consequential legislative power the executive holds, and it belongs textually to the President.

Article 123 permits promulgation when both Houses are not in session — or either House is not in session — and the President is satisfied that circumstances exist rendering it necessary to take immediate action.
An ordinance has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, but is co-extensive with Parliament’s legislative competence, so it cannot amend the Constitution and cannot do what an Act could not.
It must be laid before both Houses on reassembly and ceases to operate six weeks from reassembly, or earlier if disapproving resolutions are passed by both Houses; it may be withdrawn at any time.
The maximum life of an ordinance is therefore six months and six weeks — the six-month gap permitted between sessions plus the six-week window after reassembly.

The jurisprudence

R.C. Cooper v. Union of India held the President’s satisfaction open to challenge on the ground of mala fides; the 38th Amendment made it non-justiciable; the 44th Amendment deleted that immunity and restored justiciability.
A.K. Roy v. Union of India confirmed that an ordinance is “law” for the purposes of Article 21 and that the satisfaction is in principle reviewable, while declining to review it on the facts.
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar exposed the abuse in its extreme form — Bihar had promulgated 256 ordinances between 1967 and 1981, some kept alive for as long as fourteen years by serial re-promulgation — and held that re-promulgation without placing the matter before the legislature is a fraud on the Constitution.
Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, decided by a seven-judge bench, went further: laying the ordinance before the legislature is mandatory, the failure to do so is itself unconstitutional, and the theory that an expired ordinance leaves behind “enduring rights” was rejected. Re-promulgation was again condemned as a fraud on the Constitution and a subversion of democratic legislative processes.

The record

Roughly 750 ordinances have been promulgated since 1950, against something over 4,500 Union laws — a ratio that tells you the instrument stopped being extraordinary a long time ago.
Ordinance use correlates with falling parliamentary sitting days: the first Lok Sabha averaged about 135 sitting days a year, the seventeenth about 55.
The pattern has moderated in the eighteenth Lok Sabha, where promulgation has fallen to a handful a year — only a small number were numbered in 2025, among them the Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Second Amendment) Ordinance, later replaced by an Act.
The constitutional objection survives the moderation. An ordinance converts the President’s satisfaction into a legislative act taken by a Cabinet on its own advice, and the six-week rule means an ordinance can operate for months without a single vote being taken on it.

The ordinance power is the President’s in name and the Cabinet’s in fact, which is why every judicial attempt to discipline it has had to be addressed to the government rather than to the office that signs.

The constitutional evolution of Article 74

The original text and the ambiguity it carried

As adopted, Article 74(1) read simply that “there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions.”
The clause said that advice shall be tendered; it did not say the President shall act on it. On a literal reading the President was obliged to receive advice and not to follow it.
Read alongside Article 53 — which vests executive power in the President — and the Article 60 oath, the text supported a claim of independent constitutional responsibility.
Ambedkar’s answer in the Assembly was that the President would be bound by convention as the British monarch is, and that the Constitution need not spell out what parliamentary government implied. That answer held for exactly one presidency.

The Rajendra Prasad–Nehru dispute

Rajendra Prasad raised the question repeatedly, most sharply over the Hindu Code Bill, indicating that he might act on his own judgment in giving or withholding assent, and asking whether he could seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on his own powers.
Nehru opposed the claim firmly, treating it as inconsistent with responsible government, and obtained the opinion of M.C. Setalvad, the first Attorney General, that India had a parliamentary system in which the President is a nominal head bound to act on ministerial advice.
Prasad’s counter-argument turned on the difference between an Indian President and a British monarch: the monarch can do no wrong because he never acts on his own; the Indian President is elected, takes an oath to defend the Constitution, and can be impeached for violating it.
He restated the position publicly at the Indian Law Institute near the end of his tenure.

“There is no provision in the Constitution which in so many words lays down that the President shall be bound to act in accordance with the advice of his Council of Ministers.” — Rajendra Prasad

The dispute was settled politically rather than textually. Prasad did not act on his claim; the convention of ministerial supremacy hardened; and the text remained ambiguous for another quarter century.

The 24th Amendment

The 24th Amendment, enacted in 1971 after Golak Nath, added to Article 368(2) the words that on presentation of a constitutional amendment bill passed by the required majority the President “shall give his assent.”
Its effect on this topic is precise: it abolished the absolute veto for constitutional amendment bills only.
It did not prescribe a time limit, so in theory the pocket veto survived even here — a gap that has never been tested because no President has attempted it.

