• The Constitution of India introduced a distinct executive system, innovating beyond the British parliamentary model to suit Indian socio-economic and politico-strategic peculiarities.

• The Indian executive system incorporates marked modifications from the British system due to India’s heterogeneous and federal society, contrasting with Britain’s homogeneous and unitary society.

• India’s executive is rooted in British parliamentary democracy but differs in key aspects:

  • Elected Head of State (President) replaces the hereditary monarch.

  • Supremacy of the Constitution replaces supremacy of Parliament.

  • Supreme Court authority allows judicial review of executive orders and parliamentary enactments, unlike Britain where Parliament is final in constitutional matters.

• The Indian executive system has become a model for developing countries, seeking governance systems suited to their post-independence contexts, avoiding Western constitutional straightjackets.

• Key institutions analyzed in the Indian executive include:

  • President

  • Prime Minister

  • Council of Ministers

  • Bureaucracy

ADOPTING THE EXECUTIVE SYSTEM

• The fathers of the Constitution were initially uncertain about the exact nature of the executive system for India despite the commitment to a democratic form of governance.

• Existing executive models in Europe and America were examined, with focus on three major types:

  • British cabinet system

  • Swiss elected executive

  • American presidential system

• The Constituent Assembly primarily considered the British and American systems.

• Majority favored a parliamentary executive, while some members advocated the American presidential system to protect Muslim minority rights against potential Hindu-majority dominance.

• The Assembly agreed on a parliamentary executive where the executive and legislature would supplement each other rather than operate in conflict.

• A.K. Ayyar emphasized that infant democracy cannot risk perpetual conflict between legislature and executive.

• Fine-tuning of the parliamentary system was required to adapt it to Indian conditions.

• Initial proposals included direct election of the President and special responsibilities, along with an Instrument of Instructions to guide the President.

• These proposals were rejected as incongruous with the spirit of parliamentary democracy, notably under the influence of Nehru.

• Final scheme:

  • Executive power vested in the President

  • President acts on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers

  • Prime Minister at the head

  • Advice of the Council is binding on the President

• Nehru emphasized the ministerial character of government, with real power residing in the ministry and legislature, not the President.

• The parliamentary executive functions according to:

  • Written provisions of the Constitution

  • Tacit conventions of British cabinet government, though not all conventions are codified.

• Purpose of opting for parliamentary executive was to provide strength with democracy (Austin).

• K.M. Munshi noted that the system produces a stronger government because:

  • Members of Executive and Legislature overlap

  • Heads of government control the Legislature

• Ensures popular representation, as the House of People (Lok Sabha) elects members forming the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister.