UNIT 2:

President

Term of the President’s Office

The President of India holds office for a term of five years starting from the date they assume
office. However, they may resign at any time by submitting a resignation letter to the
Vice-President. The President can also be removed before completing the term through the
process of impeachment. After the five-year term, the President may continue to hold office until
their successor assumes charge, ensuring continuity. The President is eligible for re-election for
an unlimited number of terms. In contrast, the United States limits its Presidents to two terms.

Impeachment of the President

The President of India can be impeached for "violation of the Constitution," though the term is
not explicitly defined in the Constitution. The impeachment process can be initiated in either
House of Parliament. Charges must be signed by at least one-fourth of the members of the
initiating House, with a 14-day notice given to the President. After the charges are framed, the
resolution must pass by a two-thirds majority of the total membership of the initiating House.
The other House then investigates the charges, during which the President has the right to
appear and defend themselves. If the second House also approves the resolution by a
two-thirds majority, the President is removed from office. This impeachment process is
quasi-judicial in nature and includes participation by nominated members of Parliament but
excludes the state legislative assembly members involved in the President’s election. Notably,
no President in India has been impeached to date.

Vacancy in the President’s Office

A vacancy in the President’s office may occur due to the completion of the five-year term,
resignation, removal through impeachment, death, or other reasons like disqualification or
voided election. When a vacancy arises due to the end of the term, the election for a new
President must be conducted before the term expires. To avoid an interregnum, the outgoing
President continues in office until the successor assumes charge.

If the vacancy occurs due to resignation, removal, or death, a new President must be elected
within six months. In the interim, the Vice-President acts as the President. If both the President’s
and Vice-President’s offices are vacant, the Chief Justice of India or the senior-most Supreme
Court judge available discharges the President’s functions. During this period, the acting
President enjoys all powers, privileges, and immunities of the office, as determined by
Parliament.
Powers and Functions of the President of India

The President of India holds a pivotal role as the constitutional head of the country, exercising
powers and performing functions categorized into seven broad areas: executive, legislative,
financial, judicial, diplomatic, military, and emergency powers. Each category reflects the
President's vital role in ensuring the smooth functioning of the Indian democracy.

1. Executive Powers

As the executive head of the Union, the President’s powers in this domain are extensive:

●​ All executive actions of the Government of India are carried out in the President’s name.
He or she has the authority to issue rules for the authentication of such orders.
●​ The President appoints the Prime Minister and other Union ministers, who hold office at
his or her pleasure. Additionally, the President appoints key officials, including the
Attorney General of India, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Governors of
states, and the Chairman and members of constitutional bodies like the Election
Commission and Finance Commission.
●​ The President also administers Union Territories through appointed administrators and
oversees the administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas.
●​ Importantly, the President can seek information about Union affairs from the Prime
Minister and require the Council of Ministers to deliberate on matters previously decided
by individual ministers.

2. Legislative Powers

As an integral part of the Parliament, the President wields significant legislative authority:

●​ The President summons, prorogues, and dissolves the Parliament. He or she can also
convene a joint sitting of both Houses to resolve legislative deadlocks.
●​ The President addresses the Parliament at the beginning of the first session following
general elections and at the start of each year’s first session, outlining government
policies.
●​ Certain bills require the President’s prior recommendation for introduction in Parliament,
such as Money Bills and those involving the reorganization of states.
●​ After a bill is passed by Parliament, the President may assent to it, withhold assent, or
return it (if not a Money Bill) for reconsideration. If re-passed, the President must assent.
●​ The President nominates 12 members to the Rajya Sabha with expertise in fields like
literature, science, and art, and can nominate two Anglo-Indian members to the Lok
Sabha if necessary.

3. Financial Powers

The President plays a critical role in financial governance:

 ●​ Money Bills can only be introduced in Parliament with the President’s prior approval. The
President also lays the Union Budget before Parliament and recommends demands for
grants.
●​ The President has the authority to make advances from the Contingency Fund of India
for unforeseen expenses and constitutes a Finance Commission every five years to
recommend the distribution of tax revenues between the Center and states.

4. Judicial Powers

The President holds several judicial functions, including:

●​ Appointment of the Chief Justice of India and other judges of the Supreme Court and
High Courts.
●​ Seeking advisory opinions from the Supreme Court on legal or factual matters, though
the advice is not binding.
●​ Exercising clemency powers, such as granting pardons, reprieves, respites, and
remissions, or commuting sentences for individuals convicted under Union laws,
court-martial rulings, or death penalty cases.

5. Diplomatic Powers

The President represents India in international forums and plays a key role in foreign policy:

●​ International treaties and agreements are negotiated in the President’s name, though
their ratification requires parliamentary approval.
●​ The President sends and receives foreign ambassadors and high commissioners,
embodying India’s diplomatic relations with the world.

6. Military Powers

As the supreme commander of India’s armed forces, the President has significant military
authority:

●​ The President appoints the chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
●​ He or she has the power to declare war or make peace, but these actions require
subsequent parliamentary approval.

7. Emergency Powers

The President is entrusted with extraordinary powers to address emergencies, which include:

●​ National Emergency (Article 352): Proclaimed when there is a threat to India’s security
due to war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
●​ President’s Rule (Article 356): Imposed when a state government is unable to function
according to constitutional provisions.
 ●​ Financial Emergency (Article 360): Declared in cases of a financial crisis threatening
the stability of India.

In exercising these powers, the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers,
ensuring the balance of power within a parliamentary democracy. This multifaceted role
underscores the President’s significance as the ceremonial head of state and guardian of the
Constitution.
PRESIDENT VETO POWER

The President of India plays a crucial role in the legislative process through their veto powers,
governed by Article 111 of the Constitution. When a bill is passed by Parliament, it requires the
President's assent to become an act. The President has three options: give assent, withhold
assent, or return the bill (except for money bills) for reconsideration by Parliament. However, if
Parliament re-passes the bill, the President must give their assent. This power ensures that
legislative processes are thorough and constitutional.

The President's veto powers are categorized into three types: absolute veto, suspensive veto,
and pocket veto.

1.​ Absolute veto: The President outrightly withholds assent, preventing the bill from
becoming law. This is usually applied to private members' bills or government bills when
the cabinet resigns before the President's assent. Notable examples include the 1954
PEPSU Appropriation Bill and the 1991 Members of Parliament (Amendment) Bill.
2.​ Suspensive veto: The President returns a bill to Parliament for reconsideration. If
Parliament re-passes it with or without changes, the President must give assent.
However, this veto does not apply to money bills, which the President can only accept or
reject without returning.
3.​ Pocket veto: The President neither assents nor rejects the bill, keeping it pending
indefinitely. Unlike the U.S., where a time limit exists, the Indian Constitution provides no
such deadline. For instance, President Zail Singh used the pocket veto in 1986 for the
Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill, which aimed to restrict press freedom.

In the context of state legislation, under Article 200, a governor may reserve a bill for the
President's consideration. When such a bill reaches the President, they can give assent,
withhold assent, or return the bill (if not a money bill) for reconsideration by the state legislature.
However, unlike in the central process, even if the state legislature re-passes the bill, the
President is not bound to assent, exercising an absolute veto. Additionally, the pocket veto
applies to state bills as well.

The President’s veto powers, aimed at ensuring constitutional compliance and careful legislative
scrutiny, highlight the balance between the executive and legislative branches. However, the
lack of a time limit for pocket vetoes reflects significant discretion vested in the office of the
President.
ORDINANCE POWER MAKING

The President of India is empowered under Article 123 of the Constitution to promulgate
ordinances during the recess of Parliament. These ordinances hold the same legal authority as
acts passed by Parliament but are temporary laws enacted to address urgent or unforeseen
situations. However, this power is subject to several limitations to ensure its responsible use.

Firstly, the President can issue an ordinance only when both Houses of Parliament are not in
session, or even when only one House is in session, as laws require the approval of both
Houses. Ordinances issued while both Houses are in session are deemed void. This provision
ensures that the ordinance-making power does not parallel the law-making power of the
Parliament but acts as an emergency mechanism.

Secondly, the President must be satisfied that immediate action is necessary to address the
situation. Although the President's satisfaction is subjective, it is not immune from judicial
review. In the landmark Cooper case (1970), the Supreme Court ruled that the President’s
satisfaction could be questioned in court if it is malafide. Initially, the 38th Amendment (1975)
made this satisfaction beyond judicial review, but the 44th Amendment (1978) restored the
scope for judicial scrutiny. This ensures that the ordinance-making power is not misused to
bypass Parliament's authority.

Thirdly, the President’s ordinance-making power is coextensive with Parliament’s law-making

power. Ordinances can only be issued on subjects under Parliament’s legislative competence
and must comply with constitutional limitations, including safeguarding fundamental rights.
Ordinances cannot be used to amend the Constitution.

Once issued, an ordinance must be laid before both Houses of Parliament when they
reassemble. If Parliament approves the ordinance, it becomes a law. If no action is taken, the
ordinance ceases to operate six weeks after Parliament reconvenes. Additionally, both Houses
can pass resolutions disapproving the ordinance, leading to its immediate cessation. Thus, the
maximum lifespan of an ordinance is six months and six weeks, considering the time gap
between two sessions.

