Parliamentary system & federalism

Why a parliamentary, not presidential, system

The framers deliberately adopted the Westminster parliamentary model over the American presidential one. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, defending the choice in the Constituent Assembly on 30 December 1948, argued that a democratic executive must satisfy two conditions: stability and responsibility. The presidential system offers more stability but less responsibility; the parliamentary system offers more responsibility (daily accountability through questions, motions, and debates) at some cost to stability. India, he said, needed an executive answerable to the legislature day-to-day, given its diversity and the priority of avoiding authoritarian drift.

Features at the Union level

The parliamentary system is enshrined in Articles 74 and 75. Article 74(1) provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister to aid and advise the President, who shall act on that advice — the word 'shall' was inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976) and the 44th Amendment (1978) added that the President may require reconsideration but must accept the advice tendered after reconsideration. Article 75(3) embodies collective responsibility: the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. Article 75(2) makes ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President; Article 75(1A), inserted by the 91st Amendment (2003), caps the Council at 15% of the Lok Sabha's strength.

The key markers are: a nominal head of state (President) distinct from the real executive (PM and Cabinet); a Cabinet drawn from and sitting in the legislature; collective responsibility; the leadership of the Prime Minister; and dissolution of the Lower House (Article 85). The same pattern is replicated in the States under Articles 163 and 164, with the Governor as nominal head and the Chief Minister as real executive.

Westminster with Indian modifications

India's system is not a carbon copy of Britain. The British model rests on parliamentary sovereignty; India has constitutional supremacy, with judicial review and a written Constitution. Britain has no formal head-of-state codification; India elaborates the President's powers in the text. Britain retains hereditary elements (the monarch, historically the Lords); India is a republic with an elected President (Article 54). The legal phrase 'Crown' has no Indian equivalent — sovereignty vests in 'We, the People' per the Preamble.

For the exam, fix the distinction between single citizenship (India, Article 5) and dual citizenship (USA), and note that India blends parliamentary government with a federal frame — a combination Britain lacks because the UK is unitary. The 'aid and advise' clause, the collective responsibility principle, and the 91st Amendment cap are the three most testable Union-level facts; at the State level, the analogous trio is Articles 163, 164, and the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 163(2).

A federation with a strong Union bias

Article 1 declares India a 'Union of States' — not a federation. Ambedkar explained the phrasing on 4 November 1948: the Union is indestructible and the States have no right to secede; India was not the result of an agreement among States, unlike the United States. The Constitution distributes powers through the Seventh Schedule (Union List, State List, Concurrent List under Article 246) and provides a written, supreme, rigid-yet-flexible Constitution, bicameralism, and an independent judiciary — all federal features.

Yet the tilt toward the Centre is unmistakable. Article 3 lets Parliament alter State boundaries, names, and areas by a simple majority without State consent (only the views of the affected legislature are sought) — the basis of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the creation of Telangana in 2014. Article 200/201 lets the Governor reserve Bills for the President. Article 256–257 subordinate State executive power to Union directions. Articles 352, 356, and 360 (emergency provisions) can convert the federal structure into a virtually unitary one — Article 356, President's Rule, was invoked over 100 times before the S.R. Bommai (1994) judgment imposed judicial review and floor-test discipline.

Quasi-federal: the judicial and scholarly verdict

K.C. Wheare called India 'quasi-federal'. Granville Austin described it as 'cooperative federalism'. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) held the Indian Constitution is not 'traditionally federal'. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), a nine-judge bench declared federalism part of the basic structure while affirming the Centre's strong position. In Kuldip Nayar (2006), the Court upheld removing the domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha, observing federalism in India is flexible. Most recently, the doctrine of cooperative federalism has been operationalised through the GST Council (Article 279A, 101st Amendment, 2016) and bodies like the Inter-State Council (Article 263) and NITI Aayog (2015).

Centripetal devices to remember

The high-yield 'unitary features' for Prelims are: single Constitution and single citizenship; flexible amendment for many provisions; integrated judiciary; All-India Services (Article 312); single Election Commission (Article 324); appointment of Governors by the Centre (Article 155); the residuary powers vesting in the Union (Article 248 and Entry 97); and emergency provisions. Counterbalancing them are the Seventh Schedule division, the role of the Rajya Sabha as the federal chamber, the Finance Commission (Article 280), and Bommai's basic-structure protection. The contemporary debate — fiscal federalism, GST compensation, Governor's delays in assenting to Bills — flows directly from these articles.