The 42nd Amendment

The 42nd Amendment rewrote Article 74(1) to add that the President “shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice.”
Three consequences followed.
- The binding character of advice moved from convention to text, which is one of the enduring Indian variations on the Westminster model — in Britain this is convention, in India it is written law.
- Refusal to act on advice became, unambiguously, a violation of the Constitution and hence an impeachable act.
- The residual argument from Article 53 and the oath was closed off, because a specific provision now governed the general one.
The amendment was part of a package widely regarded as an attempt to entrench executive dominance, but on this particular question it did what constitutional logic required: it aligned the text with the parliamentary premise.

The judicial confirmations

U.N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi held that the council of ministers does not cease to exist on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, and that any exercise of power by the President without ministerial advice would be unconstitutional as violating Article 74(1). The caretaker government advises; the President obeys.
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab had earlier established that the executive power vested in the head of state is exercised through ministers responsible to the legislature.
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, decided by a seven-judge bench, is the anchor. It held that the President and the Governor are constitutional heads who exercise their formal powers only on and in accordance with the advice of their ministers, save in a few well-known exceptional situations, and that satisfaction under the Constitution is not personal satisfaction but the satisfaction of the council of ministers.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India applied the same logic to appointments and to the government’s claim of privilege over the correspondence behind them, treating the President’s role as formal and the decision as the government’s.

The 44th Amendment and its critics

The 44th Amendment added a proviso: the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider the advice, either generally or otherwise, and shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.
The power is real but exhausted in a single use. It buys delay, a written record, and the political cost to the government of visibly overruling the head of state — nothing more.
Neither the 42nd nor the 44th Amendment touched Article 111, so the pocket veto survived both.
The criticism of the proviso is serious and comes from several directions.
- It is inconsistent with the parliamentary premise. If the President can compel reconsideration, it becomes politically difficult for a Prime Minister to reiterate, and an unelected functionary acquires leverage over an elected one.
- It creates the possibility of an alternative centre of power held by someone removable only by impeachment — accountability without a mechanism to enforce it.
- In a parliamentary system the President is not the institution of accountability; Parliament is, and ultimately the electorate.
- Atul Kohli reads the amendment in the frame of party competition: with non-Congress parties in power at the Centre in 1978 and MLAs participating in the presidential electoral college, the proviso offered a route by which parties strong in the states could use the presidency against a future Congress government at the Centre.

Provision	Original Constitution	24th Amendment	42nd Amendment	44th Amendment
Is advice binding?	Ambiguous	Unchanged	Yes, expressly	Yes, after one reconsideration
Assent to ordinary bills	Absolute and pocket veto	Unchanged	Unchanged	Unchanged
Assent to amendment bills	Discretion arguable	“Shall give his assent”	Unchanged	Unchanged
Pocket veto	Available	Survives	Survives	Survives
Presidential discretion	Textually open	Slightly narrowed	Closed	Partially reopened

The discretionary spaces that survive

Discretion, properly defined, is the power to decide solely on the basis of one’s own reasoning rather than on advice. Four such spaces genuinely remain, and a fifth is disputed.

Government formation in a hung House

Article 75(1) says only that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President. It supplies no criterion, because in a majority system none is needed.
When no party or pre-poll alliance commands a majority, whom to invite first is a real decision, and the choice can determine which coalition ultimately forms.
The Sarkaria Commission proposed an order of preference — a pre-poll alliance first, then the single largest party able to muster support, then a post-electoral coalition with all partners joining the government, then a post-electoral coalition with some partners supporting from outside. The Punchhi Commission endorsed the sequence.
Neither is binding. The recommendations are conventions in search of a text, and their status is exactly the problem: an order of preference that varies with the appointing authority’s judgment is not a rule.
The remedy the courts supplied is procedural rather than substantive: after S.R. Bommai, the decisive test is a floor test, which converts the head of state’s judgment into a temporary and correctable one.

The pocket veto

Article 111 prescribes no period. A President who neither assents, nor withholds formally, nor returns the bill, can hold it indefinitely, and India’s pocket veto is stronger than the American — the United States Constitution converts a bill into law if the President does not act within ten days while Congress sits.
The classic instance is Zail Singh and the Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill, 1986, which would have enlarged the government’s power to intercept postal articles. He simply did not act on it until his term expired.
His successor R. Venkataraman returned the bill to Parliament for reconsideration. By then the government had changed, and the bill was never brought back — a rare case in which presidential inaction killed legislation outright.

Article 78 and the right to be informed

Article 78 is drafted as a duty of the Prime Minister, not a power of the President, but it is the constitutional basis for the President’s access to government.
The Zail Singh–Rajiv Gandhi breakdown turned on it. The President complained that he was not being furnished information and papers he had asked for, wrote to the Prime Minister about the failure to keep him informed, and the relationship deteriorated to the point where dismissal of the government was publicly speculated about.
Article 78 has no enforcement mechanism, which makes it a convention with constitutional wording — its force depends on the political cost of ignoring it.

Return of advice and return of a bill

The 44th Amendment proviso allows the advice to go back once; Article 111 allows an ordinary bill to go back once. Both are suspensive, and both work by publicity rather than by law.
The value of both lies in the record they create. A government that reiterates advice a President has questioned must own the decision in a way it need not if the President signs silently.

Dissolution

A request to dissolve the Lok Sabha from a Prime Minister who has already lost, or is about to lose, the confidence of the House is the hardest case, because on the strict Article 74 view the President must comply, and on the Shamsher Singh view the ministry that has lost confidence has lost the standing to advise.
Practice has produced no settled rule. Presidents have both complied and refused, and the most defensible position is that a caretaker Prime Minister may be told to demonstrate that no alternative government can be formed before dissolution is granted.

Space	Textual basis	Is it true discretion?	Practical limit
Appointing a PM in a hung House	Article 75(1)	Yes	Floor test under Bommai
Pocket veto	Article 111, no time limit	Yes	Ends with the President’s term
Requiring reconsideration of advice	Article 74(1) proviso	Partly	Exhausted after one use
Returning a bill	Article 111	Partly	Must assent on re-passage
Seeking information	Article 78	No power, only a duty on the PM	No enforcement
Refusing dissolution	Silence of the text	Disputed	Political cost, no rule

The President’s discretion is not a residue the Constitution forgot to delete; it is the space that opens precisely when the parliamentary majority itself becomes uncertain.

Characterising the office: rubber stamp, constitutional head, or reserve power

The three characterisations

“Rubber stamp” is the polemical description. It is inaccurate because it implies the office has no content: the President appoints, informs himself, delays, questions, and in abnormal conditions decides.
“Constitutional head” is the accurate one, and the phrase is the Supreme Court’s own in Shamsher Singh. The office holds dignity, continuity and formal authority, exercised through advice.
“Reserve of constitutional power” is the strongest defensible claim. On this view the President’s powers are dormant in normal conditions and activate when the ordinary machinery fails — no ministry commands a majority, or a ministry that has lost one refuses to go.

Bagehot’s three rights and the dignified constitution

Walter Bagehot distinguished the dignified parts of the constitution, which secure and cultivate loyalty, from the efficient parts, by which it actually works and rules. The Indian President belongs to the first, the Prime Minister to the second.

“The sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights — the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.” — Walter Bagehot

Rendered into Indian terms, this is the right to be informed (Article 78), the right to advise (the reconsideration proviso and the practice of returning files), and the right to warn (the message with a returned bill, and the public address).
What none of the three includes is a right to decide. That is the line presidential activism crosses.

Emergency lamp and friend, philosopher and guide

R. Venkataraman, who became President as the coalition era opened, described the office as an emergency lamp: the Prime Minister is the main switch, and the lamp lights only when the main power fails. So long as a council of ministers exists and commands the House, the President has no discretion.
He also described himself as a “copybook President”, deliberately developing conventions that minimised the scope for discretion rather than expanding it — a self-restraint that is itself a contribution to the office.
The older formulation is that the President is the ministry’s friend, philosopher and guide — a counsellor with access, experience and standing, whose influence is exercised in private and whose compliance is public.
Unlike a state, the Union cannot be placed under President’s Rule; there is no provision for the President to govern in the absence of a ministry. That structural fact is what makes the emergency-lamp metaphor exact: the lamp illuminates, it does not generate.

Presidential activism and why it is not the analogue of judicial activism

Activism, generally defined, is a constitutional functionary going beyond the limits of his office and entering another’s domain. Presidential activism means the President entering the domain of the Prime Minister — most commonly by returning advice or a bill, or by asserting a claim to independent judgment.
The comparison with judicial activism is frequently made and does not hold, for four reasons.
- The judiciary has a constitutionally assigned review function; the President has none. Article 13 and Article 32 give the courts the job of testing state action; nothing gives the President that job.
- Judicial decisions are reasoned, public and appealable; presidential decisions are unreasoned, private and final, and the President need not disclose why he acted.
- The judiciary acts on a case brought by a litigant under settled procedure; the President acts on his own motion, at a moment of his choosing.
- The judiciary is institutionally insulated from party politics; the President is elected by an electoral college that party managers assemble, and is very often a former party politician.
The empirical objection is heavier still. Post-independence experience shows presidential assertion tracking party alignment rather than constitutional principle — it appears when the President and the Prime Minister belong to different political camps, and recedes when they do not.
The structural point completes the argument. Whenever the Prime Minister’s position is weak — a hung Parliament, a fragile coalition — the space available to other institutions expands, and the President’s assertiveness in such periods is better read as an effect of parliamentary arithmetic than as a doctrine of the office.