The President can withdraw an ordinance anytime, but this is done on the advice of the
council of ministers. Ordinances may have retrospective effect and can amend or repeal
existing laws, including tax laws. However, they cannot amend the Constitution.

The Supreme Court emphasized the misuse of ordinance-making power in the D.C. Wadhwa
case (1987). The court ruled that the repeated repromulgation of ordinances without legislative
approval violated the Constitution. It asserted that ordinances are meant to address exceptional
situations and cannot substitute the legislative process.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar justified this power as necessary for emergencies during Parliament's
recess. However, its application must be carefully balanced to respect the separation of powers
and avoid undermining legislative authority.
Pardoning power of the president

Under Article 72 of the Constitution, the President of India is empowered to grant pardons in
specific cases. This power applies to offences against Union laws, punishments imposed by
court-martial, and sentences of death. The pardoning power is an executive function,
independent of the judiciary. However, it does not function as a court of appeal but serves to
correct judicial errors or provide relief in cases deemed unduly harsh.

The President's pardoning power encompasses five key actions. Pardon completely absolves
the convict of punishment, sentence, and disqualifications. Commutation substitutes a severe
punishment with a lighter one, such as reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Remission shortens the duration of a sentence without altering its nature, while respite
imposes a lesser sentence due to special circumstances like pregnancy or disability. Lastly,
reprieve temporarily delays the execution of a death sentence, allowing time for appeals or
pardon.

Under Article 161, governors of states also possess pardoning powers, but with notable
limitations. Unlike the President, governors cannot pardon court-martial sentences or death
sentences, even if prescribed under state laws. However, they can suspend, remit, or commute
death sentences. Both the President and governors hold concurrent powers in these respects.

The Supreme Court has established several principles regarding the President’s pardoning
power. The convict has no right to an oral hearing, and the President can independently review
evidence and take a different view from the court. The power is exercised on the advice of the
Union Cabinet, and the President is not required to provide reasons for the decision. Judicial
review of this power is limited to cases where the decision is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, or
discriminatory. Furthermore, repeated petitions for mercy cannot delay execution if an earlier
petition has been rejected.

The President’s pardoning power serves as an important check to ensure justice and fairness,
addressing exceptional circumstances and providing relief where judicial remedies fall short.
PRIME MINISTER

Powers and Functions of the Prime Minister

The Prime Minister of India occupies a pivotal position in the country’s political-administrative
framework, serving as the head of the Council of Ministers and the chief executive of the Union
government. The powers and functions of the Prime Minister can be categorized into three
broad areas: their role in relation to the Council of Ministers, the President, and the Parliament,
along with other miscellaneous powers and responsibilities.

In Relation to the Council of Ministers​

As the head of the Council of Ministers, the Prime Minister holds substantial authority. They
recommend the appointment of ministers to the President, who can only appoint individuals
recommended by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister allocates and reshuffles portfolios
among the ministers, ensuring effective management of the government. They can also ask a
minister to resign or recommend their dismissal to the President in cases of disagreement or
conflict. As the leader of the council, the Prime Minister presides over its meetings and plays a
crucial role in influencing its decisions.

The Prime Minister guides, directs, and coordinates the activities of all ministers to ensure the
government operates smoothly. If the Prime Minister resigns or passes away, the entire Council
of Ministers is dissolved, leading to a political vacuum. Conversely, the resignation or death of
any other minister merely creates a vacancy, which the Prime Minister may fill at their discretion.

In Relation to the President​

The Prime Minister serves as the primary channel of communication between the President and
the Council of Ministers. They are constitutionally obligated to communicate all decisions of the
council to the President and provide any information requested by the President regarding the
administration of Union affairs and legislative proposals. Furthermore, if the President demands,
the Prime Minister must place for the council’s consideration any decision taken by an individual
minister that has not been discussed by the council.

The Prime Minister also advises the President on the appointment of key officials such as the
Attorney General of India, the Comptroller and Auditor General, members of the Union Public
Service Commission, Election Commissioners, and members of the Finance Commission.

In Relation to Parliament​
As the leader of the Lok Sabha, the Prime Minister plays a vital role in parliamentary
proceedings. They advise the President regarding the summoning and proroguing of Parliament
sessions and can recommend the dissolution of the Lok Sabha at any time. The Prime Minister
also announces government policies on the floor of the House, making them the primary
spokesperson of the government in Parliament.

Other Powers and Functions​

Beyond these primary roles, the Prime Minister has several additional responsibilities. They
serve as the chairman of various national bodies, including the NITI Aayog, National Integration
Council, Interstate Council, and National Water Resources Council. The Prime Minister plays a
significant role in shaping India’s foreign policy and is the chief spokesperson for the
government at the national and international levels.

In times of crisis, the Prime Minister acts as the crisis manager-in-chief, addressing
emergencies at the political level. They also interact with various sections of society, receiving
grievances and memoranda from the public. As the leader of the ruling party, the Prime Minister
provides direction to the government and acts as the political head of the civil services.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar rightly highlighted the critical role of the Prime Minister by comparing their
powers to those of the President of the United States, emphasizing that the Prime Minister is the
most influential functionary in India’s constitutional framework. Thus, the Prime Minister’s role is
indispensable to the effective functioning of the government and the country’s governance
system.
ROLE DESCRIPTION

The role of the Prime Minister, both in Britain and India, has been described as pivotal in the
functioning of the government, with several political scientists and constitutional experts
highlighting the Prime Minister’s centrality in the political system.

Lord Morley’s description of the Prime Minister as “primus inter pares” (first among equals) and
“the keystone of the cabinet arch” underscores the unique authority and influence the Prime
Minister holds among the Cabinet. He is not only the leader of the government but also the one
who commands exceptional authority to steer the country’s governance. Herbert Marrison
expands on this, suggesting that while the Prime Minister’s position is traditionally modest,
today it carries far greater weight and significance.

Sir William Vernor Harcourt’s metaphor of the Prime Minister as “a moon among lesser stars”
captures the central role the Prime Minister plays, with Jennings further describing the Prime
Minister as “the sun around which planets revolve,” emphasizing that all the decisions and
functions of the government are ultimately directed by the Prime Minister. H.J. Laski reinforces
this, calling the Prime Minister the “pivot” around which the entire governmental machinery
operates.

H.R.G. Greaves goes a step further by stating that while the government governs the country,
the Prime Minister is in command of the government itself, indicating the profound control the
Prime Minister exerts over governmental functions. Munro and Ramsay Muir, through their
metaphors of the Prime Minister as the “captain of the ship of the state” and “steersman of the
steering wheel,” highlight the Prime Minister’s role in guiding the state through political,
economic, and social challenges.

The concept of a ‘Prime Ministerial government’ is emphasized by scholars like R.H. Crossman
and Humphrey Berkely, suggesting that the powers vested in the Prime Minister have led to a
concentration of authority within the office, reducing the sovereignty of Parliament. This shift in
governance from a cabinet-driven system to one dominated by the Prime Minister is also
evident in the Indian context, where the Prime Minister holds significant influence over the
administration, making the post indispensable for the country’s functioning.
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT

The relationship between the Prime Minister and the President of India is defined by specific
provisions in the Constitution that establish a framework of cooperation and mutual
responsibility. These provisions outline the roles and duties of the Prime Minister in advising the
President and assisting in the exercise of executive powers.

Article 74 states that there shall be a Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, to aid
and advise the President. The President, in the exercise of his functions, must act in
accordance with the advice given by the Prime Minister and the Council. However, the President
has the authority to ask the Council to reconsider its advice, and once reconsidered, the
President must act based on the revised advice. This highlights the advisory nature of the Prime
Minister’s role, as the President is bound to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers, except
in rare cases when reconsideration is sought.

Article 75 deals with the appointment of the Prime Minister and other ministers. It states that
the President appoints the Prime Minister, who, in turn, advises the President on the
appointment of other ministers. The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers hold office at
the pleasure of the President, which means the President has the constitutional right to dismiss
the government if it loses the confidence of the House. Additionally, the Council of Ministers is
collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (House of the People), ensuring that the government
remains accountable to the elected representatives of the people.

Article 78 outlines the Prime Minister’s duties regarding communication with the President. The
Prime Minister must inform the President about the decisions made by the Council of Ministers
regarding Union administration and legislative proposals. The Prime Minister must also provide
any information the President requests and submit issues not yet discussed by the Cabinet but
decided by individual ministers. This ensures transparency and keeps the President informed
about the government's activities.

Together, these provisions establish a relationship where the Prime Minister plays a central role
in advising and assisting the President, while the President provides constitutional oversight and
ensures the smooth functioning of the government.
Council of ministers

Constitutional provisions

The Constitution of India provides detailed provisions regarding the powers, roles, and
responsibilities of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers. These provisions are outlined
in various articles, which establish the relationship between the executive and the President, as
well as the duties of the Prime Minister and the conduct of government business.

Article 74 establishes the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, to aid and advise
the President. The President must act in accordance with this advice, though the President has
the power to require the reconsideration of such advice. After reconsideration, the President is
bound to act according to the revised advice. Importantly, the advice tendered by the Council of
Ministers cannot be inquired into in any court, reinforcing the executive's independence.

