Prof. V.P. Gupta
Director, Rau’s IAS Study Circle, New Delhi – Bengaluru
The election of Ms. Droupadi Murmu as the 15th President of India was completed in the month of July 2022. She hails from Santhal tribal community of Odisha and is the first person from the indigenous tribal communities to hold the highest constitutional office of the country. Her election as the President is a testimony to the true republican character and inclusive spirit of India’s democratic polity wherein a person from very humble background, from a remote corner of the country can become the President.
The election to the office of President provides an opportunity to reflect on the institution of President in India’s Constitutional Scheme.
The President is the head of the Indian State. He/she is the first citizen and acts as a symbol of unity, integrity and solidarity of the nation. However, in India’s parliamentary form of government, the President is only a nominal executive, the real head of the government being the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.
Relationship between the office of President and Council of Ministers has seen following phases of evolution :
In the first Phase, PM Nehru prevailed in a dispute with India’s first President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad about presidential prerogatives. This phase established subordination of the President’s actions to ministers.
In the second Phase, controversy arose when President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed consented to Indira Gandhi’s request for National Emergency. Even Cabinet Ministers were informed later. Later the Janata Government, introduced 44th Constitution Amendment Act which provided Emergency can be declared by the President only after written consent from the Cabinet. The 44th Constitution Amendment Act also empowered the President to send back a bill to the Parliament for reconsideration. However, if the Parliament passed the bill again the President is bound to give his consent.
In the third Phase, from 1989 onwards when there was decline of the overarching shadow of the Congress party on the Indian polity and assertion by other institutions such as CAG, EC, etc., Presidents tended to restrain themselves from greater assertiveness. However, Presidents in this period displayed assertiveness which was more driven individualistic attitudes of the person holding the office of the President.
The President despite being head of the executive has no real autonomy. He must exercise his functions and powers with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.
In this context, former President R. Venkataraman opined that ‘The office of the President is like an emergency light. It comes on automatically when there is a crisis and goes off automatically when the crisis passes away’. Thus, certain situations arise when President must exercise his discretionary judgement. These situations arise when:
1. President must decide whom to appoint as Prime Minister, especially when no party has got clear majority. This situation has been more common since the decline of the Congress System in late 1980s, when coalition governments became the norm at the Centre.
2. President may decide whether to accept a request from a Prime Minister for dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
3. If a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the Lok Sabha and refuses to resign—something that has not yet occurred in India—the President may dismiss him. There are no rules to guide the President in such situations, giving Presidents great flexibility to exercise their judgement. However, these situations also threaten to entangle Presidents in unwelcome controversy.
4. President can return a bill which is not a ‘money bill’ duly passed by the Parliament for suggestions for amendments. However, if the House passes the bill without amendments, President must provide his assent.
5. President may refer any matter to the Supreme Court for its opinion, on which a question of law has arisen or is likely to arise. However, the court is not required to respond, and the President is not bound by the opinion of the court.
6. President may require the Prime Minister to submit for the consideration of Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision has been taken by a minister without the Council of Ministers considering it.
7. Pocket Veto: When the President receives any advice from the Council of Ministers with which he disagrees, he may not take any action and neither refer the matter back. Since, a reiteration might compel assent. Example: President Giani Zail Singh’s pocket veto of Postal Bill.
8. Extreme situation: The ultimate question is if a President completely rejects to follow the advice of the Cabinet. This will result in a constitutional crisis and push the Parliament to impeach him. However, given the large majorities required to impeachment it is practically impossible.
Instances when the President has not merely been a rubber stamp :
1. Relationship between the first President Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Jawaharlal Nehru was rough. Dr. Rajendra Prasad often disagreed with policies of the government. However, threats of Nehru to resign forced him to comply. This, however, set precedents for the future Presidents.
2. President Giani Zail Singh charged Rajiv Gandhi for having failed to meet the constitutional obligation to furnish such information as the President may call for.
3. President K.R. Narayanan was referred to as ‘working president’, which meant he would be more proactive. He asked the government headed by Prime Minister I.K. Gujral to reconsider the imposition of President’s rule in Uttar Pradesh. This was the first instant when the President had asked reconsideration of the decision to impose President’s rule.
4. President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam who was popularly called the ‘People’s President’ turned assertive when
he returned an office of profit bill for reconsideration. Parliament examined his arguments and returned the bill to him without amendments, and he duly signed as prescribed by Constitutional Scheme.
The question thus arises, whether greater assertiveness by President is advisable? It can be broadly argued that for the most part, it is not advisable. Since, the President embodies unity and constitutional spirit, it is important that the President avoids controversy and partisan behaviour, which greater assertiveness usually brings about. Although situations can arise when future Prime Ministers begin to abuse their power and Presidential intervention is hence, necessitated. In this respect, scholars have advocated for codification of procedures upon which the President would rely upon when calling political parties to form governments in case of a fractured mandate. It is pertinent here to add that in the current era, citizens need to become more tolerant to legitimate presidential interventions, because the altered political realities will require more such interventions.
Overall, it is important to understand that the office of the President might not appear to be politically very glamorous. But, in extreme situations, there is potential for a compelling drama.