A President who cannot realistically be removed cannot be made an institution of accountability without becoming a rival government.

Cohabitation and the comparison with semi-presidentialism

Cohabitation describes a semi-presidential system in which a directly elected President with real executive powers coexists with a Prime Minister of a different political party who commands the legislature and runs the government.
The concept is French. Under the Fifth Republic, the President holds foreign and defence policy, appoints the Prime Minister and can dissolve the National Assembly; when the Assembly returns a hostile majority, the two offices must share power, and policy coordination becomes a negotiation rather than a chain of command.
India is not a semi-presidential system, and the term is therefore used here by analogy: the Indian President has no independent executive powers to defend, so a “cohabiting” Indian President can obstruct and embarrass but cannot govern.
The analogy is still useful because it names the underlying variable — partisan divergence between the head of state and the head of government — which is the best single predictor of presidential assertiveness in India.

	India	France	United States	United Kingdom
How the head of state is chosen	Indirect, weighted electoral college	Direct popular election	Indirect, electoral college	Hereditary
Executive power	Nominal, exercised on advice	Real, shared with PM	Real and sole	Nominal, by convention
Head of government	Prime Minister, from the majority	Prime Minister, appointed by President	None separate	Prime Minister
Divided-party situation	No formal consequence	Cohabitation	Divided government	Not possible
Source of the binding rule	Text — Article 74(1)	Text and practice	Not applicable	Convention

The President and the Prime Minister

The relationship is constructed by three articles and settled by one variable that none of them mentions.

Article 75(1) gives the President the appointment of the Prime Minister; Article 74(1) subordinates him to that appointee’s advice; Article 78 obliges the appointee to keep him informed. The Constitution thus makes each dependent on the other in a deliberately fragile balance.
The Prime Minister is the link between the council of ministers on one side and the President and Parliament on the other; all communication of Cabinet decisions runs through him.
The variable that settles the relationship is the strength of the government’s majority.
- A single-party majority reduces the presidency to formality, whatever the incumbent’s temperament.
- A minority or coalition government enlarges the presidency automatically, because the questions the President must answer — who can form a government, who still commands the House, whether dissolution is warranted — become live.
The debate about whether the Prime Minister is primus inter pares or inter stellas luna minor belongs to the other half of the executive, but it matters here for one reason: the more prime-ministerial the system becomes, the more the President’s formal powers become a ceremonial residue rather than a check.

The Presidents in practice

Rajendra Prasad

The first President, and the only one to serve two full terms, he set the terms of the entire debate by asserting a claim to independent judgment on assent, on the Hindu Code Bill, and on the President’s power to seek the Court’s opinion on his own position.
His claim rested on the oath, on the fact that he was elected and impeachable, and on the silence of the original Article 74(1).
He never acted on the claim, which is why it remained an argument rather than a constitutional crisis — and why the office’s first precedent is one of assertion followed by restraint.

The succession crises of 1969

Zakir Husain died in office in 1969. Vice-President V.V. Giri acted as President, then resigned in order to contest the election.
With both offices vacant, the Chief Justice of India, M. Hidayatullah, acted as President — the only such instance, and the reason the statutory framework for filling the gap exists.
The election that followed produced the only presidential result decided by transfer of second preferences, after the Congress split and a public appeal for a “conscience vote”.

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and the Emergency

The proclamation of Emergency of 25 June 1975 was signed on the Prime Minister’s advice, at night, without the Cabinet having met — the Cabinet was informed the following morning.
This is the single episode that defines the risk in a purely formal presidency, and it produced a direct textual response: the 44th Amendment now requires the written recommendation of the Cabinet before a proclamation under Article 352.

Neelam Sanjiva Reddy

The only President elected unopposed, he presided over the collapse of the Janata government in 1979 and faced the hardest set of questions the office can pose — whom to invite, whether to seek proof of majority, and whether to dissolve.
He invited Charan Singh on an undertaking to prove a majority, and dissolved the Lok Sabha when the undertaking failed — a sequence that is still cited both as an example of necessary discretion and as an example of its arbitrariness.