Article 75 details the appointment and functions of ministers. The President appoints the Prime
Minister, and other ministers are appointed on the Prime Minister's advice. The article also limits
the total number of ministers to 15% of the Lok Sabha's strength, a provision introduced by the
91st Amendment Act of 2003. It also mandates that ministers hold office at the President's
pleasure and are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. Additionally, a minister who is not a
member of Parliament for six consecutive months will cease to hold office.

Article 77 outlines the conduct of executive business, stipulating that all executive actions must
be taken in the President's name. Orders and instruments executed in the President's name
must be authenticated according to rules made by the President, and their validity cannot be
questioned in court. This article also gives the President the authority to make rules for more
efficient conduct of government business and to allocate these responsibilities among ministers.

Article 78 enumerates the Prime Minister's duties, including communicating all decisions of the
Council of Ministers to the President, providing requested information, and submitting matters to
the Council if required by the President.

Article 88 grants ministers the right to speak and participate in the proceedings of Parliament
but without voting rights.

These provisions collectively outline the structure, duties, and functioning of the executive
branch in India, emphasizing the President's constitutional role and the Prime Minister's central
role in advising and assisting the President.
Nature of advice and appointment

Nature of Advice by Ministers:

Article 74 of the Indian Constitution establishes the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime
Minister, to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions. The 42nd and 44th
Constitutional Amendments made the advice of the Council of Ministers binding on the
President. This means that the President must act in accordance with the advice given by the
ministers, and the President’s action cannot deviate from it. Furthermore, the nature of the
advice tendered by the ministers is confidential, and its inquiry by any court is prohibited,
emphasizing the secrecy and trust inherent in the relationship between the President and the
ministers.

In the 1971 case, the Supreme Court emphasized that even after the dissolution of the Lok
Sabha, the Council of Ministers continues to hold office, and the President cannot exercise
executive powers without the aid and advice of the Council. Any action taken without such
advice would be unconstitutional. Similarly, the 1974 ruling clarified that when the Constitution
requires the "satisfaction" of the President, it refers to the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers,
not the personal satisfaction of the President, and the President acts in accordance with this
advice.

Appointment of Ministers:

The President appoints the Prime Minister, who, in turn, advises the President on the
appointment of other ministers. The President can only appoint those persons as ministers who
are recommended by the Prime Minister. Typically, members of Parliament (either Lok Sabha or
Rajya Sabha) are appointed as ministers. However, a person who is not a member of either
House can also be appointed, but must become a member within six months, or else they cease
to be a minister. Ministers, regardless of their House membership, can speak in both Houses
but can only vote in the House they are a member of.
RESPONSIBILITY OF MINISTERS

Responsibility of Ministers
Collective Responsibility:

The principle of collective responsibility is central to the working of the Indian parliamentary
system. As per Article 75 of the Constitution, the council of ministers is collectively responsible
to the Lok Sabha, meaning all ministers are jointly accountable for their actions, including those
of omission and commission. This implies that the council acts as a unified team—if the Lok
Sabha passes a no-confidence motion against the council, all ministers, including those from
the Rajya Sabha, must resign. Alternatively, the council may advise the President to dissolve the
Lok Sabha and call for fresh elections if the House is deemed to not represent the electorate’s
views. However, the President is not obligated to act on this advice if the council has lost the
confidence of the House.

Collective responsibility also dictates that decisions made in Cabinet meetings are binding on all
ministers. Even if a minister disagrees with a decision, they are duty-bound to support it publicly
and within Parliament. If a minister cannot defend a Cabinet decision, they must resign. Notable
examples include Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who resigned over differences on the Hindu Code Bill in
1953, and C.D. Deshmukh, who resigned over the reorganization of states.

Individual Responsibility:

Article 75 also establishes individual responsibility, meaning that ministers hold office at the
pleasure of the President. This allows the President to dismiss a minister even if the council of
ministers retains the confidence of the Lok Sabha. However, this power is exercised only on the
advice of the Prime Minister. If a minister’s performance is unsatisfactory or if there is a
difference of opinion, the Prime Minister can ask the minister to resign or advise the President to
dismiss them. The Prime Minister plays a crucial role in maintaining collective responsibility, as
emphasized by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who argued that the office of the Prime Minister must have
the authority to appoint and dismiss ministers for collective responsibility to function effectively.

No Legal Responsibility:

Unlike the British system, where a minister is legally responsible for public acts and can be held
accountable in court, the Indian Constitution does not provide for legal responsibility. The
President’s orders do not need to be countersigned by a minister, and the courts cannot inquire
into the advice tendered by ministers to the President. Thus, ministers are not legally
accountable for the actions taken in the President’s name. This distinction highlights the
difference between the two systems, where in India, the principle of collective responsibility
operates politically rather than legally.
Composition of council of ministers

The Council of Ministers is composed of three main categories of ministers: Cabinet

Ministers, Ministers of State, and Deputy Ministers.

1.​ Cabinet Ministers: These ministers are the highest-ranking members and head
key ministries such as home, defense, finance, and external affairs. They are
integral members of the Cabinet, attend its meetings, and play a major role in
shaping policies and decisions for the country. They bear significant
responsibilities over the central government's operations.
2.​ Ministers of State: These ministers may either have independent charge of
specific ministries or work under the supervision of Cabinet Ministers. When
attached to a Cabinet Minister, they assist with specific tasks or departments.
While they do not attend Cabinet meetings, they have the same powers as
Cabinet Ministers in their own areas if they have independent charge.
3.​ Deputy Ministers: These are lower-ranking ministers who do not have
independent charge but assist either Cabinet Ministers or Ministers of State in
their duties, including administrative, political, and parliamentary work. They are
not part of the Cabinet and do not attend its meetings.

A fourth category, Parliamentary Secretaries, assists senior ministers with

parliamentary duties but has no independent department. Since 1967, this position has
been largely discontinued, except briefly under Rajiv Gandhi’s government.

Additionally, a Deputy Prime Minister may be appointed, typically for political reasons,
though this position is not always filled.
COUNCIL OF MINISTERS VS CABINET

The Council of Ministers and the Cabinet are terms often used interchangeably, but
they have distinct differences in terms of composition, functions, and roles. These
distinctions are important to understand the functioning of the Indian government,
especially in terms of policy formulation and decision-making. Below is a breakdown of
the differences between the two:

Composition:

1.​ Council of Ministers: It is a broader body comprising 60 to 70 ministers,

including Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State, and Deputy Ministers. The
Council of Ministers includes all categories of ministers and functions as a larger
collective body that advises the President.
2.​ Cabinet: The Cabinet is a smaller, more exclusive body consisting of about 15 to
20 ministers, primarily Cabinet Ministers. It is a subset of the Council of Ministers
and consists of senior ministers who are directly responsible for the key portfolios
such as home, finance, defense, and foreign affairs.

Functions:

1.​ Council of Ministers: It has no collective functions as a body and does not meet
regularly to transact business. Its powers are more theoretical, and it is generally
involved in the larger, day-to-day functioning of the government. The Cabinet
makes the decisions which the Council of Ministers is then expected to
implement.
2.​ Cabinet: The Cabinet is the highest decision-making authority and meets
frequently, often weekly, to deliberate on critical matters such as legislative
policies, national emergencies, financial matters, and foreign policy. It has
collective functions and exercises the practical power of the Council of Ministers.

Role:

1.​ Council of Ministers: It is a constitutional body that functions under Article 74

and Article 75 of the Indian Constitution. It works as a collective body that
advises the President, but it does not have the same level of operational power
as the Cabinet. The ministers in the Council of Ministers are responsible for the
smooth running of the government, each in their assigned portfolios.
2.​ Cabinet: The Cabinet plays a pivotal role in decision-making and is the chief
policy-formulating body. It is the supreme executive authority of the government
and is responsible for managing the administration of the country. The Cabinet’s
 decisions are binding on the Council of Ministers and it enforces collective
responsibility to the Lok Sabha.

Relationship:

The Cabinet directs the Council of Ministers, making decisions that shape the overall
functioning of the government. While the Cabinet has the executive powers and is
responsible for day-to-day governance, the Council of Ministers, under the leadership of
the Prime Minister, advises the President on important matters. Furthermore, the
Cabinet plays a critical role in foreign affairs, crisis management, legislative decisions,
and higher appointments.

In terms of constitutional backing, the Council of Ministers has a defined role under
the Constitution, whereas the Cabinet’s authority stems from parliamentary
conventions. The Cabinet is officially recognized in Article 352 of the Constitution, and
its functions are largely based on practices developed from the British parliamentary
system.

In summary, while both the Council of Ministers and the Cabinet are essential for the
functioning of the Indian government, the Cabinet holds greater decision-making power
and serves as the central executive authority in shaping the nation’s policies and
governance.
ROLE DESCRIPTION

The role of the Cabinet in a parliamentary system, particularly in the context of the
British and Indian governments, is crucial to the functioning of the state. Eminent
political scientists and constitutional experts have provided various descriptions of the
Cabinet’s significance, many of which apply to India as well.

For example, Ramsay Muir referred to the Cabinet as the “steering wheel of the ship
of the state,” emphasizing its central role in guiding the direction of the government.
Similarly, Lowell called it the “keystone of the political arch,”underscoring the
Cabinet's function as the essential support structure for the entire government. Sir John
Marriottdescribed it as the “pivot around which the whole political machinery
revolves,” highlighting its function as the critical point of coordination within the state.
Gladstone went even further by calling the Cabinet the “solar orb around which the
other bodies revolve,” suggesting that all other political institutions in the state are
influenced by the decisions made by the Cabinet.

