Question 1: Privileges are conferred on each House of the Parliament so that it may

vindicate its authority, prestige, and power and protect its members from any
obstruction in the performance of their parliamentary functions.
Marks: 10
Answer:
The privileges granted to each House of the Parliament under the Indian Constitution
serve as essential protections, ensuring that Parliament and its members can fulfil
their duties without external interference. These privileges uphold the authority,
prestige, and effectiveness of Parliament, allowing it to act independently within the
framework of law. This essay critically examines these privileges, analysing
constitutional provisions and landmark judicial interpretations that have shaped their
application and limits.
Parliamentary Privileges in the Indian Constitution
The primary provisions concerning parliamentary privileges are enshrined in Articles
105 and 194 of the Indian Constitution, which apply to the Parliament and State
Legislatures, respectively. These articles confer the following privileges:
1. Freedom of Speech in Parliament: Members of Parliament (MPs) have
unrestricted freedom of speech within the House. This protection is essential
for open and effective debates on public issues and is free from judicial review
(Article 105(1)).
2. Immunity from Court Proceedings: No member shall be liable to any court
for anything said or any vote given in the Parliament (Article 105(2)).
3. Freedom from Arrest: MPs cannot be arrested in civil cases during the
session of the House and 40 days before or after it. However, this does not
extend to criminal cases.
4. Right to Regulate Own Procedure: Parliament has the authority to define its
own procedures and establish committees, allowing it to self-regulate and
manage its internal affairs without interference.
Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Judgments
Over the years, the judiciary has played a vital role in interpreting the extent of these
privileges while maintaining a balance between parliamentary independence and
accountability:
1. Keshav Singh Case (1965): This landmark case questioned whether a
member’s privileges included the right to detain a person for contempt outside
parliamentary precincts. The Supreme Court held that parliamentary
privileges could not infringe upon the judicial powers of the court, marking an
essential limit on parliamentary authority.
2. PV Narasimha Rao Case (1998): The Supreme Court upheld the immunity of
MPs from prosecution for bribes received to make a particular vote in
Parliament. However, it highlighted that immunity did not extend to criminal
 acts committed outside Parliament, such as bribery, if not directly related to
parliamentary functions.
3. Amarinder Singh Case (2008): The Supreme Court emphasized that
privileges cannot be exercised to curtail a citizen’s fundamental rights,
particularly the right to personal liberty and freedom of speech.
4. Recent Judgments: The judiciary has increasingly advocated for a balance
between parliamentary privilege and individual rights, limiting the overreach of
privileges in contexts that could violate fundamental rights.
Critical Analysis
The privilege provisions intend to protect Parliament’s functioning and ensure that
legislators can serve without fear of external pressures. However, absolute immunity
or unregulated privileges may lead to instances where MPs misuse their power,
obstructing justice and transparency.
The judiciary’s evolving stance indicates a trend towards placing reasonable limits
on privileges, especially when they conflict with fundamental rights. While the
Constitution grants certain privileges as an essential feature of democracy, these
privileges are not unlimited and should respect the rule of law and judicial
accountability.
Conclusion
Parliamentary privileges serve as critical protections to ensure the legislative process
is effective, independent, and free from undue influence. However, the judicial
system plays an essential role in preventing the misuse of these privileges,
balancing parliamentary sovereignty with accountability. Through landmark
judgments, the judiciary has emphasized that privileges must respect constitutional
principles, reinforcing that no privilege can override the rule of law. This balance
preserves the integrity of Parliament while protecting the fundamental rights of
individuals, ensuring democratic values and justice are upheld

Question 2: If a question arises of whether a member has incurred a disqualification

it is only the Governor who must decide it provided only after taking the opinion of
the Election Commission and the Courts also do not have the power to interfere in
these matters.
Marks: 10
Answer:
This statement reflects the process for determining the disqualification of members in
the state legislature, as provided under the Constitution of India. The Constitution
grants the Governor the power to decide on disqualification issues but mandates
consultation with the Election Commission. This provision aims to maintain
impartiality in such decisions by involving an independent constitutional authority.
This answer elaborates on this process, critically evaluates the role of the Governor
and judicial review, and discusses the composition, qualifications, and
disqualifications of state legislature members.
Composition of the State Legislature
The state legislature in India consists of two houses in some states (bicameral) and
only one in others (unicameral):
1. Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha): This is the lower house, where
members are directly elected by the people of the state. The maximum
number of members varies depending on the state’s population, and
members serve a five-year term unless dissolved earlier.
2. Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad): Only some states, like Maharashtra,
Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh, have this upper house. Members of the
Legislative Council are partially elected by different bodies (such as the
Legislative Assembly and local authorities) and partially nominated. Their
terms are six years, with one-third of members retiring every two years.
Qualifications and Disqualifications of State Legislature Members
The qualifications for state legislature membership are laid out in Article 173 of the
Constitution and include:
1. Citizenship: The candidate must be a citizen of India.
2. Minimum Age: The minimum age for the Legislative Assembly is 25 years,
and for the Legislative Council, it is 30 years.
3. Other Qualifications: Additional qualifications may be prescribed by law,
including certain educational or residency requirements in some cases.
Disqualifications are detailed under Article 191 and include:
1. Holding an Office of Profit: A member cannot hold an office that provides
financial benefit under the government, which may create a conflict of interest.
2. Unsound Mind or Insolvency: A member cannot be of unsound mind or
declared insolvent.
3. Criminal Convictions: Certain convictions can lead to disqualification.
4. Defection: Under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law), members can be
disqualified for defecting from their party.
Governor’s Role in Determining Disqualification
Article 192 of the Constitution states that if any question arises as to whether a
member has incurred disqualification, the decision is made by the Governor, but
only after obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission. This process
ensures that disqualification decisions are taken impartially, with the Election
Commission’s non-partisan view guiding the Governor.
Judicial Review and Limitations on Judicial Interference
The question specifies that courts do not have the power to interfere in these
matters, emphasizing the separation of powers. However, the Supreme Court and
High Courts have exercised judicial review in certain cases involving constitutional
authorities:
 Judicial Review in Disqualification Matters: While the Governor's decision
based on the Election Commission's opinion is generally final, the judiciary
has held that judicial review is permissible if there is a violation of
constitutional principles or a clear abuse of power. In Kihoto Hollohan v.
Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that judicial review could apply to
ensure fairness and prevent misuse of authority in disqualification matters.
Critical Analysis of the Governor’s Role and Judicial Review
The requirement for the Governor to consult the Election Commission safeguards
against arbitrary disqualification. However, the fact that the Governor is an appointed
representative of the central government can raise concerns about impartiality,
especially in politically sensitive cases. Judicial review, therefore, acts as a
necessary check, preserving democratic values and the rule of law.
Moreover, recent judicial trends indicate a balancing approach: while the judiciary
respects the constitutional mandate for the Governor to decide disqualifications, it
intervenes in cases of procedural irregularities, bias, or misuse of power. This limited
judicial review strengthens the credibility of the disqualification process.
Conclusion
The Governor’s authority to decide on disqualification matters, with advice from the
Election Commission, reflects an attempt to combine executive oversight with an
independent perspective. While the judiciary respects this decision-making power, it
reserves the right to review cases where constitutional principles are at risk. This
balance ensures that disqualification decisions are fair, transparent, and aligned with
the Constitution’s democratic ideals.