Zail Singh

The Article 78 dispute with Rajiv Gandhi over the government’s failure to supply information and papers is the standard illustration of that provision’s weakness.
The pocket veto on the Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill, 1986 is the standard illustration of Article 111’s silence.
His presidency is also the standard illustration of the danger in the office: with a government holding an overwhelming majority, an aggrieved President’s only remaining instruments were inaction and publicity.

R. Venkataraman

Presided over the transition to the coalition era and the governments of 1989 and 1991, and consciously built conventions for inviting the leader of the single largest party and requiring a confidence vote promptly.
His formulations — emergency lamp, copybook President — remain the most economical description of the office available.
He returned the Post Office Bill to Parliament, converting his predecessor’s silent veto into an explicit and reasoned one.

Shankar Dayal Sharma

Faced the hung Parliament of 1996 and invited Atal Bihari Vajpayee as leader of the single largest party, whose government lasted thirteen days before resigning on the floor without facing a vote it could win.
The episode crystallised the objection to the “single largest party” convention: it can produce a government that plainly lacks a majority, at the cost of two weeks and considerable defection pressure.

K.R. Narayanan

The most assertive President since Prasad, and the one whose assertions were best reasoned.
- In 1997 he returned the Union Cabinet’s recommendation for President’s Rule in Bihar for reconsideration; the government did not reiterate it.
- He returned a similar recommendation concerning Bihar again in 1998.
- In 1998, with the BJP-led alliance holding 251 seats — twenty-one short of a majority — he required Vajpayee to furnish documents in support of his claim and to win a vote of confidence within ten days of being sworn in. Both requirements have since hardened into practice.
- He departed from prepared texts on public occasions, giving an interview rather than a scripted address on the eve of Republic Day, and speaking in his own words on the dangers of a unipolar world and the continuing relevance of non-alignment during a visit by the American President.
He described himself as a working President operating strictly within the four corners of the Constitution — neither an executive President nor a rubber stamp.
The critical reading is that even his most defensible interventions were possible only because the governments of the period were weak coalitions, which is the structural point again.

A.P.J. Abdul Kalam

Returned the Office of Profit (Amendment) Bill in 2006 with a message asking Parliament to reconsider the criteria for exemption; Parliament re-passed it without change and he assented, which is exactly what Article 111 requires and a clean demonstration of the suspensive veto’s limits.
Signed the proclamation dissolving the Bihar assembly in May 2005 while abroad, on the Cabinet’s advice. In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India the Supreme Court held the dissolution unconstitutional, having been founded on the Governor’s report about anticipated defections rather than on any breakdown of constitutional machinery — though it declined to restore the assembly.
He was also a populist President, extensively engaged with the public, and the criticism made of that style is that a head of state who cultivates a direct popular constituency acquires a legitimacy the Constitution did not intend him to have.

Pratibha Patil

The first woman President. Her tenure attracted controversy chiefly over the exercise of Article 72, with a large number of death sentences commuted in a short period, which reopened the question of whether clemency decisions taken on ministerial advice should carry reasons.

Pranab Mukherjee

The most experienced politician to hold the office in decades, and openly willing to counsel the government publicly — on the frequency of ordinances, on the disruption of Parliament, and on the passage of legislation without debate.
He disposed of a large backlog of mercy petitions, rejecting most of them, which marked a sharp turn from the previous tenure and underlined how far Article 72 outcomes depend on the incumbent and the government of the day.

Ram Nath Kovind

Issued The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 under Article 370(1)(d), the instrument through which the special status of the state was ended — the most consequential single presidential order in decades, upheld by the Supreme Court in the Article 370 reference in 2023.
Chaired a High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections after demitting office, whose recommendations underpin the constitutional amendment bills on One Nation, One Election now before a joint parliamentary committee, whose term has been extended into 2026.

Droupadi Murmu

The first President from a Scheduled Tribe and only the second woman, elected in 2022 with 64.03% of the value of votes.
Assented to the 106th Amendment on women’s reservation, to the three new criminal law codes, and to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Presided over the imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur in February 2025, its extension by Parliament to February 2026, and its revocation in February 2026 after nearly a year — the most significant use of Article 356 in years.
Made the Presidential Reference of May 2025 under Article 143, the first in almost a decade, on the question of whether courts may impose timelines on the President and Governors for acting on bills. It is the most important assertion of the office’s institutional interest in a generation, and it was made on ministerial advice, which is the point: the presidency’s constitutional position was defended through the machinery of advice, not against it.