These descriptions point to the Cabinet’s preeminent position in both policy-making

and governance. Bagehot captured its dual role in connecting the executive and
legislative branches when he stated that the Cabinet is a “hyphen that joins, the
buckle that binds the executive and legislative departments together.” This
illustrates the Cabinet’s responsibility in ensuring smooth coordination between the
government and the legislature.

Sir Ivor Jennings and L.S. Amery both emphasized that the Cabinet is the “core” and
the “central directing instrument of Government,” further solidifying its dominant
role. Ramsay Muir also referred to the Cabinet as a “dictatorship” in terms of its
theoretical power, indicating that it holds significant authority, especially when it
commands a majority in the legislature.

In the Indian context, these perspectives are equally relevant. The Cabinet is the central
body responsible for policy decisions, administration, and overall governance. It plays
an indispensable role in shaping national policies, and its decisions influence the
political, economic, and social landscape of the country.
PARLIAMENT

COMPOSITION OF LOK SABHA AND RAJYA SABHA

Composition of the Two Houses of Parliament

The Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of the Indian Parliament, has a maximum strength
of 250 members. Out of these, 238 members are indirectly elected to represent the
states and union territories, while 12 are nominated by the President. Currently, the
Rajya Sabha consists of 245 members: 229 from the states, 4 from the union territories,
and 12 nominated members. The Fourth Schedule of the Constitution allocates seats in
the Rajya Sabha to various states and union territories based on their population.

The representation of states in the Rajya Sabha is determined by proportional

representation through a single transferable vote, with members elected by the elected
members of state legislative assemblies. States with larger populations have more
seats. For instance, Uttar Pradesh has 31 representatives, while smaller states like
Tripura have just one. This contrasts with the U.S. Senate, where all states have equal
representation regardless of population.

The representation of union territories in the Rajya Sabha is also based on

proportional representation, with members elected indirectly by an electoral college.
However, only Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu & Kashmir have representation, as other
union territories have populations too small to warrant seats. Additionally, the President
nominates 12 members to the Rajya Sabha for their expertise in fields such as art,
literature, science, and social service. This system ensures that eminent individuals can
contribute without undergoing elections. Notably, the U.S. Senate does not have
nominated members.

The Lok Sabha, the Lower House, has a maximum strength of 552 members. Of these,
530 represent the states, 20 represent union territories, and 2 are nominated by the
President from the Anglo-Indian community. Currently, the Lok Sabha comprises 545
members: 530 elected from states, 13 from union territories, and 2 Anglo-Indians
nominated by the President.

The representation of states in the Lok Sabha is through direct elections based on
universal adult franchise. Every citizen aged 18 or above can vote, with the voting age
reduced from 21 to 18 by the 61st Amendment Act, 1988. The representation of union
territories is also direct, as prescribed by the Union Territories (Direct Election to the
House of the People) Act, 1965.
Lastly, the President nominates two members from the Anglo-Indian community if it is
deemed underrepresented, a provision extended till 2020 by the 95th Amendment Act,
2009. This ensures inclusive representation in the Lok Sabha.
ELECTION TO LOK SABHA AND RAJYA SABHA

The system of elections to the Lok Sabha ensures representation through territorial
constituencies. Each state is divided into constituencies, maintaining uniformity in
representation. This means that the ratio between a state's population and the number
of seats allocated to it is consistent for all states, except those with populations below
six million. Similarly, within a state, the ratio between the population of a constituency
and the number of seats allotted is uniform.

After each census, adjustments are made to the allocation of seats and division of
constituencies. Parliament has enacted Delimitation Commission Acts (1952, 1962,
1972, and 2002) for this purpose. However, the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 froze the
allocation of seats and constituency divisions until 2000 to encourage population control
measures. This freeze was extended until 2026 by the 84th Amendment Act, 2001.
While readjustment based on the 2001 census was permitted, the number of seats per
state remained unchanged.

The Constitution provides reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and
Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Lok Sabha based on their population. Initially intended
for 10 years, this reservation has been extended continuously, now valid until 2020
under the 95th Amendment Act, 2009. SCs and STs contest reserved seats, but all
voters in the constituency elect them. Reserved seats are periodically adjusted based
on census data, with the 84th and 87th Amendments aligning them with 1991 and 2001
census figures, respectively.

India follows the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system for Lok Sabha elections. Each
geographical constituency elects one representative, and the candidate securing the
most votes wins. While simple, this system does not proportionally represent the entire
electorate, often marginalizing minority groups.

The proportional representation (PR) system, adopted for Rajya Sabha elections,
aims to represent all sections proportionately. However, the Lok Sabha does not use PR
due to its complexity, high cost, and potential to destabilize parliamentary governance
by encouraging fragmented political parties. Additionally, PR reduces
voter-representative intimacy and amplifies party influence over individual voters.
DURATION OF THE HOUSES

The Rajya Sabha is a permanent body and cannot be dissolved. One-third of its members retire
every two years, with fresh elections and nominations held every third year. Members serve a
six-year term, as defined by the Representation of the People Act (1951), which also
empowered the President to arrange the initial retirement schedule through a lottery. Retiring
members can be re-elected or re-nominated indefinitely.

The Lok Sabha, in contrast, is not a continuing chamber. Its normal term is five years from its
first meeting after general elections, after which it dissolves automatically. The President can
also dissolve it earlier, and this decision is non-justiciable. During a national emergency, the Lok
Sabha's term can be extended by Parliament for one year at a time, but not beyond six months
after the emergency ends.
SESSIONS OF PARLIAMENT

Sessions of Parliament

The Parliament of India operates through its sessions, which are the periods during which the
Houses meet to discuss, debate, and transact business. Understanding the processes and
features of these sessions is crucial for comprehending parliamentary functioning.

Summoning of Parliament

The President of India summons each House of Parliament from time to time. The Constitution
mandates that the gap between two sessions cannot exceed six months, ensuring that
Parliament meets at least twice a year. Traditionally, there are three sessions annually:

1.​ Budget Session (February to May): This is the longest and most important session,
focusing on financial matters and budget approvals.
2.​ Monsoon Session (July to September): This session addresses legislative and policy
matters.
3.​ Winter Session (November to December): It deals with various legislative agendas and
urgent issues.

A "session" spans from the first sitting of the House to its prorogation or dissolution, and the
interval between sessions is referred to as a "recess."

Adjournment and Adjournment Sine Die

A session consists of multiple meetings, with each meeting having two sittings—morning (11
am–1 pm) and afternoon (2 pm–6 pm).

●​ Adjournment: The presiding officer terminates a sitting for a specified period (hours,
days, or weeks).
●​ Adjournment Sine Die: This refers to the indefinite termination of a sitting without
setting a date for reassembly. The power to adjourn or adjourn sine die lies with the
presiding officer, who may also recall the House earlier than scheduled.

Prorogation
Prorogation signifies the termination of a session. After the presiding officer declares the House
adjourned sine die, the President issues a notification for prorogation. The President may also
prorogue the House while it is still in session. Unlike dissolution, prorogation does not affect the
continuity of bills or other parliamentary business, though all pending notices (except bill
introduction notices) lapse.

Dissolution

Dissolution applies exclusively to the Lok Sabha, marking the end of its tenure. Dissolution can
occur in two ways:

1.​ Automatic Dissolution: Upon completing the five-year term or an extended term during
a national emergency.
2.​ Presidential Dissolution: The President may dissolve the Lok Sabha earlier, and such
dissolution is irrevocable.

Upon dissolution, all pending business, such as bills and motions, lapses, except for certain
cases like bills pending Presidential assent or reconsideration. Some pending assurances
remain under the purview of the Committee on Government Assurances.

Quorum in Parliament

Quorum is the minimum number of members required for conducting parliamentary business. It
is set at one-tenth of the total membership of each House, including the presiding officer—55
members for the Lok Sabha and 25 for the Rajya Sabha. If quorum is not met, the presiding
officer must adjourn or suspend proceedings until it is fulfilled.

Voting in the House

Decisions in Parliament are generally made by a majority of votes from members present and
voting, excluding the presiding officer. However, certain matters, such as constitutional
amendments or impeachment of the President, require a special majority. The presiding officer
votes only in the event of a tie, casting the deciding vote.

Language in Parliament
Parliamentary proceedings are conducted in Hindi and English, as per the Constitution.
Members may speak in their mother tongue with the presiding officer’s permission, and
simultaneous translation facilities are available. The Official Languages Act (1963) ensures
that English remains a floor language alongside Hindi.

Rights of Ministers and Attorney General

Ministers and the Attorney General have the right to participate in the proceedings of either
House, joint sittings, or parliamentary committees, even if they are not members of the
respective House. However, they do not have voting rights. Notably, a person can serve as a
minister for up to six months without being a member of either House.

Lame-Duck Session

The lame-duck session is the final session of the Lok Sabha after elections for a new House
have taken place. Members who were not re-elected to the new Lok Sabha are referred to as
"lame ducks." This session often handles critical pending matters before the dissolution of the
outgoing House.
Devices of Parliamentary Proceedings

Devices of Parliamentary Proceedings

Parliamentary proceedings in India involve various devices designed to facilitate discussions,

debates, and decision-making. These tools empower members to raise matters of public
interest, hold the government accountable, and ensure smooth legislative functioning. Among
these, notable devices include Question Hour, Zero Hour, Motions, and Resolutions, each with
distinct features and purposes.

Question Hour​
The first hour of every parliamentary sitting, known as Question Hour, is an essential tool for
accountability. During this time, members can question ministers about their policies, decisions,
and actions. Questions are categorized into starred, unstarred, and short notice. A starred
question, marked with an asterisk, requires an oral answer and allows supplementary questions.
An unstarred question demands a written answer, precluding further inquiries. Short notice
questions, submitted with less than ten days’ notice, receive oral responses. Additionally,
questions may also be directed at private members concerning matters like bills or resolutions
for which they are responsible. The color-coded printed lists—green for starred, white for
unstarred, light pink for short notice, and yellow for private members—distinguish the types of
questions.

Zero Hour​
An informal innovation unique to Indian parliamentary practice, Zero Hour allows members to
raise urgent matters without prior notice. Introduced in 1962, it begins immediately after
Question Hour and lasts until the day’s agenda is taken up. Though not formally included in the
Rules of Procedure, Zero Hour is an effective platform for members to highlight pressing issues
of public importance.

Motions​
Motions are critical devices enabling discussions on matters of general public importance.
These proposals, moved with the presiding officer’s consent, allow the House to express
decisions or opinions. They fall into three categories: substantive, substitute, and subsidiary
motions. Substantive motions are independent proposals dealing with significant issues, such
as impeachment proceedings. Substitute motions propose alternatives to original motions,
superseding them if adopted. Subsidiary motions, which lack independent significance, support
or modify main motions. These are further divided into ancillary, superseding, and amendment
motions.

Special types of motions include closure motions, which expedite proceedings by cutting short
debates. These include simple closure (ending discussions to proceed to voting), closure by
compartments (grouping clauses for collective debate), kangaroo closure (focusing on key
clauses), and guillotine closure (putting undiscussed clauses to vote). Privilege motions address
breaches of parliamentary privileges, while calling attention motions seek authoritative
statements on urgent matters. Adjournment motions highlight urgent public issues and involve
censure against the government, requiring 50 members’ support for admission. No-confidence
motions, governed by Article 75, challenge the government’s majority in the Lok Sabha, leading
to resignation if passed. Conversely, confidence motions are used by governments to
demonstrate majority support. Censure motions criticize specific government policies or actions
but do not necessitate resignation.

Resolutions​
Resolutions allow members to draw attention to matters of public interest. Unlike motions, all
resolutions are substantive and must be voted upon. Resolutions are categorized as private
member’s resolutions, moved by non-minister members; government resolutions, moved by
ministers; and statutory resolutions, tabled in compliance with constitutional or legislative
provisions. Discussions on resolutions are strictly confined to their scope, requiring the mover to
seek the House's approval for withdrawal.

Special Discussions and Notices​

Half-an-hour discussions clarify debated issues requiring factual elucidation. Short-duration
discussions, lasting up to two hours, address urgent matters. Special mentions in the Rajya
Sabha and notices under Rule 377 in the Lok Sabha raise topics outside regular procedural
devices.
LAW MAKING PROCEDURE PROCEDURE IN THE INDIAN PARLIAMENT

The legislative procedure in the Indian Parliament is a comprehensive process through which
bills are introduced, debated, and enacted into laws. The procedure is uniform for both Houses
of Parliament, with each bill passing through multiple stages in both Houses before becoming
law. A bill is essentially a proposal for legislation, and it attains the status of law once duly
enacted. Bills introduced in Parliament are broadly categorized as public bills and private bills,
or government bills and private members’ bills, respectively. While both types of bills follow the
same legislative stages, they differ significantly in terms of their origin, implications, and
chances of approval.

Bills are further classified into four types: ordinary bills, money bills, financial bills, and
constitution amendment bills. Each category has distinct characteristics and is subject to
separate procedures as outlined in the Constitution. Ordinary bills concern general matters
unrelated to finance, while money bills address taxation, public expenditure, and other financial
matters. Financial bills, a broader category, include those dealing with revenue and expenditure
but not exclusively covered under money bills. Constitution amendment bills, as the name
suggests, deal with amending provisions of the Constitution and follow a unique legislative
process.

The legislative journey of an ordinary bill involves five stages. The first stage, known as the first
reading, involves the introduction of the bill in either House of Parliament, either by a minister or
a private member. The bill's title and objectives are read out, and if the House grants
permission, it is published in the Gazette of India. No detailed discussion occurs at this stage.

The second reading is the most crucial phase, consisting of three sub-stages: general
discussion, committee stage, and consideration stage. During the general discussion, members
debate the principles and provisions of the bill without delving into its specifics. Subsequently,
the bill may be referred to a select committee of the originating House, a joint committee of both
Houses, or circulated to gather public opinion. At the committee stage, the bill undergoes a
detailed clause-by-clause examination, and amendments may be suggested without altering its
fundamental principles. In the consideration stage, the House debates and votes on each
clause individually, incorporating approved amendments into the bill.

The third reading focuses on the acceptance or rejection of the bill in its entirety. No
amendments are permitted at this stage, as the principles of the bill have already been
scrutinized. If the majority of members approve, the bill is authenticated and transmitted to the
other House, where it undergoes the same three readings. The second House may pass the bill
as is, suggest amendments, reject it, or take no action. In case of disagreement between the
two Houses, a deadlock arises, which may be resolved through a joint sitting summoned by the
President.

After both Houses pass the bill, it is presented to the President for assent. The President may
approve, withhold, or return the bill for reconsideration. If the President returns the bill and both
Houses pass it again, the President must assent, making the bill a law. The President's veto
power is thus limited to a “suspensive veto.”

Money bills follow a distinct procedure as per Article 110 of the Constitution. They can only be
introduced in the Lok Sabha, on the President’s recommendation, and must be passed by the
Lok Sabha before being sent to the Rajya Sabha, which has limited powers in this regard.
Financial bills, however, have a broader scope and follow the procedure of ordinary bills unless
they qualify as money bills.
JOINT SITTING OF THE HOUSES

The joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament is an extraordinary mechanism provided under
the Constitution of India to resolve deadlocks over the passage of a bill. A deadlock arises in
three situations: (1) if a bill is rejected by one House after being passed by the other, (2) if there
is disagreement over amendments to the bill, or (3) if the other House fails to act on the bill
within six months. In such cases, the President can summon a joint sitting of both Houses for
deliberation and voting.

This provision applies only to ordinary bills and financial bills, not to money bills or constitutional
amendment bills. During the joint sitting, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha presides, followed by the
Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, if necessary. The quorum for a
joint sitting is one-tenth of the total membership of both Houses, and proceedings are governed
by Lok Sabha rules.

At the joint sitting, the bill is deemed passed if a majority of the total members present and
voting approve it. New amendments can only be proposed in cases of disagreement or delays
caused by the deadlock. Since independence, joint sittings have been convened thrice: for the
Dowry Prohibition Bill (1961), the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill (1978), and the
Prevention of Terrorism Bill (2002).

The joint sitting exemplifies the collaborative spirit of the bicameral legislature, with the Lok
Sabha typically prevailing due to its numerical strength.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOK SABHA AND RAJYA SABHA

The Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, the two Houses of the Parliament of India, play distinct yet
complementary roles in the legislative process. The Constitution of India outlines the powers
and functions of both, and while the two Houses share many functions, there are significant
differences in their powers, particularly with respect to money bills, the control of the
government, and special powers granted to the Rajya Sabha.

Equal Powers with Lok Sabha​

In several areas, the powers and status of the Rajya Sabha are equal to that of the Lok Sabha.
Both Houses share the responsibility for the introduction and passage of ordinary bills,
constitutional amendment bills, and bills that involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of
India. The Rajya Sabha also has the power to participate in the election and impeachment of
the President, the election and removal of the Vice-President (although it can only initiate the
process of removal), and the making of recommendations for the removal of key officials like the
Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court. Additionally, both Houses must approve
presidential ordinances and proclamations of emergencies. The Rajya Sabha is also involved in
the consideration of reports from constitutional bodies such as the Finance Commission, the
Union Public Service Commission, and the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Unequal Status with Lok Sabha​

However, there are several areas where the Rajya Sabha's powers are unequal to those of the
Lok Sabha, especially in financial matters. Money Bills, which deal with national revenue and
expenditure, can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha can only make
recommendations on a Money Bill, and it must return it to the Lok Sabha within 14 days, either
with or without recommendations. The Lok Sabha, in turn, can accept or reject any of these
recommendations. Additionally, the Lok Sabha has greater powers in the context of joint sittings,
where the House with the majority of members present and voting decides the outcome. The
Rajya Sabha also cannot vote on demands for grants (which is the exclusive privilege of the Lok
Sabha), and it does not have the power to remove the Council of Ministers through a
no-confidence motion, as ministers are collectively responsible only to the Lok Sabha.

