22nd April 2025 (9 Topics)
1
Apr
2
Apr
3
Apr
4
Apr
5
Apr
7
Apr
8
Apr
9
Apr
10
Apr
11
Apr
12
Apr
14
Apr
15
Apr
16
Apr
17
Apr
18
Apr
19
Apr
21
Apr
22
Apr
23
Apr
24
Apr
A reminder to the President and Governors
You must be logged in to get greater insights. click here to login
Context
The Supreme Court's recent verdict in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) reaffirmed the constitutional limits and responsibilities of the President and Governors in India's parliamentary system, emphasizing adherence to ministerial advice and timely exercise of constitutional duties.
Parliamentary System: Constitutional Design and Legacy
- Ceremonial Position Defined by Ambedkar: B.R. Ambedkar clarified that the President in India is equivalent to the British Crown — a symbolic head, not an executive authority. This distinction is foundational to India’s adoption of parliamentary democracy over the presidential model.
- Binding Nature of Ministerial Advice: Articles 74 and 163 explicitly mandate that both the President and Governor act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. They are not empowered to act independently, reaffirming collective responsibility as a core tenet.
- Rejection of American Presidentialism: The Constituent Assembly rejected proposals to equate the President with the chief executive, as seen in the U.S. model. Instead, the Constitution embedded cabinet responsibility to ensure accountability to the legislature.
Judicial Affirmation of Constitutional Norms
- Shamsher Singh Case (1974): The Supreme Court clarified that the President and Governors are formal heads, and must act on ministerial advice. The judgment reaffirmed the ceremonial nature of their roles within a constitutional framework.
- Nabam Rebia Case (2016): Reiterated that Governors must respect the majority will in the legislature, and any deviation from constitutional roles can be judicially reviewed.
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025): The apex court directed the timely assent to bills and decisions, asserting that delays or refusals undermine democratic will and invite judicial scrutiny under writ jurisdiction.
Constitutional Morality and Institutional Conduct
- Oath-Bound Obligations (Articles 60 & 159): Presidents and Governors pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and to serve the people. Violations of these oaths dilute constitutional accountability.
- Judicial Oversight on Constitutional Duty: When the executive head fails to perform a constitutionally mandated duty, courts can compel action. Powers come with accountability and timelines, not discretion.
- Ethical Concerns in Gubernatorial Conduct: While the President has generally upheld decorum, some Governors have acted in defiance of constitutional norms, politicizing their roles, which the judiciary has rightly sought to correct.
Courses
Study
Notes
Home
Resources
More