The Vice-President

The office and its constitutional provisions

Article 63 creates the office; the Constituent Assembly modelled it partly on the American vice-presidency, whose holder presides over the Senate.
Article 64 makes the Vice-President the ex officio Chairman of the Council of States, and provides that during any period when he acts as President he does not perform the duties of Chairman and draws no Chairman’s salary.
Article 65 provides for him to act as President during a vacancy and to discharge the President’s functions during the President’s absence, illness or other incapacity, with all the powers and immunities of the office.
Article 66 governs the election; Article 67 the term and removal; Article 68 the filling of vacancies; Article 69 the oath, taken before the President; Article 71 confers exclusive jurisdiction over disputes on the Supreme Court.
He ranks second in the order of precedence and first in the line of succession, but he is not a member of the Rajya Sabha, has no vote on ordinary business, and under Article 100(1) exercises only a casting vote in case of equality.
He draws his salary as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, because the Constitution attaches no emoluments to the vice-presidency itself.

Election

The electoral college consists of the members of both Houses of Parliament, and — unlike the presidential college — it includes nominated members and excludes state legislators altogether.
Election is by proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, by secret ballot, with no weighting of any kind, since all electors are members of the same institution.
Originally the election required a joint meeting of the two Houses; the 11th Amendment removed that requirement and also barred challenges based on vacancies in the electoral college.
Qualifications under Article 66(3): citizen of India, 35 years, qualified for election to the Rajya Sabha — not the Lok Sabha, which is the one substantive difference from the presidential qualification — and holding no office of profit.
The exclusion of state legislators is the constitutional statement that the Vice-President’s principal function is parliamentary, not federal: he presides over the House of the States, but he is chosen by the Union legislature.

	President	Vice-President
Electoral college	Elected MPs and elected MLAs, including Delhi and Puducherry	Members of both Houses only
Nominated members	Excluded	Included
Weighting of votes	Yes, by 1971 population	None
Qualification tied to	Eligibility for the Lok Sabha	Eligibility for the Rajya Sabha
Oath administered by	Chief Justice of India	The President
Oath formula	Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution	Bear true faith and allegiance
Removal	Impeachment, Article 61, two-thirds of total membership in both Houses	Article 67(b), Rajya Sabha resolution agreed to by the Lok Sabha
Vacancy to be filled	Within six months	As soon as possible, no outer limit prescribed

Succession and acting as President

On a vacancy in the presidency by death, resignation, removal or otherwise, the Vice-President acts as President until a new President is elected, which must be within six months.
He does not become President; he acts, and the incoming President serves a full fresh term rather than the remainder of the old one.
B.D. Jatti acted as President from February to July 1977 on the death of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, in what was constitutionally the most awkward interregnum in the office’s history — a caretaker head of state facing a new government’s request to dissolve nine Congress-ruled state assemblies, on which he hesitated before signing.
When both offices are vacant, or the Vice-President is himself unavailable, the Chief Justice of India acts, as M. Hidayatullah did in 1969.
If the Vice-President is acting as President, the Deputy Chairman performs the duties of the Chair under Article 91.
Six Vice-Presidents have gone on to be elected President — Radhakrishnan, Zakir Husain, Giri, Venkataraman, Shankar Dayal Sharma and Narayanan — which has always given the office a political weight disproportionate to its powers.

Chairing the Rajya Sabha

The Chairman presides over sittings, maintains order, decides points of order, admits or rejects notices, refers bills, and rules on the admissibility of motions — including notices under Rule 267 to set aside listed business for a discussion.
He is not the presiding officer for money bills, whose certification belongs to the Speaker under Article 110(3), and he does not decide disqualification questions except under the Tenth Schedule as it applies to the Council of States.
The structural tension in the office is unavoidable. The Chairman is expected to be a non-partisan umpire, but the incumbent is elected on a party’s votes, has usually held party office, and returns to political life afterwards.
That tension has produced the recurring controversies of the last decade: disputes over the rejection of Rule 267 notices, over expunction of remarks, over disciplinary references to the privileges committee, and over the Chair’s public commentary on judicial decisions.
The most striking instance was the notice for removal under Article 67(b) moved by opposition members against the then Vice-President in December 2024 — the first ever against a Vice-President — which the Deputy Chairman rejected as defective in form and short of the required notice period.