Special Powers of Rajya Sabha​

The Rajya Sabha also possesses unique powers that are not available to the Lok Sabha. One
of these is its ability to authorize the Parliament to legislate on matters in the State List under
Article 249. This allows the Rajya Sabha to play a crucial role in deciding the legislative
competence of the Parliament in relation to the states. The Rajya Sabha also has the exclusive
power to initiate a move for the removal of the Vice-President (Article 67), a process that can
only begin in the Rajya Sabha. Additionally, in cases of national emergency, President’s rule, or
financial emergencies, if the Lok Sabha is dissolved or unavailable, the Rajya Sabha can pass
the necessary resolutions, making it the key body in situations where the Lok Sabha cannot act.

Comparative Analysis of Powers and Functions​

The Rajya Sabha’s powers, while significant, are not as expansive as those of the Lok Sabha,
particularly in matters that involve the direct control of the government. While the Lok Sabha
holds a dominant position in financial matters and in controlling the executive, the Rajya Sabha
plays an important role as a revising and scrutinizing chamber. This revisory function helps
prevent hasty, careless, or poorly considered legislation from becoming law. The Rajya Sabha is
also a forum for representing the interests of states, as its members are elected indirectly by the
state legislatures, ensuring a balance between the central and state governments. Moreover, it
provides a platform for professionals and experts in fields such as law, science, and the arts,
who may not be able to secure election to the Lok Sabha but can contribute significantly to the
legislative process.

Conclusion​
The Rajya Sabha occupies a unique and crucial position in the Indian parliamentary system.
While it does not enjoy the same level of powers as the Lok Sabha in financial and executive
matters, it serves as a revisory body that ensures more deliberation and representation of
diverse interests. Its special powers, such as the ability to authorize legislation on state subjects
and its unique role in the removal of the Vice-President, further demonstrate its distinctive
constitutional position.
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

Parliamentary privileges are special rights, immunities, and exemptions granted to the members
of the Indian Parliament and its committees, necessary to ensure their independence and
effectiveness. These privileges enable Parliament to maintain its authority, dignity, and honor
while protecting members from obstructions in fulfilling their duties. The privileges extend not
only to elected members but also to individuals like the Attorney General and Union ministers,
who participate in Parliament's proceedings.

Parliamentary privileges are classified into two categories: collective and individual. Collective
privileges are enjoyed by each House of Parliament as a whole. These include the right to
publish its reports and proceedings, the ability to exclude strangers and hold secret sittings, and
the power to make rules for its functioning. Parliament can punish members or outsiders for
breaches of privilege or contempt, and it can institute inquiries by ordering attendance and
documentation. The courts cannot inquire into the proceedings of Parliament, and no legal
process can be served within the precincts of Parliament without the presiding officer's
permission.

Individual privileges are granted to members, including immunity from arrest during a session
and 40 days before or after a session (except in criminal cases), freedom of speech in
Parliament (with protections against court proceedings for statements made within the House),
and exemption from jury service or appearing as a witness in court while Parliament is in
session.

A breach of privilege occurs when these rights are disregarded or attacked, while contempt of
the House refers to any act that obstructs Parliament or undermines its dignity and authority.
Parliamentary privileges are derived from constitutional provisions, laws passed by Parliament,
rules of the Houses, parliamentary conventions, and judicial interpretations, though they have
not yet been exhaustively codified into a single law.
SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT

The doctrine of "sovereignty of Parliament" primarily applies to the British Parliament and
denotes its supreme power within the State, without any legal restrictions. According to British
jurist A.V. Dicey, this sovereignty has three main implications:

1.​ Parliament's ability to make, amend, or repeal any law: The British Parliament can
legislate on any matter without any legal constraints. This extends to all areas, except in
cases such as gender, as emphasized by political analyst De Lolme, who stated, "The
British Parliament can do everything except make a woman a man and a man a
woman."
2.​ Parliament's power to make constitutional laws: In Britain, Parliament can make
constitutional laws through the same legislative procedure as ordinary laws, meaning
there is no legal distinction between its authority to amend the Constitution and to
legislate on ordinary matters.
3.​ No judicial review: The British judiciary cannot declare parliamentary laws
unconstitutional. Courts in Britain apply laws made by Parliament without questioning
their constitutionality, legality, or reasonableness. There is no system of judicial review to
limit parliamentary power.

In contrast, the Indian Parliament is not sovereign in the same manner, as its power is legally
restricted by various factors:

1.​ Written Constitution: India has a written Constitution, which serves as the fundamental
law of the land. It defines the authority and jurisdiction of the three organs of
government—executive, legislature, and judiciary—and specifies the relationship
between them. The Indian Parliament operates within the boundaries set by the
Constitution, which also mandates that certain amendments require the ratification of at
least half of the states. In contrast, Britain has an unwritten constitution, and Parliament
can make or amend laws without constitutional constraints.
2.​ Federal System of Government: India’s federal system divides powers between the
Union and state governments. The Indian Parliament can only legislate on subjects in
the Union List and Concurrent List, with limited power over subjects in the State List. In
exceptional cases, Parliament can legislate on state matters, but only temporarily. The
British system is unitary, meaning all legislative power resides in the central Parliament,
with no division of powers.
3.​ Judicial Review: India has an independent judiciary with the power of judicial review,
allowing the courts to declare laws enacted by Parliament as unconstitutional if they
contravene the Constitution. This system of judicial oversight does not exist in the UK,
where courts cannot review the constitutionality of parliamentary laws.
 4.​ Fundamental Rights: The Indian Constitution guarantees justiciable fundamental rights
under Part III, which restricts Parliament from making laws that infringe upon these
rights. Any law violating fundamental rights can be struck down by the courts. The British
system does not have a written Bill of Rights; citizens’ rights are not codified, though
individual liberties are protected under the rule of law.

While the Indian Parliament is structured similarly to the British Parliament, it is not sovereign in
the absolute sense that the British Parliament is. The Indian Parliament's authority is
constrained by the Constitution, judicial review, federalism, and fundamental rights, making its
legislative power more limited and subject to legal scrutiny. This contrasts with the British
Parliament’s supremacy, where no legal constraints exist on its legislative power. Thus, India's
system aligns more closely with the American system of government, where the legislature's
authority is similarly restricted by a written Constitution, a federal system, judicial review, and a
Bill of Rights.
Adjournment and prorogation

Adjournment and prorogation are two parliamentary procedures that deal with suspending the
proceedings of the House, but they differ in their scope and effects.

1.​ Adjournment refers to the temporary suspension of a sitting of the House. It is typically
done by the presiding officer (the Speaker in the Lok Sabha or the Chairman in the
Rajya Sabha) and does not end the session. The sitting is paused and will resume at the
scheduled time or date. Importantly, any business, such as bills or discussions, that is
pending at the time of adjournment can be resumed once the House reconvenes, and it
does not require new notices or formalities to restart the proceedings.
2.​ Prorogation, on the other hand, is the formal end of a session of Parliament. It is done by
the President of India, and while it terminates the sitting, it also ends the entire session.
However, it does not affect the bills or business pending before the House; the business
can be resumed in the next session, except for notices related to the introduction of bills,
which lapse upon prorogation. In the UK, prorogation ends all pending business,
including bills, unlike in India.

Thus, while adjournment is a temporary pause, prorogation marks the formal conclusion of a
session.
SUPREME COURT

INDEPENDENCE

The independence of the Supreme Court is crucial to uphold the principles of democracy, the
rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights in India. The Constitution has embedded
specific safeguards to ensure that the Supreme Court operates without interference from the
executive (the government) or the legislature (Parliament), allowing it to act impartially and
without bias.

1.​
2.​ Mode of Appointment: The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the
President in consultation with the judiciary itself, meaning that judicial appointments are
made collaboratively by the executive and the judiciary. This process prevents the
absolute discretion of the executive and ensures that appointments are based on merit,
free from political influence.
3.​ Security of Tenure: Judges of the Supreme Court have security of tenure, meaning they
cannot be arbitrarily removed. They can only be removed through a special process of
impeachment, which requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. This
protects judges from political pressure and ensures they can perform their duties without
fear of retribution.
4.​ Fixed Service Conditions: The conditions of service, including salaries, allowances,
and pensions, are determined by Parliament and cannot be altered to the disadvantage
of judges during their tenure, except in cases of financial emergency. This financial
security prevents the government from using economic leverage to influence judicial
decisions.
5.​ Expenses Charged on Consolidated Fund: The salaries, allowances, and
administrative expenses of the Supreme Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund
of India. This means that the Supreme Court's financial needs are protected from the
annual budgetary approval of Parliament, ensuring that Parliament cannot reduce its
budget to limit the Court's functioning.
6.​ Conduct of Judges Cannot be Discussed: The Constitution prohibits any discussion in
Parliament or state legislatures concerning the conduct of judges while they are
performing their duties, except when an impeachment motion is under consideration.
This protection prevents external pressures or political interference in judicial matters.
7.​ Ban on Practice After Retirement: Retired judges of the Supreme Court are barred
from practicing in any court or before any authority in India. This ensures that they are
not influenced by the prospect of future employment, which could compromise their
impartiality during their tenure.
8.​ Power to Punish for Contempt: The Supreme Court has the authority to punish any
individual or entity for contempt of court. This power ensures that its orders, judgments,
and authority are respected, maintaining the Court's dignity and integrity.
9.​
 10.​Freedom to Appoint Its Staff: The Chief Justice of India has the authority to appoint
staff for the Supreme Court, without interference from the executive. This autonomy
ensures that the Court’s administrative functioning is independent.
11.​Jurisdiction Cannot Be Curtailed: The Constitution guarantees the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. While Parliament can extend its jurisdiction, it cannot curtail it, thereby
protecting the Court's authority in matters of national importance.
12.​Separation from the Executive: The Constitution mandates that the judiciary be
separated from the executive branch, ensuring that judicial functions are not influenced
by political power. This separation preserves the integrity and impartiality of the judicial
system.