Question 3: "The Supreme Court is the final interpreter and guardian of the
Constitution of India." Critically evaluate and elaborate the above statement.
Elucidate the different kinds of jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court.
Marks: 10
Answer:
This statement highlights the Supreme Court's unique role as the ultimate authority
on interpreting the Constitution and protecting the rights it guarantees. As the apex
judicial body, the Supreme Court ensures that the Constitution remains a living
document, adaptable to societal changes, and that the rights of individuals are
upheld. This answer will critically examine the Supreme Court’s role as the "final
interpreter and guardian" of the Constitution and explain the different jurisdictions
through which it exercises this authority.
Supreme Court as the Final Interpreter and Guardian of the Constitution
The Supreme Court of India was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution to
serve as the highest judicial authority, responsible for interpreting constitutional
provisions and safeguarding fundamental rights. This role involves:
1. Interpretative Authority: As the final interpreter, the Supreme Court can
clarify and expand on constitutional provisions, ensuring they are relevant to
changing social, political, and economic circumstances. This interpretative
power has led to landmark judgments that redefine constitutional principles,
such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Court
introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, protecting core principles of the
Constitution from amendment.
2. Guardian of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court has broad powers to
protect fundamental rights, making it a critical guardian of individual freedoms.
Under Article 32, individuals can directly approach the Supreme Court if they
believe their fundamental rights have been violated. This provision reinforces
the Court’s role as the Constitution’s guardian, safeguarding citizens' rights
against legislative and executive overreach.
3. Judicial Review: Judicial review is the Supreme Court’s power to examine
the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. This power ensures
that all laws and government actions align with constitutional values and do
not violate fundamental rights. Judicial review has allowed the Court to check
potential abuses of power, as seen in cases like Minerva Mills v. Union of
India (1980), where it reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and restricted
Parliament’s amending power.
Critical Evaluation of the Supreme Court’s Role
While the Supreme Court’s role as interpreter and guardian is essential to Indian
democracy, it has faced criticism and challenges:
1. Judicial Overreach: At times, the Supreme Court has been criticized for
stepping beyond its judicial role into the domains of the legislature and
executive. This phenomenon, called judicial overreach, can be seen in cases
where the Court has issued guidelines or mandates that resemble policy-
making, such as the Vishaka Guidelines on sexual harassment in workplaces.
Critics argue that such actions disrupt the separation of powers.
2. Public Perception and Accountability: As a non-elected body, the Supreme
Court operates with a high level of autonomy. While this independence is
essential, some argue that the Court is not as accountable to the public as
other government branches. The judiciary’s lack of direct accountability may
occasionally lead to decisions that are viewed as less representative of the
popular will.
3. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint: The Supreme Court has often
taken an activist approach, using its powers expansively to address societal
issues. While judicial activism has resulted in progressive decisions (e.g.,
 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, decriminalizing Section 377), some
argue that the Court should exercise judicial restraint to respect the
legislature’s role in policy-making.
Different Kinds of Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The Constitution of India provides the Supreme Court with various types of
jurisdictions to fulfil its role effectively:
1. Original Jurisdiction (Article 131): The Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction in cases involving disputes between the central government and
state governments or between states. This jurisdiction allows the Court to
settle disputes of federal importance directly.
2. Appellate Jurisdiction (Articles 132-134): The Supreme Court has appellate
jurisdiction over cases from lower courts, allowing it to hear appeals on civil,
criminal, and constitutional matters. This function positions the Supreme Court
as the highest court of appeal.
3. Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143): Under this provision, the President of
India can refer specific constitutional or legal questions to the Supreme Court
for its advisory opinion. While advisory opinions are not binding, they are
respected and influential.
4. Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32): The Supreme Court has the power to issue
writs (e.g., habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo
warranto) to protect fundamental rights. This power is integral to its role as the
guardian of the Constitution, as it allows citizens to seek immediate judicial
relief for rights violations.
5. Review and Curative Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can review its
judgments under Article 137, allowing it to correct any errors or injustices.
Additionally, it has developed curative jurisdiction to address rare cases
where a judgment is final yet has caused an apparent injustice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s jurisdictional powers enable it to be the final interpreter and
guardian of the Constitution, ensuring constitutional supremacy and the protection of
fundamental rights. While its broad powers are essential, a balance must be
maintained to avoid judicial overreach and respect the roles of other governmental
branches. By exercising restraint and focusing on constitutional interpretation, the
Supreme Court upholds democracy, checks governmental power, and preserves
citizens' rights in India

Question 4: Critically evaluate the process of appointment of judges to the High

Court and analyse the judicial interpretations in the process of appointment of judges
in the light of landmark judgments.
Marks: 10
Answer:
The appointment process of High Court judges in India has evolved significantly over
time, with judicial interpretations playing a crucial role in shaping it. While the
Constitution of India provides a framework, landmark judgments have refined and
clarified the procedures, aiming to balance executive discretion and judicial
independence. This answer critically examines the appointment process and
discusses key judicial interpretations that have influenced it.
Constitutional Provisions on Appointment of High Court Judges
The appointment of High Court judges is governed by Article 217 of the
Constitution, which states that:
1. Appointing Authority: Judges are appointed by the President of India.
2. Consultation: The President consults with the Chief Justice of India, the
Governor of the respective state, and, in certain cases, the Chief Justice of
the High Court.
3. Qualifications: Judges must have at least 10 years of judicial experience in
India, either as an advocate in the High Court or as a judicial officer in a
subordinate court.
The purpose of these provisions is to create a collaborative process that includes
executive oversight while respecting the judiciary’s independence.
Evolution through Judicial Interpretations
Judicial interpretations have redefined the process of appointing judges to the High
Court, particularly regarding the role of the judiciary in the selection process. Key
judgments in the Three Judges Cases have played a transformative role:
1. First Judges Case (1982):
o In the S.P. Gupta v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court ruled that
the term "consultation" with the judiciary did not mean "concurrence."
This interpretation granted significant discretion to the executive in
appointing judges, allowing it to make appointments even without
judicial approval.
o This decision led to concerns about the independence of the
judiciary and potential executive overreach in judicial appointments.
2. Second Judges Case (1993):
o The Supreme Court reversed its stance, holding that "consultation" with
the Chief Justice of India (CJI) should mean "concurrence." It
established the primacy of the judiciary in appointments and
introduced the Collegium System, where a panel of senior judges,
including the CJI, would make decisions regarding judicial
appointments.
 o This case emphasized that the judiciary should have a significant role
to prevent executive influence, thus promoting judicial independence.
3. Third Judges Case (1998):
o Following a presidential reference, the Supreme Court expanded the
Collegium System to a five-member body, led by the CJI and
including four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This
expansion aimed to make the process more robust and to add checks
within the judiciary itself.
o This case reinforced the judiciary's primacy, limiting executive
discretion further and ensuring that judicial appointments were handled
primarily by the judiciary.
4. NJAC Case (2015):
o The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was
introduced through a constitutional amendment, aiming to replace the
Collegium with a body that included executive representatives and
members from civil society. The Supreme Court, in Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, struck down the
NJAC as unconstitutional.
o The Court ruled that including executive members in the NJAC would
compromise judicial independence, especially as it could allow
executive influence over appointments. Thus, the Collegium System
was retained as the best mechanism for ensuring an independent
judiciary.
Critical Evaluation of the Appointment Process
The judicial interpretations have largely focused on strengthening judicial
independence and reducing executive influence, yet the Collegium System has
faced criticism:
1. Lack of Transparency: The Collegium operates without a formal set of rules
or transparency in its decision-making. Decisions on appointments and
transfers are often not publicly explained, leading to questions about
accountability and opacity in the selection process.
2. Lack of Diversity and Representation: Critics argue that the Collegium has
not ensured adequate diversity in the judiciary, with appointments often
limited to elite circles. This has led to underrepresentation of women,
marginalized communities, and regional diversity in High Courts.
3. Absence of Accountability: Since the Collegium functions independently of
any external oversight, there is little accountability for its decisions. This lack
of oversight can lead to allegations of favoritism or biases in the
appointment process.
 4. Need for Reform: Although the NJAC was struck down, many legal experts
agree on the need to reform the Collegium System to make it more
transparent and inclusive, perhaps by introducing consultative roles for
experts or civil society in a limited manner without compromising judicial
independence.
Conclusion
The process of appointing High Court judges has evolved through judicial
interpretations aimed at protecting judicial independence. While the Collegium
System prioritizes judicial primacy, its lack of transparency and accountability has
raised concerns. Balancing judicial independence with the need for a transparent,
inclusive appointment process remains an ongoing challenge. Reforms that enhance
transparency without undermining judicial autonomy may help achieve a more robust
and representative judiciary.

Question 5: Critically evaluate the role of the President of India, his functions,
powers, and privileges in the light of landmark decisions. Discuss the process of
appointment of the President in brief.
Marks: 10
Answer:
The President of India is the constitutional head of state and the supreme
commander of the armed forces, serving as a symbol of unity and representing the
nation's integrity. Although the President primarily exercises powers on the advice of
the Council of Ministers, the office has significant roles and privileges. This answer
critically evaluates the functions, powers, and privileges of the President, citing key
judicial decisions, and briefly discusses the process of appointment.
Role, Functions, and Powers of the President of India
The President’s functions and powers, provided under Part V of the Indian
Constitution, can be categorized into executive, legislative, judicial, and
emergency powers.
1. Executive Powers:
o The President appoints the Prime Minister and other ministers, judges
of the Supreme Court and High Courts, Governors, and other high
officials (e.g., the Attorney General and Comptroller and Auditor
General).
o All executive actions are taken in the President’s name, reflecting the
role of the office as the constitutional head of the executive branch.
Landmark Case: In the Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) case, the
Supreme Court clarified that the President must exercise executive powers based on
the advice of the Council of Ministers, affirming the President's role as a ceremonial
head in the parliamentary system.
 2. Legislative Powers:
o The President can summon and prorogue Parliament sessions,
dissolve the Lok Sabha, and address both Houses.
o The President’s assent is required to make a bill into law. The
President may also withhold assent, effectively vetoing bills, or refer
bills for reconsideration.
o Additionally, the President can promulgate ordinances when
Parliament is not in session.
Landmark Case: In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987), the Supreme Court held
that the frequent re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval was
unconstitutional, emphasizing that the ordinance power should be used sparingly.
3. Judicial Powers:
o The President has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or
remissions of punishment, especially in death penalty cases, under
Article 72.
o This power allows the President to act as a final arbiter of mercy, often
after the judiciary has rendered its decision.
Landmark Case: In Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989), the Supreme Court held
that the President's clemency power is not subject to judicial review, provided it is
exercised within constitutional boundaries. However, in subsequent cases, the
judiciary has intervened in cases of procedural irregularities.
4. Emergency Powers:
o The President can declare three types of emergencies: National
Emergency (Article 352), State Emergency or President’s Rule
(Article 356), and Financial Emergency (Article 360).
o These powers significantly expand the President’s role, allowing them
to take extraordinary measures to restore normalcy in governance
during crises.
Landmark Case: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court
limited the misuse of Article 356, stating that President’s Rule could be judicially
reviewed to prevent arbitrary use of this power.
Privileges of the President
The President of India enjoys certain privileges:
1. Immunity from Legal Proceedings: The President cannot be prosecuted
during the term of office.
2. Financial Privileges: The President receives an official residence,
allowances, and benefits funded by the government.
 3. Dignity of the Office: The President’s office is held with respect and high
ceremonial standing, emphasizing the role’s symbolic importance.
Appointment of the President
The President of India is elected through an indirect election by an Electoral
College consisting of the elected members of both Houses of Parliament and the
elected members of State Legislative Assemblies. The process is as follows:
1. Electoral Process: Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of
Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) vote in a proportional representation system
with a single transferable vote.
2. Value of Votes: The value of each vote varies, with MPs and MLAs
representing different weightage based on the population they represent.
3. Quorum and Winning: To win, a candidate must achieve more than half of
the total valid votes cast, ensuring the President has broad support from both
Parliament and states.
Critical Evaluation of the President’s Role
While the President is primarily a ceremonial figurehead, the office holds significant
influence under specific conditions:
1. Guarding Constitutional Morality: In times of political instability or
constitutional crises, the President has the discretion to act without binding
advice, as seen in instances of appointing a Prime Minister when there is no
clear majority.
2. Emergency Powers: Although emergency powers are extensive, they are
limited by judicial review to prevent misuse, as demonstrated by cases like
S.R. Bommai.
3. Role in Pardoning: The President’s power to pardon allows for humaneness
in the legal system, although decisions must be impartial and within
procedural boundaries.
However, the President’s power is limited due to the parliamentary system, where
the real authority lies with the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. Judicial
interpretations, especially regarding Article 74 (requiring the President to act on
ministerial advice), have further clarified and curtailed these powers to uphold a
parliamentary democracy structure.
Conclusion
The President’s role as the head of state involves a balance between ceremonial
duties and limited discretionary powers, primarily guided by constitutional
conventions and judicial interpretations. While the President functions mostly on
ministerial advice, judicial decisions have enabled the office to act independently
during certain crises. The position thus remains a vital symbol of unity and a
guardian of constitutional integrity in India.
Question 6: Discuss the composition and working of the State Executive. Evaluate
the appointment, powers, and functions of the Chief Minister and other ministers.
Marks: 10
Answer:
The State Executive is a constitutional body responsible for the governance of
individual states within India. Its composition and functioning follow the federal
structure outlined in the Indian Constitution, with distinct roles and responsibilities for
each component of the executive branch. This answer will discuss the composition
and working of the State Executive, with a detailed evaluation of the Chief Minister’s
appointment, powers, and functions, as well as those of other ministers.
Composition of the State Executive
The State Executive comprises three main elements:
1. Governor: The Governor is the constitutional head of the state and acts on
the advice of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister.
2. Chief Minister: The Chief Minister is the head of the Council of Ministers and
plays a central role in state governance, acting as the real executive authority.
3. Council of Ministers: This body consists of ministers appointed by the
Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. Ministers hold various portfolios,
overseeing different departments within the state administration.
Working of the State Executive
The working of the State Executive mirrors that of the Union Executive, albeit on a
smaller scale. The Governor, as the ceremonial head, exercises powers largely on
the advice of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister. The Council
collectively governs the state by enacting policies, implementing laws, and
overseeing administration in accordance with the Constitution.
1. Collective Responsibility: The Council of Ministers, led by the Chief
Minister, operates on the principle of collective responsibility to the state
legislative assembly. They are accountable as a unit for their policies and
actions.
2. Advisory Role of the Governor: The Governor has a limited, albeit
significant, role, especially in times of political instability. However, the real
power and responsibility for day-to-day administration rest with the Council of
Ministers.
Appointment of the Chief Minister and Other Ministers
1. Chief Minister:
o The Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor, who generally invites
the leader of the majority party or coalition in the Legislative Assembly
 to assume office. If no clear majority exists, the Governor may use
discretion to select the person most likely to form a stable government.
o After the Chief Minister is appointed, they must prove their majority on
the floor of the Assembly, ensuring they have the confidence of the
elected representatives.
2. Other Ministers:
o The Governor appoints other ministers on the advice of the Chief
Minister, who also determines their portfolios and roles. Ministers may
be of Cabinet rank, Minister of State, or Deputy Ministers, depending
on the size of their portfolios and responsibilities.
o Each minister is responsible for their department, but they collectively
answer to the state legislature, reflecting the principle of joint
accountability.
Powers and Functions of the Chief Minister
The Chief Minister holds a central role in the State Executive, functioning as the link
between the Governor and the Council of Ministers.
1. Head of the Government: The Chief Minister is the de facto head of the
state government and exercises significant influence over policy and
administration.
2. Leader of the Council of Ministers: The Chief Minister presides over
meetings of the Council of Ministers, coordinates policy decisions, and
ensures that all ministers work toward the collective agenda.
3. Advisory Role to the Governor: The Chief Minister advises the Governor on
the appointment of ministers and other matters concerning state governance.
The Governor generally acts on the Chief Minister’s advice unless the
Constitution explicitly requires otherwise.
4. Policy Maker: The Chief Minister sets the policy direction for the state by
proposing new laws, policies, and development projects. They play a key role
in shaping the state budget and financial policies.
5. Liaison with the Union Government: The Chief Minister maintains
communication with the Union Government, representing the state’s interests
and coordinating policies that affect both the state and the center. In times of
disputes, the Chief Minister negotiates with the central authorities to resolve
issues amicably.
6. Implementation of Laws: The Chief Minister ensures that laws passed by
the state legislature are implemented effectively and administers state
programs, development schemes, and social welfare initiatives.
 7. Crisis Management: In times of emergency, natural disaster, or other crises,
the Chief Minister plays a critical role in managing the state’s response and
ensuring swift and efficient relief efforts.
Powers and Functions of Other Ministers
1. Administrative Responsibility: Ministers are in charge of their respective
departments and have the authority to make decisions, implement policies,
and oversee their departments' functioning.
2. Policy Formulation and Implementation: Ministers develop policies relevant
to their portfolios, such as health, education, or infrastructure, and work to
implement them within the state.
3. Representation and Accountability: Each minister is accountable to the
state legislative assembly and must answer questions, respond to criticism,
and defend policies related to their department. This accountability ensures
that the executive branch remains answerable to the legislature and, by
extension, the public.
4. Collective Responsibility: All ministers share responsibility for the decisions
made by the Council of Ministers. They are collectively accountable to the
legislature, and any no-confidence motion passed against the Council would
require all ministers to resign.
Critical Evaluation of the State Executive System
1. Chief Minister’s Influence: While the Governor is the constitutional head, the
Chief Minister exercises real authority, making the state’s functioning heavily
reliant on the Chief Minister’s leadership. This concentration of power has
benefits in terms of accountability but also risks if the Chief Minister exercises
authority without adequate checks.
2. Discretion of the Governor: The Governor has discretionary powers in
appointing the Chief Minister in the event of a hung assembly or uncertain
majority. However, this discretion has sometimes led to political
controversies over alleged biases or misuse of power, as in cases where
Governors have been accused of favoring specific political parties.
3. Collective Responsibility: The principle of collective responsibility ensures
that ministers work together as a unified body, but it can sometimes lead to a
lack of individual accountability, especially when ministers are not sufficiently
experienced or qualified in their portfolios.
4. Political Instability: In states with coalition governments, political instability
can weaken the State Executive's functioning. Frequent changes in
government, shifting alliances, and no-confidence motions can disrupt the
administration’s continuity and affect governance.
Conclusion
The State Executive, led by the Chief Minister and supported by the Council of
Ministers, plays a pivotal role in the governance of each state in India. While the
Chief Minister wields significant powers in administration, the other ministers
contribute by handling specific departments, thereby ensuring a functional and
diverse administration. Although the structure is generally effective, challenges such
as the Governor’s discretionary power, political instability, and concentrated authority
in the Chief Minister’s office call for reforms to ensure greater transparency, stability,
and accountability.

WRITE SHORT NOTE QUESTIONS 5 marks

(a) Election Commission: Composition, Functions, and Powers

Composition: The Election Commission of India (ECI) is a constitutional body
responsible for the administration of elections in India. The structure and functioning
of the ECI are defined by Article 324 of the Indian Constitution.
 The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners
form the Election Commission. It is a multi-member body, currently consisting
of three members: the CEC and two other Election Commissioners. The
President of India appoints the CEC and the Election Commissioners.
 Term and Removal: The CEC serves a tenure of 6 years or until the age of
65, whichever is earlier. The Election Commissioners have the same tenure
but can only be removed through a procedure similar to the impeachment of a
judge of the Supreme Court.
Functions and Powers:
1. Conduct of Elections: Under Article 324, the Election Commission is
entrusted with conducting elections to the Lok Sabha (House of the People),
Rajya Sabha (Council of States), State Legislative Assemblies, and
offices of the President and Vice-President of India. This includes the
preparation of electoral rolls, announcement of dates for elections, and
ensuring free and fair elections.
o Case law: In T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court
expanded the role of the Election Commission, emphasizing that the
body should act independently and ensure the free and fair conduct of
elections.
2. Supervision of Electoral Process: The ECI supervises all aspects of
elections, including voting, counting, and the announcement of results. It also
 monitors the compliance of political parties and candidates with the Model
Code of Conduct to ensure fairness.
3. Disqualification of Candidates: Under Article 102 and Article 191, the
Election Commission has the power to advise the President or Governor
regarding the disqualification of members of Parliament (MPs) and Legislative
Assemblies (MLAs) for various reasons, such as defection or violating
electoral laws.
4. Regulation of Political Parties: The ECI is responsible for the registration
and deregistration of political parties. It ensures that parties comply with the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 and other regulations.
5. Advisory Role: The Election Commission can also issue advice to the
President or Governor on electoral matters, including the question of
disqualification of elected members or the conduct of elections.
6. Powers of Election Commission:
o The ECI can issue directions for the conduct of elections, and its
decisions on electoral matters are final.
o It has the power to investigate and act on complaints related to
elections, ensuring electoral integrity and adherence to constitutional
norms.
(b) Nature of the Constitution of India
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land, which defines the
structure, powers, and functioning of the government at the central and state levels.
It is a written, comprehensive, and flexible document and combines elements of
federalism with a parliamentary system of government.
Key Features:
1. Written Constitution: The Indian Constitution is a written document that is
the supreme source of law in the country. It is a detailed document,
comprising 448 articles divided into 25 parts and 12 schedules.
2. Length and Detail: The Constitution is one of the longest in the world, and it
is highly detailed in nature. It covers a wide range of subjects, from the rights
of citizens to the distribution of powers between the Union and State
governments, and the duties of public officials.
3. Federal in Nature but Unitary in Spirit: While India is a federal state with a
division of powers between the Union and the States, the Constitution is
unitary in spirit. The distribution of powers, especially under Article 246,
provides for a strong central government, with the ability to take over state
functions in certain situations, such as during a National Emergency (Article
352) or President’s Rule (Article 356).
 o Case law: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court
clarified that Article 356 (President's Rule) should not be misused
and must be applied only in exceptional circumstances. The Court also
emphasized that the federal nature of the Constitution should be
respected.
4. Parliamentary System of Government: The Constitution adopts the
parliamentary system at both the Centre and the States, as per Article 74
(for the Centre) and Article 163 (for States). The Prime Minister (at the
Centre) and Chief Ministers (in States) head the executive, while the
legislature remains responsible for law-making and checks on the executive.
5. Judicial Review: The Constitution establishes the independence of the
judiciary and provides for judicial review, which allows courts to examine
the constitutionality of laws and government actions.
o Case law: In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the
Supreme Court upheld the basic structure doctrine, asserting that
certain features of the Constitution (like federalism and judicial
independence) cannot be amended by Parliament.
6. Flexible and Rigid Aspects: The Constitution of India is flexible in some
respects and rigid in others. Certain provisions can be amended by a
simple majority (e.g., Article 368), while others, especially those concerning
the federal structure, require a more complex process involving both
Parliament and the states.
7. Secular and Democratic Republic: The Constitution declares India as a
secular (no official religion) and democratic republic. Fundamental Rights
(Part III) guarantee equality, freedom, and justice for all citizens, and these
rights are enforceable by the courts.
8. Directive Principles of State Policy: The Constitution also includes the
Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), which guide the state in
formulating policies aimed at securing social and economic justice for all.
9. Republic: India is a Republic because the head of state (the President) is
elected, not a hereditary monarch. The President of India is the ceremonial
head of the state, while executive powers lie with the Prime Minister and
Council of Ministers.
Conclusion
The Election Commission of India plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity and
fairness of India's democratic elections, while the Constitution of India provides the
framework for governance, balancing federalism with a strong central authority and
ensuring rights and justice for all citizens. Through landmark cases, the Constitution
has been interpreted and expanded to adapt to India's changing political and social
landscape.
(a) Anti-Defection Law
Introduction:
The Anti-Defection Law is designed to prevent elected representatives from
switching political parties or defecting after elections. This law is primarily aimed at
maintaining the stability of political parties and ensuring the integrity of the electoral
process.
Legal Framework:
The Anti-Defection Law is enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of
India, introduced by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, and later amended by the
91st Amendment Act, 2003.
Provisions:
1. Disqualification of Members:
o Defection by a member of Parliament (MP) or State Legislative
Assembly (MLA) results in disqualification if they voluntarily give up
their party membership or join another party.
o If a party member votes or abstains from voting in the legislature
contrary to the party’s directions, they can be disqualified.
2. Exceptions:
o A member is not disqualified if they merge with another party, provided
that two-thirds of the members of the original party agree to the
merger.
o If a member is elected as the leader of a new party or a faction, they
may not be disqualified immediately.
3. Decision-Making Authority:
o The Chairperson (or the Speaker) of the respective House (Lok Sabha
or State Legislature) decides on the disqualification under the Tenth
Schedule, but their decision is subject to judicial review.
4. Party Whip:
o MPs or MLAs must adhere to the whip issued by their party.
Disobeying the whip during voting can lead to disqualification under the
Anti-Defection Law.
Impact and Criticism:
 Positive Impact: It has brought stability to Indian governments by
discouraging unprincipled defections, especially in coalition governments.
 Criticism:
 o The law has been criticized for stifling the freedom of speech and
conscience of elected representatives.
o Some argue that it leads to excessive control by political parties,
particularly the party leadership, undermining the independent
judgment of legislators.
o Case law: In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court
upheld the validity of the Anti-Defection Law but clarified that decisions
of the Speaker/Chairperson on disqualification are subject to judicial
review.

(b) National Emergency and State Emergency

National Emergency (Article 352):
A National Emergency is declared when the security of India or any part of its
territory is threatened by war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
Provisions:
1. Declaration: The President of India can declare a National Emergency if he is
satisfied that the security of India is in danger. This declaration can apply to
the whole of India or any specific part.
2. Effects:
o It gives the Union Government sweeping powers over the States and
allows the Centre to assume control over state matters, overriding state
laws.
o The Fundamental Rights under Article 19 (freedom of speech,
assembly, etc.) can be suspended, though Article 21 (protection of life
and personal liberty) cannot be suspended.
3. Duration:
o A National Emergency can initially last for 6 months, but it can be
extended indefinitely with parliamentary approval every 6 months.
4. Historical Usage:
o India has declared a National Emergency three times: 1962 (China
war), 1971 (Bangladesh war), and 1975-77 (Internal Emergency).
State Emergency (President's Rule) (Article 356):
A State Emergency (commonly referred to as President's Rule) is imposed when
the President believes that the governance of a state is not functioning according to
the provisions of the Constitution.
Provisions:
 1. Declaration: The President may declare President’s Rule in a state if the
government in the state cannot function according to the provisions of the
Constitution, especially if the state government is unable to prove a majority
or if there is a breakdown of law and order.
2. Effects:
o The Governor of the state assumes executive authority, and the State
Legislative Assembly is either suspended or dissolved.
o The Union Government assumes direct control over the state
administration.
3. Duration:
o President’s Rule can last for 6 months, with the possibility of
extensions for up to 3 years with the approval of both Houses of
Parliament every 6 months.
4. Misuse and Criticism:
o President's Rule has been accused of being misused for political
reasons, especially during periods of political instability or when the
central government wants to assert control over a state.
o Case law: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court
ruled that the imposition of President’s Rule must be based on
objective material and cannot be arbitrary or motivated by political
considerations. The Court also reaffirmed that judicial review can be
invoked in such cases.

Conclusion
Both National Emergency and State Emergency provide the central government
with sweeping powers to manage crises, but their misuse has been a point of
concern in India’s political history. The Anti-Defection Law aims to stabilize the
political system by curbing unprincipled defections, but it also raises concerns
regarding the autonomy of elected representatives. Each of these laws reflects the
balance between maintaining political stability and ensuring democratic processes
and checks.

SECOND PYQs
Question 1: Federalism: Definition and Meaning
Federalism is a system of governance in which two or more levels of government
share the powers and responsibilities of ruling a country or territory. The primary
characteristic of federalism is the division of authority between a central (national)
government and regional governments (such as states or provinces). Federalism
ensures that each level of government has its own sphere of influence, with the
central government typically dealing with national issues (e.g., defense, foreign
policy), while regional governments handle local affairs (e.g., education, health).
In a federal system, both the central and regional governments derive their powers
from a written constitution. This constitution outlines the distribution of powers,
responsibilities, and rights between the different levels of government. Federalism
allows for the accommodation of diverse regions, cultures, and languages within a
single political entity.

Elaborating the Statement: “India is federal and America is more federal in the
outline of the Constitution”
This statement refers to the degree of federalism and the structure of federal
systems in India and the United States. Both are federal states, but the nature and
practice of their federalism differ significantly due to their constitutional framework,
historical evolution, and political contexts.
1. India’s Federalism:
o Article 1 of the Indian Constitution declares India to be a Union of
States, which inherently indicates a strong centralizing tendency.
o The Indian Constitution does contain a federal framework (such as a
division of powers between the Union and State legislatures under
Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule), but it is often described as a
"quasi-federal" system.
o The Union Government in India has significant power to override
states in matters of national importance, especially in cases of national
security, emergencies, and when parliamentary supremacy is
invoked.
o The Parliament has the power to legislate on matters in the Union List
and Concurrent List (even overriding state laws in certain cases), which
makes the Union more dominant. The President’s Rule (Article 356)
can also be imposed on states in cases of political instability, further
strengthening the central government’s control.
2. The United States’ Federalism:
o In contrast, the United States Constitution (Article 4) creates a
strong federal system with a clear division of powers between the
central government and individual states. The powers of the federal
government are enumerated, and any powers not expressly granted
to the federal government remain with the states.
 o The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirms that powers
not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or
the people, solidifying the idea of state sovereignty.
o The U.S. system is often described as a "dual federalism", where
states retain significant autonomy in many areas, including law
enforcement, education, and healthcare.

Comparing and Contrasting Federalism in India, USA, Canada, Australia, and

Germany
Federalism across different countries reflects diverse political, historical, and social
contexts. Let’s analyze the federal principles in India, USA, Canada, Australia, and
Germany.
1. India:
o Federal Structure: India’s federalism is unique due to its asymmetry.
The central government has more control over the states, and the
distribution of power can be altered through constitutional
amendments.
o Judiciary: The Supreme Court has a central role in interpreting the
Constitution and resolving conflicts between the Union and States,
maintaining a balance of power.
o State Autonomy: States have limited autonomy, especially in times of
emergency. The Residuary Powers under Article 248 rest with the
Union, allowing it to legislate on matters not listed in the Union or State
lists.
2. United States:
o Federal Structure: The U.S. operates under a clear division of
powers, where the Constitution strictly delineates the powers of the
federal government and the states.
o State Sovereignty: The U.S. system respects state sovereignty, and
states have considerable independence, especially in matters related
to criminal law, property law, and family law.
o Supreme Court: The U.S. Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in
resolving disputes between states and the federal government, with
landmark rulings clarifying the scope of federal powers (e.g.,
McCulloch v. Maryland).
3. Canada:
o Federal Structure: Canada’s federalism is similar to the U.S., with
clear divisions of powers between the federal and provincial
governments. However, Canada has a strong central government
 due to the constitutionally entrenched supremacy of the federal
parliament.
o Provinces: While provinces have significant powers over local matters,
federal government authority can override provincial policies in certain
areas, such as trade and defense.
o Supreme Court: The Supreme Court of Canada interprets the
Constitution and resolves disputes between the federal and provincial
governments.
4. Australia:
o Federal Structure: Australia’s system is a hybrid federal model,
where the central government has the authority to override states in
certain areas, but states retain significant power in areas such as
education and health.
o Constitutional Framework: The Australian Constitution clearly
defines the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the
States, but the High Court of Australia has been critical in expanding
the scope of federal power, especially through its interpretations of the
Constitution.
o State Role: Australian states are independent in many areas of law,
but the federal government holds significant powers in taxation and
defense.
5. Germany:
o Federal Structure: Germany has a strong federal system, where the
Länder (states) hold significant authority, especially in cultural and
educational matters. The German federal system is defined by the
Basic Law (Grundgesetz), which guarantees extensive state rights.
o Bundesrat: The Bundesrat (Federal Council) is a unique feature of
German federalism, where state representatives participate directly in
the lawmaking process, providing states with significant influence over
federal policies.
o Constitutional Court: The Federal Constitutional Court plays a vital
role in protecting state autonomy by interpreting the Basic Law and
resolving disputes between the federal government and the Länder.

Analysis of Federalism in a Globalized World

Globalization has had a significant impact on federal systems around the world. The
interconnectedness of economies, communication, and global governance
challenges the traditional model of federalism, where local sovereignty and
autonomy were central.
 1. Shared Challenges: Many countries face common challenges, such as
climate change, economic instability, and international security
concerns, which require coordinated responses at both the national and
regional levels. This has led to more collaboration between federal and
state/provincial governments, particularly in multilateral agreements.
2. Globalized Economy: With increasing economic integration,
states/provinces may find their autonomy constrained as national
governments negotiate trade agreements and international laws that affect
regional interests.
3. Cultural and Social Diversity: In countries like India, Canada, and the U.S.,
globalization has brought about greater cultural integration, but it has also
led to heightened demands for regional autonomy in response to local
identity issues. Regional movements in Scotland (UK), Quebec (Canada),
and Catalonia (Spain) reflect the tension between globalization and local
autonomy.

Conclusion
While India is federal, its system leans more toward centralization, making it less
"federal" in practice compared to countries like the USA, which follows a dual
federalism approach, providing more autonomy to states. Canada, Australia, and
Germany also display diverse federal structures with varying degrees of
centralization and regional autonomy, influenced by their own political, historical, and
cultural contexts. Federalism, as a concept, remains flexible and dynamic, evolving
in response to global challenges and domestic political changes in the modern
world.

Question 2: Critically evaluate the nature of jurisdiction of the High Court

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and distinguish between Article
226 and 227 with the help of landmark judgments.

Introduction
Article 227 of the Constitution of India grants the High Courts the power of
superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction,
except military courts. This article enables the High Courts to oversee the functioning
of lower courts and tribunals, ensuring that they act within the boundaries of their
jurisdiction and follow legal principles properly. Article 226 and Article 227 both
pertain to the High Courts' powers, but they differ in their scope, nature, and
application.
Nature of Jurisdiction under Article 227
Article 227 provides that the High Court has superintendence over all courts and
tribunals within its jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is primarily supervisory in nature and
focuses on ensuring that subordinate courts and tribunals do not exceed their
jurisdiction or misuse their powers.
1. Superintendence over Subordinate Courts:
Article 227 empowers High Courts to supervise the functioning of lower
courts, such as district courts and magistrate courts, and tribunals. It ensures
that these courts operate within their powers, adhere to principles of justice,
and do not make errors of law.
2. Judicial Control:
The High Court can interfere in cases where there is lack of jurisdiction,
excessive exercise of power, or when there is a violation of law by the
lower courts or tribunals. However, it is important to note that Article 227 is
not an appellate jurisdiction—the High Court does not engage in re-
evaluating factual findings or correcting errors in the lower courts unless there
is a serious legal error.
3. Discretionary Powers:
High Courts have discretion in exercising their jurisdiction under Article 227.
They are not bound to interfere unless there is a manifest error or injustice in
the functioning of the subordinate court or tribunal. This discretion is exercised
when the error is apparent on the face of the record, and not as a
substitute for an appeal.
4. Scope of Jurisdiction:
The superintendence does not imply a judicial review of every order passed
by the lower courts. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is not appellate in
nature; the High Court only steps in when it is necessary to ensure that
judicial discipline is maintained in the lower courts.
Distinction Between Article 226 and Article 227
Both Article 226 and Article 227 deal with the powers of the High Courts, but they
are distinct in terms of their scope and application.
1. Nature of Powers:
 Article 226:
This article deals with the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. It grants the
High Court the power to issue writs (such as mandamus, certiorari,
prohibition, habeas corpus, and quo warranto) to any person or authority,
including the government, within its territorial jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 is more expansive and direct, and it allows the High Court
to act as a protector of the fundamental rights of individuals. The High Court
can issue writs not only to the central or state governments but also to any
statutory or non-statutory authority.
 Article 227:
This article deals with the superintendence over the functioning of lower
 courts and tribunals. The power under Article 227 is primarily supervisory
and corrective, ensuring that the lower courts and tribunals act within their
jurisdiction and follow the law. It does not allow the High Court to issue writs
to any authority, unlike Article 226. Rather, the High Court supervises the
legal and procedural correctness of decisions made by the lower courts.
2. Jurisdiction and Scope:
 Article 226:
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is original, meaning it can
entertain petitions directly for issuing writs without requiring the matter to go
through subordinate courts first. The High Court can directly intervene in
cases involving the violation of fundamental rights or other legal rights, even
against private individuals or authorities, provided they fall under its
jurisdiction.
 Article 227:
The jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and is typically invoked
when there is an error or excess of jurisdiction by the lower courts or tribunals.
It does not provide a direct avenue for issuing writs but ensures that the lower
courts do not misuse their powers or exceed their jurisdiction. This jurisdiction
is limited to the supervision of the courts and tribunals under the High Court's
territorial jurisdiction.
3. Appellate vs. Supervisory Nature:
 Article 226:
The powers under Article 226 are appellate in nature in some cases, as they
involve the review of decisions and actions of authorities or even private
individuals in matters related to the enforcement of fundamental rights or
public law.
 Article 227:
The jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and is not intended to
correct errors of fact or law unless there is a manifest illegality or an error
that goes to the root of the case. It is not a substitute for an appeal or revision.
4. Limitations:
 Article 226:
There are fewer restrictions on the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article
226. It can issue writs in cases involving fundamental rights or the
enforcement of any legal right that can be invoked against any public
authority. It can even issue writs against individuals or private entities in
certain circumstances.
 Article 227:
The scope under Article 227 is narrower because it only deals with the
superintendence of subordinate courts and tribunals. It does not grant the
High Court the power to issue writs against individuals or authorities outside
the judicial hierarchy.
5. Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Judgments:
1. Article 226:
o In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of Article 226 in enforcing the
fundamental rights of individuals. The Court held that the High Court
has wide powers to issue writs and could even issue them to private
authorities in certain situations when their actions affect public rights.
o In K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1955), it was held that Article 226 is
meant to provide a quick remedy against the violation of rights.
2. Article 227:
o In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Johri Mal (2004), the Supreme Court
clarified that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and that it
cannot be invoked for errors of fact or law unless such errors are gross
or apparent.
o In Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation (2003), the Supreme
Court reiterated that the High Court can interfere under Article 227 only
when there is a clear error in the application of the law or when there
is an abuse of power by the lower courts.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Article 226 and Article 227 both grant powers to the High Courts, but
they serve distinct purposes. Article 226 provides for writ jurisdiction, enabling the
High Court to directly intervene and protect fundamental rights, while Article 227
grants supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that lower courts and tribunals function
within their jurisdiction and do not exceed their powers. The scope of Article 226 is
broader, allowing for direct intervention, while Article 227 is focused on the judicial
oversight of lower courts and tribunals, ensuring that they do not make errors that
can undermine justice. Both articles, however, are crucial for upholding the rule of
law and the proper functioning of the judiciary in India.

Question 3:
"Proclamation of an emergency is a very serious matter as it disturbs the
normal fabric of the Constitution and adversely affects the rights of the
people."
Elaborate the above statement and discuss the effects/consequences of
National Emergency in the light of decided landmark case laws.
Introduction
The proclamation of an emergency in India is a grave constitutional step that can
significantly alter the normal functioning of the democratic system. Under Article 352
of the Constitution of India, the President of India can declare a National
Emergency on the grounds of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. The
effects of such a proclamation are far-reaching, as they not only impact the structure
of governance but also have a direct consequence on the fundamental rights of the
citizens. This emergency power, although a safeguard against national crises, is a
potent tool that can disrupt the normal fabric of the Constitution.
Elaboration of the Statement
The statement that the proclamation of an emergency is a serious matter reflects
the gravity of the situation in which the government may suspend normal democratic
functioning. It can affect the relationship between the Executive, Legislature, and
Judiciary, curtail citizens’ rights, and alter the power dynamics of governance.
1. Disturbance of the Constitutional Fabric:
o The Constitution of India, in normal circumstances, operates based on
the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and
judiciary, along with the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed
under Part III of the Constitution.
o During a National Emergency, Article 352 allows the central
government to assume extensive powers. This can upset the balance
of power between the Union and the States and erode the normal
functioning of the legislature and judiciary.
2. Adverse Effects on Fundamental Rights:
o A National Emergency can have a detrimental effect on fundamental
rights, especially Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). For
example, under Article 359, during a National Emergency, the
President can suspend the enforcement of fundamental rights (except
Article 20 and Article 21). This means that during an emergency, laws
may be enacted without being subject to judicial review or the
protection of basic rights.
Effects of National Emergency
1. Suspension of Fundamental Rights:
o Article 359 of the Constitution gives the President the power to
suspend the enforcement of fundamental rights during an
emergency. This suspension can be total or partial. The Right to Life
and Personal Liberty (Article 21) and protections against conviction
for an ex post facto law (Article 20) cannot be suspended.
o However, rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, and
movement can be suspended or curtailed, leading to a loss of
 personal freedoms and human rights violations. This has serious
implications for the citizens’ freedoms and the rule of law.
2. Extension of Union Powers:
o In the event of a National Emergency, the Union government’s powers
are extended and can override those of the States. The distribution of
legislative powers under Article 246 is affected. The Parliament can
legislate on matters in the State List and even take over the functions
of the States in certain situations.
o The Union Executive assumes greater control, leading to a
centralization of power and a loss of autonomy for the States.
3. Judicial Review and Independence:
o Judicial independence can be undermined during a National
Emergency, especially when fundamental rights are suspended.
Although Article 32 remains available to the citizens, the ability of
courts to enforce rights is limited. The courts may also have reduced
powers to review laws enacted during the emergency, leading to a lack
of accountability and greater executive control over governance.
4. Impact on Parliamentary Functioning:
o During a National Emergency, the Parliament can override state laws
and assume sweeping powers. This centralization of legislative
authority has significant implications for the federal nature of the Indian
political system. The ability of the States to function as autonomous
entities is reduced, and their powers are curtailed to ensure uniformity
under the central government’s command.
Landmark Cases on National Emergency
Several landmark judgments have shaped the understanding and application of
National Emergency in India, particularly in how they affect the Constitution and
fundamental rights.
1. K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) - Right to Privacy
 Although this case is primarily focused on the Right to Privacy, it highlights
how fundamental rights are protected against government overreach. The
case emphasizes that individual freedoms cannot be violated arbitrarily,
even during emergencies, ensuring that Article 21 remains intact. The
judgment reinforces that the right to life and personal liberty is inalienable,
even during an emergency.
2. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) - Impact on Fundamental Rights
 This case is critical in understanding the tension between fundamental rights
and Directive Principles of State Policy during an emergency. The
Supreme Court ruled that while Article 368 allows for amendments to the
 Constitution, it cannot be used to destroy the basic structure of the
Constitution, including the fundamental rights. The court held that the Basic
Structure Doctrine applies even during an emergency.
3. Harvinder Kaur v. Union of India (1981) - Suspension of Fundamental Rights
 The court dealt with the right to freedom of movement and detention laws
during the Emergency period. The case reiterated that Article 21 cannot be
suspended under the National Emergency. However, it also acknowledged
that other fundamental rights could be suspended. The case helped define
the scope of the President’s powers under Article 359.
4. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) - Right to Property During Emergency
 The case clarified that during an emergency, even though fundamental rights
could be suspended, the right to property is not protected under the
Emergency provisions. The ruling emphasized the need to maintain a balance
between individual rights and the government's ability to deal with
crises.
5. The Emergency Case (1975) - Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
 This case is one of the most significant cases related to the National
Emergency declared in 1975 by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The
court examined the legality of the emergency declaration and its implications
on the fundamental rights of citizens. It held that the right to life and liberty
under Article 21 could not be suspended during an emergency, but other
rights were subject to suspension.
Conclusion
The proclamation of a National Emergency is a profound decision that affects the
entire democratic structure of the country. It disturbs the fabric of the Constitution
by concentrating power in the hands of the central government and limiting the rights
of citizens. While it is an essential tool to protect the nation during crises, its misuse
can lead to a constitutional crisis and the erosion of fundamental freedoms. The
landmark judgments highlighted above demonstrate the fine balance the judiciary
has sought to maintain between executive authority and the protection of civil
liberties even during an emergency. Therefore, while the emergency provisions
are necessary, they must be applied with great caution to prevent undermining the
core values of democracy and human rights.

Question 4:
"Once it is proved that the Parliament is sitting and its business is being
transacted, anything said during the course of that business is immune from
proceedings of the Court."
Introduction
The statement refers to the doctrine of Parliamentary Privilege enshrined in the
Constitution of India and reflected in the functioning of the Indian Parliament. It
asserts that the members of Parliament enjoy immunity from legal proceedings for
anything said or done in the course of their official duties, especially within the
Parliament. This immunity is necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of
democratic deliberations and safeguard the freedom of speech and debate in the
legislature, free from external interference.
Parliamentary Privileges: An Overview
Parliamentary privileges are certain legal protections and immunities granted to the
members of Parliament to enable them to perform their functions freely and
effectively. These privileges are critical in maintaining the independence of the
legislature and are defined under Article 105 for the Lok Sabha and the Rajya
Sabha.
1. Freedom of Speech in Parliament (Article 105(1)):
Members of Parliament enjoy absolute immunity from any legal action for
what they say during the course of their official duties within Parliament. This
freedom is a fundamental privilege to allow unfettered discussion and debate
on matters of public concern.
2. No Legal Action for Parliamentary Acts (Article 105(2)):
No court can initiate legal proceedings against any member of Parliament for
anything they say or do while discharging their legislative functions. This
includes the debates, discussions, and proceedings within the legislative
body.
Immunity from Court Proceedings: Meaning and Scope
The immunity from court proceedings, as described in the statement, provides
protection to members of Parliament from legal action based on comments or
statements made during parliamentary debates, discussions, or proceedings. This
protection serves to:
1. Facilitate Open Debate:
Without the fear of legal repercussions, members of Parliament can freely
express their views and engage in discussions on policies, governance, and
public matters without worrying about being sued or facing legal
consequences.
2. Maintain the Integrity of the Legislature:
It ensures that the legislature operates independently and that its members
are not intimidated or distracted by the prospect of legal consequences.
This autonomy is essential for effective governance and democratic
functioning.
3. Judicial Oversight:
While absolute immunity exists, this privilege is not unlimited. The courts
 have the jurisdiction to enforce laws on parliamentary conduct if it leads to
acts like contempt of court or violation of the Constitution outside the
legislative functions.
Landmark Cases and Judicial Interpretation
Several landmark judgments have helped define the extent and limitations of this
immunity:
1. Shivaji Rao v. Union of India (1974):
In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the immunity of
the members of Parliament for their speech or actions inside Parliament is
absolute and cannot be questioned in court. The case confirmed the principle
of freedom of speech for members of the legislature in their capacity as
lawmakers.
2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1955):
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that members of Parliament are
immune from any legal action for words spoken in Parliament during the
course of their official duties, emphasizing the freedom of speech within
legislative bodies.
3. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998):
The Supreme Court extended the principle of Parliamentary Privilege by
holding that members of Parliament are immune from prosecution for acts
done in the course of their duties as legislators, even outside Parliament,
provided the actions are related to legislative functions.
4. Ramesh K. S. v. Union of India (1999):
In this case, the Court ruled that the immunity applies not just to speech, but
also to any action taken during the official proceedings of Parliament. The
principle was reaffirmed that Parliament should be allowed to conduct its
business without interference from the judiciary.
Limitations of the Immunity
While the immunity granted to Parliament members is vast, there are certain
limitations:
1. No Immunity for Acts Outside Parliament:
The immunity granted by Article 105 does not apply to actions outside the
official proceedings of Parliament. For instance, any defamatory remarks
made by a member of Parliament in the public domain or outside
parliamentary proceedings are not protected by this privilege.
2. No Immunity in Case of Criminal Offenses:
Members are not immune from criminal prosecution for activities that are
unrelated to parliamentary functions, such as corruption or violence, even if
those actions occur while they are serving as legislators.
3. Judicial Review of Parliamentary Procedures:
Although the court cannot interfere in the debate or speech inside
 Parliament, it can review certain procedural issues or unconstitutional acts
of Parliament that infringe upon fundamental rights or violate the Constitution.
For instance, the courts may review the legality of parliamentary proceedings
that are unconstitutional or illegal.
4. Contempt of Court:
If any member's actions inside Parliament amount to contempt of court (e.g.,
disrespecting the judiciary), they can still be held accountable. For example,
members cannot make statements in Parliament that undermine the dignity of
the courts.
Conclusion
The immunity of members of Parliament from court proceedings for anything said
or done in the course of parliamentary business is essential to the functioning of a
free and fair legislature. It ensures that members can speak freely and engage in
robust debates without fear of legal consequences, which is a fundamental principle
of democratic governance. However, this immunity is not absolute and has certain
limitations, especially when it comes to actions outside parliamentary functions or
when there is an infringement on the fundamental rights of others. The judiciary's
role is to strike a balance between upholding parliamentary privilege and ensuring
that the rule of law is respected in other spheres of public life.