Removal under Article 67(b)

The Vice-President may be removed by a resolution of the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then members and agreed to by the House of the People, after fourteen days’ notice.
The provision is remarkable for what it omits: no ground is specified, so removal is a purely political judgment, and no investigating procedure is prescribed.
The effective majority required in the Rajya Sabha is lower than the special majority needed to remove the President, which makes the second-highest constitutional office easier to remove than the first — an anomaly rarely noticed.
The Vice-President cannot preside over the sitting at which his own removal is considered, though he retains the right to be heard.

The 2025 resignation and election

Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned on 21 July 2025, citing health reasons, with more than two years of his term remaining.
The resignation was constitutionally unprecedented in one respect: V.V. Giri had resigned in 1969, but to contest the presidency. Dhankhar is the first Vice-President to resign for reasons unconnected with seeking another office, and Krishan Kant remains the only holder to have died in office.
The Deputy Chairman discharged the Chair’s functions in the interval under Article 91, and the Election Commission notified a fresh election under Article 68, which requires the vacancy to be filled as soon as possible but sets no outer limit.
The election was held on 9 September 2025 with a turnout of 98.21%. C.P. Radhakrishnan, the NDA candidate, defeated B. Sudershan Reddy, a retired judge of the Supreme Court fielded by the opposition, by 452 votes to 300 in a college of 781 electors — with at least fifteen opposition members cross-voting.
He was sworn in as the fifteenth Vice-President of India, and the episode supplied a live demonstration of provisions — Articles 65, 68 and 91 — that had been dormant for decades.

Recent developments and the current state of the debate

The Tamil Nadu judgment and timelines for presidential assent

In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, decided on 8 April 2025, a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan confronted the Governor’s withholding of assent to bills passed and re-passed by the state assembly.
On the Governor, the Court read timelines into Article 200 — a maximum of one month to withhold or reserve where acting on ministerial advice, three months where acting against it, and one month to assent to a re-passed bill.
On the President, it read a three-month outer limit into Article 201, resting on Union Home Ministry office memoranda that already prescribed procedural timelines, and held that a state could seek a writ of mandamus if the period elapsed without a decision.
It suggested that where a bill is reserved on grounds of constitutional invalidity, the President ought to refer the question to the Supreme Court under Article 143 rather than decide the legal question in the executive.
Invoking Article 142, it declared the ten Tamil Nadu bills deemed to have received assent on the date they were returned after re-passage, and held subsequent presidential action on them void.

The Presidential Reference and its outcome

In May 2025 the President made a Reference under Article 143 posing fourteen questions about the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 — the first substantial use of the advisory jurisdiction in nearly a decade.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai delivered its opinion on 20 November 2025.
- Courts cannot prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200 or Article 201. In the Court’s words, the imposition of a timeline is strictly contrary to the Constitution.
- “Deemed assent” is impermissible, and Article 142 cannot be used to manufacture it, because one constitutional authority cannot substitute itself for another.
- Decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable before a bill becomes law, though prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction can be addressed by the courts to prevent a constitutional standstill.
- The April 2025 judgment was, on these points, overruled.
The outcome resolves one question and sharpens another. The pocket veto at both levels survives judicial abolition, and the only remaining discipline on indefinite inaction is a narrow, undefined jurisdiction to prevent a standstill.
It also shows the advisory jurisdiction being used for a purpose it was rarely used for before: the executive branch inviting the Court to correct the Court.

The Constitution now says clearly that no court may put a clock on assent, which means the pocket veto survives as the only power in the executive branch that is exercised entirely by doing nothing.

Article 72 and the problem of delay

Shatrughan Chauhan made inordinate and unexplained delay a ground for commutation, but supplied no mechanism to prevent the delay arising.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita now imposes statutory timelines on the process feeding a mercy petition to the head of state — a petition to be filed within thirty days of the dismissal of appeals, and the government to place it before the President within sixty days — but it fixes no time limit on the decision itself.
In State of Maharashtra v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade, decided in December 2024, the Supreme Court directed every state and union territory to create a dedicated cell in the home or prison department to process mercy petitions within prescribed timeframes, required sessions courts to monitor pending death-sentence cases, and mandated a fifteen-day gap between the issue of a death warrant and its execution.
The most persistent illustration of the problem remains the mercy petition in the Beant Singh assassination case, pending for over a decade while the government maintained that deferring a decision was necessary on public-order grounds — a position the Supreme Court accepted as falling within the executive’s domain rather than the court’s.
The constitutional point is uncomfortable. Article 72 is exercised on ministerial advice, so a delay attributed to the President is in substance a delay by the government, and the convict bears the cost of a decision no one is obliged to take.