Through these provisions, the independence of the Supreme Court is assured, enabling it to
function effectively as the guardian of the Constitution, fundamental rights, and the rule of law.
JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court of India is vested with extensive jurisdiction and powers, making it one of
the most powerful judicial bodies in the world. As the highest court in the country, its functions
range from resolving federal disputes to safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens. The
Constitution of India outlines the various jurisdictions and powers that the Supreme Court
exercises, ensuring its pivotal role in the Indian legal system.

1. Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction in federal
disputes, which include matters between the Centre and states, or between two or more states.
This jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to hear such disputes in the first instance, without
appeal. However, its jurisdiction does not extend to matters involving pre-Constitution
agreements or certain financial matters. For example, the first case under this jurisdiction
involved West Bengal's challenge to the Constitutionality of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development) Act, 1957, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

2. Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court also has the power to issue writs, such as habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the enforcement of
fundamental rights. While the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this regard, it is not
exclusive, as high courts can also issue writs for the same purpose. However, the Supreme
Court’s writ jurisdiction is limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights, while high courts can
issue writs for other purposes as well.

3. Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court serves as the highest court of appeal, hearing
appeals from lower courts in constitutional, civil, and criminal matters. In constitutional cases,
appeals can be made to the Supreme Court if a high court certifies that the case involves a
substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. Similarly, appeals in
civil and criminal cases can be made when the high court certifies the importance of the case.
The Supreme Court also has the power to grant special leave to appeal from any court or
tribunal in the country, with its discretion.

4. Advisory Jurisdiction: Under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President can seek the
Supreme Court's opinion on any question of law or fact of public importance. While the Court’s
opinion is advisory and non-binding, it helps the government gain authoritative legal advice on
matters of national importance. Over the years, the Supreme Court has provided advisory
opinions on several crucial issues, such as the constitutional validity of laws and the authority of
the Election Commission.

5. A Court of Record: The Supreme Court is a Court of Record, meaning its judgments,
proceedings, and acts are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony. These records are
considered of evidentiary value and serve as legal precedents. Additionally, the Supreme Court
has the power to punish for contempt, either of itself or of lower courts and tribunals. Contempt
may be civil or criminal, and the Court has established guidelines for what constitutes contempt.
6. Power of Judicial Review: One of the most significant powers of the Supreme Court is
judicial review. It can examine the constitutionality of laws and executive orders of both the
Central and state governments. If found to be unconstitutional, such laws or orders are declared
void and cannot be enforced, ensuring that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the
land.

7. Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution
and applies various doctrines, such as the Doctrine of Severability, Doctrine of Harmonious
Construction, and Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation, to give meaning to the provisions of the
Constitution. These doctrines help the Court adapt to changing times and circumstances while
preserving the integrity of the Constitution.

8. Other Powers: Apart from these key functions, the Supreme Court has several other powers,
such as deciding election disputes, reviewing its own judgments, transferring cases between
high courts, and having judicial superintendence over all courts and tribunals in India. It also has
the power to enforce its orders across the country, ensuring uniformity in the legal system.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and powers are crucial to upholding the rule of
law in India. Its role as the final arbiter in disputes, guardian of fundamental rights, and
interpreter of the Constitution ensures that the democratic principles enshrined in the
Constitution are preserved and protected.
JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review is the authority granted to the judiciary to assess the constitutionality of
legislative enactments, executive orders, and governmental actions. It allows courts to ensure
that laws and actions conform to the Constitution, protecting individual rights and ensuring the
rule of law. If a law or executive order violates the Constitution, it can be deemed
unconstitutional and invalid. In India, judicial review is a vital aspect of the judicial system,
safeguarding the supremacy of the Constitution, federal balance, and fundamental rights.

Justice Syed Shah Mohamed Quadri categorized judicial review into three distinct types: judicial
review of constitutional amendments, legislative enactments (both by Parliament and state
legislatures), and administrative actions taken by authorities under the central or state
governments. The judiciary’s role as the interpreter of the Constitution ensures that all
governmental actions comply with constitutional principles, particularly protecting fundamental
rights.

Several landmark Supreme Court cases have demonstrated the use of judicial review, such as
the Golaknath case (1967), Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and Minerva Mills case (1980).
In these cases, the Court used judicial review to strike down laws and constitutional
amendments deemed incompatible with the Constitution, reinforcing the Constitution's
supremacy. A notable instance of judicial review came in 2015, when the Supreme Court
declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act unconstitutional,
emphasizing that no law or amendment could override the basic structure of the Constitution.

The significance of judicial review in India lies in its ability to uphold constitutional supremacy,
maintain a balance of power between the central and state governments, and protect
fundamental rights. The judiciary is tasked with ensuring that no authority, not even the
executive or legislature, exceeds its constitutional limits. Judicial review serves as a safeguard,
preventing arbitrary or unlawful actions by government bodies and protecting the rights of
citizens. The Court's role is not just to interpret the law but to act as the sentinel guarding
against any action that undermines constitutional guarantees.

Several constitutional provisions provide the framework for judicial review. Articles such as 13,
32, 131, 132, and 226 specifically confer power on the judiciary to examine the legality of laws
and executive orders. Article 13 invalidates any law inconsistent with the fundamental rights,
while Article 32 allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of these
rights. The powers of judicial review extend to the High Courts as well, with Article 226 granting
them authority to issue writs for protecting fundamental rights and other purposes.

Judicial review in India differs from that in the United States. While the U.S. Constitution allows
broad judicial review through the "due process" clause, India's Constitution follows a more
restrained approach. Indian courts focus on the substantive validity of laws, ensuring they fall
within the powers granted by the Constitution but do not delve into their reasonableness or
policy implications. This approach provides a narrower scope for judicial intervention compared
to the U.S. model, where courts may strike down laws on both substantive and procedural
grounds.

The judicial review process also extends to laws included in the Ninth Schedule of the
Constitution. Initially created to protect laws related to land reforms and other state matters, the
Ninth Schedule was designed to shield certain laws from judicial scrutiny. However, in the
landmark I.R. Coelho case (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that laws placed in the Ninth
Schedule after 1973 are open to judicial review if they violate fundamental rights or the basic
structure of the Constitution. This ensures that even laws in the Ninth Schedule cannot override
constitutional safeguards.

In conclusion, judicial review is a cornerstone of India's constitutional framework. It ensures that

governmental actions remain within the constitutional boundaries, upholding the fundamental
rights of citizens, protecting federal balance, and maintaining the rule of law. While judicial
review cannot be abolished or limited, its scope and application evolve in response to changing
constitutional challenges, ensuring the continued vitality of India's democratic structure.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

Judicial Activism: A Comprehensive Overview

Judicial activism refers to the active and assertive role played by the judiciary in protecting the
rights of citizens and promoting justice in society. It involves the judiciary stepping beyond
traditional interpretations of laws to actively influence and shape public policy, often when the
legislature or executive branches fail to perform their duties effectively. Judicial activism
contrasts with judicial restraint, where judges limit their role to interpreting the law without taking
an active role in shaping it. Judicial activism is often seen as necessary to safeguard
fundamental rights, especially when other branches of government are inactive or incapable of
addressing societal needs.

The term "judicial activism" can be defined in multiple ways, as it encompasses a range of
judicial actions. It can be described as a departure from strict adherence to judicial precedent in
favor of progressive policies or the protection of individual rights. This involves courts
interpreting existing laws in a manner that benefits society or addresses new social issues. It
may also be seen as judicial lawmaking, where judges actively craft or influence laws to better
serve society’s needs. The notion of judicial activism is particularly evident in the rise of Public
Interest Litigation (PIL), which emerged as a direct consequence of the judiciary taking an active
role in addressing issues affecting the public at large, especially marginalized communities.

Judicial Review vs. Judicial Activism

While judicial activism is often associated with judicial review, the two concepts are distinct.
Judicial review refers to the process by which courts assess the constitutionality of laws or
government actions. Judicial activism, on the other hand, involves a more proactive approach,
where judges not only review laws but may also influence policy decisions, sometimes by
creating new precedents or pushing for social reforms. Judicial activism is seen as an extension
of judicial review, wherein courts exercise their power to ensure that the legislature and
executive comply with constitutional principles, but it also encompasses a more activist stance
in decision-making. For example, when the judiciary engages in judicial activism, it may use its
power to bring about systemic changes, sometimes stepping into the domain of the legislature
and executive.