Question 5:
"Elaborate and critically analyse the above given statement. Evaluate the
privileges provided under the Constitution of India and discuss the need for
codification in the light of landmark judgments."

Introduction
The statement pertains to the concept of Parliamentary Privilege in India, which
refers to the special legal immunities and freedoms granted to the members of
Parliament and State legislatures for the effective performance of their legislative
functions. These privileges are necessary to ensure free and fair debates and
discussions within the legislative body, thereby allowing parliamentarians to fulfill
their responsibilities without fear of legal consequences. While these privileges are
derived from customs and precedents, the Constitution of India provides a
framework to recognize and safeguard such privileges under Article 105 (for
Parliament) and Article 194 (for State Legislatures).
However, the absence of a codified and systematic body of laws defining these
privileges has led to ambiguities and misunderstandings, which have been
clarified by several landmark judgments. The need for codification of these
privileges remains an important issue, as it can ensure clarity and uniformity in their
application.
Understanding Parliamentary Privileges under the Constitution of India
Parliamentary privileges are a set of legal protections afforded to the legislature
and its members to ensure that they can perform their duties effectively and
independently. The Constitution provides for these privileges under:
1. Article 105 (for the Parliament):
o Clause (1): Provides freedom of speech in Parliament. Members of
Parliament cannot be prosecuted for anything said during the
proceedings of Parliament.
o Clause (2): No court can question the proceedings of Parliament, and
members are protected from legal action related to their speeches and
actions within Parliament.
o Clause (3): Defines the power of Parliament to regulate its own
proceedings, including the discipline and conduct of its members.
2. Article 194 (for State Legislatures):
o Provides similar protections for members of State Legislative
Assemblies and Legislative Councils.
These privileges are meant to ensure independence and impartiality in the
legislative process and to safeguard the separation of powers between the
Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. The Constitution recognizes that the
freedom of speech and debate within Parliament is essential for the functioning of
a democratic system.
Privileges Provided by the Constitution of India:
The privileges granted to members of Parliament and State legislatures are broadly
categorized into the following:
1. Freedom of Speech:
o Members of Parliament enjoy the freedom of speech in Parliament,
which is absolute and protected by Article 105(1). This privilege allows
members to speak on any subject and express their views freely
without the fear of legal prosecution.
2. Immunity from Legal Proceedings:
o Under Article 105(2), members of Parliament are immune from civil
and criminal liability for any statement made during parliamentary
proceedings. This privilege allows legislators to freely engage in
discussions and debates without fear of being sued for defamation or
facing other legal actions.
3. Control over Internal Affairs:
 o Both Houses of Parliament (and State legislatures) have the exclusive
authority to regulate their internal affairs, including setting rules of
conduct, discipline, and regulating the behavior of members (including
the power to expel members in certain situations).
4. Power to Issue Warrants:
o Parliament and State legislatures also have the power to issue
warrants of arrest in certain circumstances to ensure the presence of
their members during proceedings.
5. Exclusion from Judicial Review:
o Parliament’s legislative proceedings cannot be subject to judicial
review, except in cases where they violate the fundamental rights of
citizens or are unconstitutional.
Need for Codification of Parliamentary Privileges
Despite the constitutional provisions for parliamentary privileges, their scope,
limitations, and boundaries remain somewhat unclear. This has led to ambiguity
and discretionary interpretation. Here are some reasons why codification is
needed:
1. Lack of Clarity:
o While the Constitution recognizes certain privileges, the exact extent
and application of these privileges are not always defined. This can
lead to misuse and abuse of power by members of the legislature.
o For instance, issues such as protection against defamation or abuse
of parliamentary immunity are not always clearly defined, which can
lead to legal conflicts.
2. Judicial Intervention:
o The courts have played a significant role in interpreting parliamentary
privileges in the absence of a clear code. However, the judiciary has
also been cautious in interfering with parliamentary functions, fearing
that it could disrupt the separation of powers. Codification would
allow for more predictable and consistent rulings.
3. Consistency Across States:
o Given that both Parliament and State legislatures enjoy similar
privileges, a codified law could ensure that these privileges are applied
consistently across the country, ensuring uniformity in how legislative
bodies function.
4. Preventing Abuse:
o Without clear guidelines, parliamentary privileges can sometimes be
used to shield lawmakers from accountability or to block judicial
 actions. Codification would establish clear ethical and procedural
standards, thereby preventing abuse.
Landmark Judgments on Parliamentary Privileges
Several landmark judgments have shaped the understanding of parliamentary
privileges in India:
1. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1955):
o The Supreme Court emphasized that the privilege of freedom of
speech in Parliament is absolute and cannot be questioned in court.
This judgment upheld the importance of parliamentary immunity and
clarified its scope.
2. Shivkant Jha v. Union of India (1974):
o This case reaffirmed that statements made within Parliament during
debates and proceedings enjoy absolute immunity. It clarified that the
immunity extends not just to speeches but also to actions performed in
the course of legislative functions.
3. Ramesh Chandra v. Union of India (1980):
o The Court held that a member’s actions inside Parliament are covered
by parliamentary privileges, and therefore, they cannot be held liable
for actions that occur during the course of official duties.
4. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998):
o This case discussed the limits of parliamentary privilege in the context
of members being immune from prosecution. The court held that
members are not immune for criminal actions outside the scope of
their parliamentary functions.
Criticism of the Current Framework
While the provisions on parliamentary privileges serve important functions, they have
also been criticized for allowing unaccountable behavior among lawmakers. The
absence of codification can lead to:
 Unilateral interpretation of privileges by the Parliament.
 Misuse of immunity to avoid accountability for actions such as corruption or
misbehavior.
 Limited transparency in the workings of legislative bodies, leading to a lack
of trust in the democratic process.
Conclusion: The Need for Codification
Codifying parliamentary privileges would provide clarity and consistency in the
application of these privileges across India. It would define the limits and boundaries
of these privileges, ensuring that they are used for the effective functioning of the
legislature, rather than as a shield for wrongdoing. Codification would also help
strengthen accountability while safeguarding the independence of the
legislature. Given the evolving nature of constitutional law and the democratic
process, it is crucial for legislators to engage in codification to balance their
immunity with the principles of justice, fairness, and accountability

Question 6:
Critically appraise the working of the Election Commission in India and the
need for electoral reforms in the light of landmark judgments.

Introduction
The Election Commission of India (ECI) plays a crucial role in ensuring the
fairness, transparency, and integrity of the electoral process in the country.
Established under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Election Commission is
responsible for administering elections to the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State
Legislatures, and the President of India. The commission is a constitutional
authority vested with wide powers to supervise, direct, and control the entire
electoral process in the country. Over time, the working of the Election Commission
has been subject to scrutiny, with calls for electoral reforms to address challenges
such as corruption, money power, and manipulation of the electorate.
This answer critically appraises the functioning of the Election Commission of India
and highlights the need for electoral reforms based on landmark judgments.

Role and Working of the Election Commission

The Election Commission of India is an independent body that oversees the
electoral process in India. Its functions include:
1. Supervision and Control of Elections:
o The Election Commission is responsible for the supervision and
conduct of free and fair elections to the Parliament, State
Legislatures, and Office of the President.
2. Delimitation of Constituencies:
o The Commission plays an important role in delimiting constituencies
to ensure equitable representation. While delimitation was previously
done by the Delimitation Commission, the Election Commission now
has the power to ensure that the demarcation of constituencies is
conducted as per constitutional requirements.
3. Voter Registration and Conducting Polls:
 o It ensures that voter lists are maintained and regularly updated. The
Election Commission is tasked with conducting elections at national,
state, and local levels, overseeing the polling process to prevent
malpractices such as voter fraud.
4. Monitoring of Political Parties:
o The Commission has powers to recognize political parties, regulate
their functioning, and ensure they adhere to electoral laws, such as
funding transparency and compliance with registration
procedures.
5. Enforcement of Model Code of Conduct:
o The Commission ensures the implementation of the Model Code of
Conduct (MCC), which is a set of guidelines to ensure that elections
are conducted fairly without undue influence by political parties or
candidates.

Landmark Judgments Relating to the Election Commission

The working of the Election Commission has been shaped by several landmark
decisions by the Supreme Court of India. These judgments have provided
significant clarity on the powers and responsibilities of the Election Commission:
1. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006):
o The Supreme Court in this case held that the Election Commission
has the authority to review the disqualification of candidates and
the validity of elections. This judgment reinforced the powers of the
Election Commission in maintaining the integrity of the electoral
process.
2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997):
o The Supreme Court held that the Election Commission has the
power to take steps to ensure that free and fair elections are
conducted, and its orders are final. This case highlighted the role of the
Election Commission as the ultimate authority in overseeing
elections.
3. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002):
o In this landmark case, the Supreme Court directed the Election
Commission to ensure that political parties and candidates disclose
their criminal records, assets, and liabilities. This judgment marked
a significant step towards transparency in elections, aiming to provide
voters with information about candidates' background.
4. T. N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995):
 o The Supreme Court gave extensive powers to the Election
Commission in this case, empowering it to take strong action against
any party or individual violating election laws. The case is notable for
expanding the Election Commission’s powers and its role in overseeing
the free and fair conduct of elections.