The state of the discretion debate

The 2025 opinion strengthens the formalist position: the head of state’s decisions on bills are constitutionally committed to him, unbounded by judicial clocks, and unreviewable until the bill becomes law.
The functionalist counter is that unreviewable timelessness in an office that must act on advice does not empower the head of state at all — it empowers the government that advises him, and in the state context the Union that instructs the Governor.
The coalition-dependence thesis survives all of it. Every genuine expansion of presidential influence in Indian history has coincided with a fragmented Lok Sabha, and every contraction with a single-party majority.
The live question for the next decade is whether simultaneous elections, if adopted, would alter that arithmetic — by synchronising mandates and reducing the frequency of mid-term hung houses, they would in principle shrink the space in which the presidency matters.

The reform debate

Direct election of the President

The case for: a directly elected head of state would have an independent mandate, and could exercise the reserve powers — refusing an improper dissolution, insisting on a floor test — with democratic authority rather than borrowed legitimacy.
The case against, and it is the stronger one:
- It would create two competing mandates, which is the deadlock the Constituent Assembly deliberately avoided.
- It would be incompatible with Article 74(1) as it stands; a directly elected President bound to obey a Prime Minister’s advice is a contradiction that would not survive its first crisis.
- It would require reopening the basic structure question, since the parliamentary form is arguably part of it.
- It would destroy the federal weighting of the electoral college, in which the states elect the head of the Union as equal partners.

Codified rules for government formation

The most widely supported reform is to give the Sarkaria and Punchhi order of preference binding force, whether by statute, by a rule under Article 75, or by a formal convention recorded in the Rules of Business.
Accompanying proposals include a fixed outer limit for the confidence vote after appointment — the ten days set by Narayanan in 1998 being the working precedent — and a requirement that the President’s invitation be accompanied by written reasons.
The counter-argument is that no rule can anticipate every arithmetic, and that a rigid order of preference would sometimes force the appointment of a government that will obviously fall.

Timelines for assent

Proposals for a statutory or constitutional time limit on assent under Articles 111, 200 and 201 predate the current controversy; the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution and successive centre-state commissions have recommended fixed periods.
After the November 2025 opinion, this can no longer be achieved by judicial construction. It requires a constitutional amendment, which places the question back where it belongs — with Parliament.
A minimal version would require the President or Governor to record reasons when withholding assent, converting an unreviewable silence into a reviewable decision without prescribing an outcome.

Other proposals

Separating the Rajya Sabha chairmanship from the vice-presidency, so that the House elects its own presiding officer as the Lok Sabha does, removing the structural conflict between a partisan election and an impartial Chair.
Requiring reasons for clemency decisions under Article 72, and a statutory outer limit for the decision itself, completing what the BNSS timelines left unfinished.
Codifying Article 78 with a mechanism — a periodic scheduled meeting between the President and the Prime Minister, or a duty to respond in writing to a presidential query within a fixed period.
Restricting ordinance-making by constitutional amendment: a requirement that Parliament be summoned within a fixed period of promulgation, and an express bar on re-promulgation, giving Krishna Kumar Singh textual force.

Conclusion

The envisaged role was a dignified head of state whose powers were formal and whose influence was private; the actual working has been almost exactly that, punctuated by short periods in which a fragmented Parliament handed the office decisions the text never expected it to take. The gap here is not one of decay, as with Parliament, but of specification — the Assembly declined to write down what it assumed convention would supply.

What the record establishes is that presidential influence is an inverse function of the government’s majority, and that no amendment has changed this — the 42nd narrowed the text and the 44th widened it, but both were overtaken by whatever the party system was doing at the time.
What survives as genuine discretion is small, precise, and concentrated at moments of political failure — appointment in a hung House, the pocket veto, and one round of reconsideration — and the November 2025 opinion has just confirmed that the courts will not close the first of those doors by prescribing clocks.
The correct description of the office is neither rubber stamp nor executive President but constitutional head with a reserve function — an emergency lamp that lights only when the main circuit fails, and whose value lies in being available rather than in being used.
The Vice-Presidency, long treated as an appendage, has in the last two years become the more institutionally interesting of the two offices — a partisan election producing an impartial umpire, with a removal provision easier to invoke than the President’s and a succession machinery that was tested in 2025 for the first time in half a century.

Previous Year Questions

The role of the President of India becomes more significant during a minority government and a coalition government. Explain. (2021)
How is the President of India: elected? Outline the salient· characteristics of the electoral college of the Indian President. (2017)