Justification for Judicial Activism

There are several justifications for judicial activism, particularly in the context of India’s legal and
constitutional framework. Dr. B.L. Wadehra outlines key reasons for judicial activism:

1.​ Government Dysfunction: When the legislature and executive fail to fulfill their
responsibilities, the judiciary is seen as stepping in to protect citizens' rights and
maintain the democratic structure. This often happens when these branches of
government are seen as corrupt, inefficient, or politically compromised.
 2.​ Public Pressure: Citizens, especially those in marginalized or disadvantaged positions,
often turn to the judiciary for relief when they feel that their rights are not being protected
by other branches of government. Judicial activism, especially in the form of PIL, allows
the courts to directly address such concerns.
3.​ Judicial Enthusiasm and Social Reforms: Judges may feel compelled to participate in
social reforms, especially in changing times, where traditional legal approaches may no
longer be adequate for addressing new societal challenges.
4.​ Legislative Gaps: Sometimes, there are areas where the legislature has not enacted
sufficient laws to address emerging issues. In such cases, judicial activism allows the
judiciary to "fill the gap" and ensure that laws are responsive to contemporary needs.

Criticism and Challenges

While judicial activism can be seen as a tool for ensuring justice, it is not without criticism. Critics
argue that it can lead to judicial overreach, where courts step beyond their role of interpreting
the law and start making decisions better suited to the legislature or executive. This can
undermine the separation of powers and lead to conflicts between the branches of government.
There is also concern about the potential for activism to be influenced by personal biases or
political ideologies, rather than being grounded purely in the law.

In conclusion, judicial activism plays an important role in ensuring that the government remains
accountable and that citizens’ rights are protected. However, its practice requires careful
balancing to ensure that it does not overstep the bounds of judicial responsibility and undermine
the principles of democratic governance.
TYPES OF MOTIONS

In the Indian Parliament, motions are formal proposals made by Members of Parliament (MPs)
for discussion and decision by the house. Motions play a crucial role in the functioning of the
Parliament as they allow the legislature to debate and decide on various matters. The types of
motions in the Indian Parliament can be broadly classified into different categories based on
their purpose and nature.

1. No-Confidence Motion

A No-Confidence Motion is a motion moved against the Council of Ministers, particularly the
Prime Minister, to test their majority in the Lok Sabha. If the motion is passed by a majority, the
government must resign. This motion is a key instrument in ensuring accountability of the
executive to the legislature. It does not require a prior discussion and can be moved anytime
during the proceedings.

2. Confidence Motion

The Confidence Motion is moved by the Prime Minister or any member of the government to
express that the government has the support of the majority in the house. It is often introduced
when there is a change in the government, or a new government seeks a mandate to continue
its administration. If the motion is passed, the government continues in power; if rejected, the
government falls.

3. Adjournment Motion

An Adjournment Motion is a motion moved to adjourn the house temporarily to discuss a matter
of urgent public importance. This motion requires the approval of the Speaker, and its purpose
is to draw the attention of the house to an issue requiring immediate consideration, typically
involving a breach of privilege or a matter affecting the public interest.

4. Censure Motion

A Censure Motion is a motion expressing disapproval of the actions of the government or its
ministers. Unlike a No-Confidence Motion, it does not require the resignation of the government,
but it is a formal way of registering a protest against the government's policies or actions.

5. Privilege Motion

A Privilege Motion is moved when a Member of Parliament believes that the rights or privileges
of the house or its members have been breached. This motion aims to address any violation of
parliamentary privileges and ensure that the rights of the legislature are protected.
6. Zero Hour Motion

The Zero Hour is an informal practice in the Parliament when MPs can raise matters of urgent
public importance without prior notice. It usually occurs after the Question Hour and is a way for
members to raise concerns directly with the government. The Zero Hour Motion allows MPs to
highlight issues that need immediate attention.

7. Calling Attention Motion

This motion is used to draw the attention of a Minister to a specific issue. It is usually directed to
a particular minister and is intended to prompt the minister to make a statement or take action
on the matter raised.

8. Resolution Motion

A Resolution Motion is a formal statement that requires the Parliament's approval. These
motions are typically used to express the Parliament's opinion on certain matters, such as the
approval of policies or international agreements.

In conclusion, motions are vital instruments in the parliamentary process, allowing MPs to raise
issues, hold the government accountable, and facilitate discussion on important matters. They
ensure that the legislative process is transparent and responsive to public needs.
TYPES OF BILLS

In the Indian Parliament, bills are legislative proposals that are introduced for discussion and
approval. These bills can be introduced in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha, and once
passed by both houses, they become law after receiving the President’s assent. Bills in the
Indian Parliament are classified into various types based on their subject matter, procedure, and
the type of legislation they propose. The main types of bills in the Indian Parliament are:

1. Ordinary Bills

Ordinary Bills are those that deal with any matter other than money-related issues. These bills
can be introduced in either house of Parliament and follow the normal legislative process of
introduction, discussion, and approval. They may pertain to a wide range of subjects, such as
criminal law, civil law, education, or administrative matters. After being passed by both houses,
the bill is sent to the President for assent.

2. Money Bills

A Money Bill deals specifically with financial matters such as taxation, government expenditure,
and the allocation of funds. According to Article 110 of the Indian Constitution, a bill is
considered a Money Bill if it exclusively relates to the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration,
or regulation of taxes, the borrowing of money by the government, and the custody of the
Consolidated Fund of India. Money Bills can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha and must be
passed by both houses within a specified time frame. The Rajya Sabha may suggest
amendments but cannot reject or amend a Money Bill. After passing, it is sent to the President
for approval.

3. Financial Bills

Financial Bills are related to matters of public finance, such as the government's budget, loans,
and financial allocations. They are classified into two categories:

●​ Type A: Deals with provisions like a Money Bill but does not fall entirely within the scope
of a Money Bill.
●​ Type B: Related to the imposition of taxes, borrowing, or any financial matters that are
not strictly Money Bills.

These bills are introduced in the Lok Sabha, and like Money Bills, they require the approval of
both houses, but the Rajya Sabha can delay their passage for a maximum of 14 days.

4. Constitutional Amendment Bills

Constitutional Amendment Bills are proposed changes to the Constitution of India. These bills
can be introduced by the government or private members. Amendments to the Constitution can
be made either by a simple majority or a special majority depending on the nature of the
amendment. Some amendments require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures in
India. These bills must pass through both houses before being sent to the President for assent.

5. Private Members' Bills

Private Members' Bills are those introduced by MPs who are not part of the government. These
bills allow individual members of Parliament to propose new laws or amendments to existing
laws. While Private Members' Bills are not very frequent in practice, they serve as an important
tool for MPs to raise issues that may not be addressed by the government.

6. Private Bills

Private Bills affect only a specific individual, group, or locality, as opposed to the general public.
These bills can be proposed by individuals or private organizations, and typically pertain to
matters like the incorporation of a company, charitable trusts, or local bodies. Private Bills must
pass through both houses before becoming law.

Conclusion

In summary, bills in the Indian Parliament can be broadly categorized into Ordinary Bills, Money
Bills, Financial Bills, Constitutional Amendment Bills, Private Members' Bills, and Private Bills.
Each type of bill serves a specific purpose in the legislative process, and understanding their
distinctions is crucial to understanding how laws are made and amended in India.
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine and invalidate legislative and
executive actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution of India. This power plays a crucial
role in ensuring that laws and actions of the government adhere to constitutional principles. In
India, judicial review is considered a cornerstone of the Constitution and is essential for
maintaining the balance of power between the different branches of government.

Constitutional Basis

The scope of judicial review in India is primarily derived from Article 13, Article 32, and Article
226 of the Indian Constitution:

●​ Article 13 empowers the judiciary to review laws and declare those inconsistent with
fundamental rights as void.
●​ Article 32 provides individuals with the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for
the enforcement of fundamental rights, enabling judicial review to protect individual
liberties.
●​ Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights
and other legal rights, thus expanding judicial review at the state level.

Scope and Functions

1.​ Reviewing Legislative Actions: Judicial review enables courts to assess whether laws
passed by the Parliament or state legislatures conform to the Constitution. If a law is
found to be in violation of the Constitution, especially fundamental rights, it can be struck
down. The landmark case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)laid
down the doctrine of the “basic structure” of the Constitution, limiting Parliament's power
to amend the Constitution if such amendments affect its core principles.
2.​ Reviewing Executive Actions: The judiciary can examine actions and decisions made
by the executive branch of the government, ensuring that they do not exceed the
authority granted by the Constitution. For example, executive orders that violate
constitutional rights can be challenged through judicial review. The courts can also
intervene if an executive action is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or biased.
3.​ Ensuring Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary’s role in safeguarding
fundamental rights is crucial in the Indian context. Judicial review enables the courts to
protect citizens from any unconstitutional action by the legislature or executive. In cases
like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the scope
of the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
4.​ Limits of Judicial Review: While judicial review is an essential feature of the Indian
Constitution, there are certain limitations:
○​ Basic Structure Doctrine: Judicial review cannot be used to invalidate
amendments that do not alter the Constitution’s basic structure.
 ○​ Non-justiciable Political Questions: The judiciary generally refrains from
reviewing certain political questions that are beyond its jurisdiction, such as
matters concerning national security and foreign policy.

Conclusion

In the Indian context, judicial review serves as a safeguard against unconstitutional actions by
the legislature and executive. It ensures that laws and executive decisions adhere to the
constitutional framework and protects the fundamental rights of citizens. Although the scope of
judicial review is broad, it is not unlimited, and the judiciary exercises this power with a sense of
judicial restraint in matters that fall within the domain of the legislature and executive.