Challenges in the Working of the Election Commission

While the Election Commission has played a crucial role in ensuring the integrity of
elections, several challenges still persist, including:
1. Abuse of Money Power:
o Money power plays a significant role in Indian elections. The use of
black money for buying votes, conducting vote-buying activities, and
inflating campaign costs undermines the fairness of the electoral
process. Despite reforms, there is little accountability on this front.
2. Criminalization of Politics:
o The criminalization of politics is a major concern. Candidates with
criminal backgrounds continue to contest elections, undermining the
legitimacy of elected representatives. While the Supreme Court has
mandated the disclosure of criminal records, this has not significantly
reduced the influence of criminals in politics.
3. Vote Manipulation:
o Despite efforts to regulate the election process, vote manipulation
remains an issue. This includes bribery, coercion, and misuse of
government machinery to influence voters.
4. Voter Turnout and Electoral Participation:
o While voter turnout has improved, electoral participation remains a
challenge in many parts of India, particularly among certain
demographic groups like marginalized communities and young
voters.
5. Inefficiencies in Electoral Rolls:
o The voter registration process is not always transparent, and many
eligible voters are either missing from the rolls or inaccurately
registered. This creates disenfranchisement among the electorate.

Need for Electoral Reforms

Several electoral reforms are needed to address these challenges, some of which
have been identified by the Election Commission and Supreme Court over the
years:
 1. Reform in Political Party Funding:
o Transparency in political funding should be implemented. Political
parties must be required to disclose the sources of their funding,
particularly donations, to ensure transparency and prevent the misuse
of money power.
2. Ban on Criminal Candidates:
o There is an urgent need to ban candidates with serious criminal
charges from contesting elections. Though the Supreme Court has
mandated the disclosure of criminal records, there is still no
comprehensive law preventing such candidates from standing for
elections.
3. Implementing Voter ID for All:
o To eliminate bogus voting, it is necessary to implement a universal
voter identification system to ensure that each vote cast corresponds
to a legitimate voter.
4. Reforming the Electoral Process:
o A more efficient e-voting system could be introduced to increase voter
participation and reduce logistical challenges associated with traditional
voting methods.
5. Lowering the Impact of Money Power:
o The Commission should focus on reducing the influence of money in
the election process. Strict enforcement of election expenditure
limits and auditing the finances of political parties can help achieve
this goal.
6. Strengthening the Role of the Election Commission:
o The Election Commission should be empowered to take stricter
actions against candidates and parties violating election rules,
including dissolution of elections in extreme cases of manipulation or
corruption.

Conclusion
The Election Commission of India has played an instrumental role in safeguarding
the democratic process and ensuring free and fair elections in the country.
However, the current system faces several challenges such as money power,
criminalization of politics, and lack of transparency in political funding. While the
Supreme Court has intervened in landmark judgments to address some of these
issues, the need for electoral reforms is crucial to ensure the integrity and
effectiveness of the electoral system.
A comprehensive codified electoral framework, stricter regulations on political
party funding, and reforms to prevent criminalization in politics can significantly
improve the fairness of elections and enhance public trust in the democratic process.
The Election Commission must continue to evolve in response to these challenges,
and reforms must be a priority for the future of Indian democracy.

Question 7:
Critically appraise the working of the Parliamentary system of Union Executive
in India. Discuss the process of appointment and the role, powers, and
functions of the Union Executive.

Introduction
The Union Executive of India operates under the Parliamentary System of
Government, as prescribed by the Constitution of India. This system is based on the
Westminster Model where the Executive is responsible to the Legislature (the
Parliament), ensuring the integration of the Executive and the Legislature. The
Union Executive in India consists of the President, the Prime Minister, and the
Council of Ministers, with the President being the formal head of state, while the
Prime Minister is the real head of government.
The Union Executive plays a crucial role in the governance of the country, as it is
responsible for implementing and executing laws and policies. However, there have
been several critiques of the system due to issues such as excessive centralization
of power, political instability, and the role of the President in a ceremonial
capacity.
This answer critically examines the working of the Parliamentary system of the
Union Executive and explores the process of appointment, as well as the role,
powers, and functions of the Union Executive.

The Union Executive: Composition and Role

The Union Executive comprises three primary components:
1. The President of India:
o The President is the head of state, symbolizing the unity and
integrity of the nation. However, under the Parliamentary system, the
President’s role is largely ceremonial and symbolic, with most
executive powers being exercised by the Council of Ministers headed
by the Prime Minister.
o The President acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the
Council of Ministers, as per the provisions of Article 74 and Article
75 of the Constitution.
 o Some key powers vested in the President include:
 Appointment powers (Prime Minister, Governors, Judges,
etc.).
 Diplomatic powers (representing India in international matters).
 Emergency powers (National, State, and Financial
Emergencies under Article 352, Article 356, and Article 360).
2. The Prime Minister:
o The Prime Minister is the head of government and exercises real
executive authority in the country. He is appointed by the President but
must command the confidence of the Lok Sabha (the lower house of
Parliament).
o The Prime Minister plays a central role in the formulation of policy,
coordinates the functioning of the Council of Ministers, and is the
chief spokesperson for the government.
o The Prime Minister's role includes leading the cabinet meetings,
deciding the agenda, and advising the President on various matters,
such as the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
3. The Council of Ministers:
o The Council of Ministers is headed by the Prime Minister and
consists of Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State, and Deputy
Ministers. This body is responsible for formulating and implementing
government policies and decisions.
o The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha
(lower house) under Article 75(3). If the Lok Sabha passes a vote of
no confidence, the entire Council, including the Prime Minister, must
resign.
o The Council of Ministers is formed with the advice and
recommendation of the Prime Minister and is appointed by the
President.

Process of Appointment of the Union Executive

The process of appointment within the Union Executive involves the following steps:
1. The President:
o The President is directly elected by an electoral college consisting of
the elected members of both Houses of Parliament and the State
Legislative Assemblies (Article 54 and Article 55).
 o The election process is based on proportional representation
through the single transferable vote method. The President's term is
five years, and he may seek re-election.
2. The Prime Minister:
o The Prime Minister is appointed by the President. Although there is no
direct constitutional provision, the President generally appoints the
leader of the party or coalition that commands a majority in the Lok
Sabha.
o The Prime Minister’s appointment must be approved by the Lok
Sabha, and the confidence of the Lok Sabha is essential for the Prime
Minister to remain in office.
3. The Council of Ministers:
o The President appoints the Council of Ministers on the advice of the
Prime Minister. This includes the Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of
State, and Deputy Ministers.
o The Constitution mandates that the Council of Ministers must
collectively enjoy the confidence of the Lok Sabha, as stated in Article
75(3). If they lose this confidence, they must resign.

Powers and Functions of the Union Executive

1. The President's Powers:
 Executive Powers: The President has executive powers to ensure that laws
are faithfully executed, and he acts in accordance with the advice of the
Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.
 Legislative Powers: The President summons and prorogues sessions of
Parliament and can dissolve the Lok Sabha. Bills passed by Parliament are
sent to the President for assent, and he may withhold assent or send them
back for reconsideration under certain circumstances (Article 111).
 Judicial Powers: The President has the power to grant pardons, reprieves,
respites, or remit sentences in cases involving death sentences (Article
72).
 Emergency Powers: The President has the authority to declare National
Emergency (Article 352), State Emergency (Article 356), and Financial
Emergency (Article 360).
2. The Prime Minister’s Powers:
 Political Powers: The Prime Minister represents the government in
Parliament and commands the majority in the Lok Sabha.
  Executive Powers: As head of the government, the Prime Minister leads the
decision-making process in the Cabinet. The Prime Minister holds
considerable influence over the formulation of government policies.
 Advisory Powers: The Prime Minister advises the President on the
appointment of key officials, including the Council of Ministers, Judges of
the Supreme Court, and High Courts, Governors, and Election
Commissioners.
3. The Council of Ministers:
 Policy Formulation: The Council of Ministers is responsible for formulating
policy decisions and executing government functions. The Council, led by the
Prime Minister, can make decisions on matters ranging from domestic policy
to foreign affairs.
 Legislative Functions: Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are members
of Parliament and participate in the legislative process. They introduce bills,
move resolutions, and are involved in parliamentary debates and
proceedings.
 Financial Powers: The Union Executive is responsible for presenting the
Union Budget to Parliament, administering government expenditure, and
managing public finances.

Criticisms of the Working of the Union Executive

Despite the Constitutional framework, several issues persist regarding the working of
the Parliamentary system of the Union Executive:
1. Excessive Centralization of Power:
o The Union Executive, particularly the Prime Minister and the Cabinet,
hold immense power over decision-making, leading to the
centralization of authority. The Prime Minister often dominates the
decision-making process, marginalizing other members of the Council
of Ministers.
2. Weak Role of the President:
o The President, despite holding considerable formal powers, is largely a
ceremonial figure. The real executive power is vested in the Prime
Minister and the Council of Ministers, which has led to debates on
the effectiveness and relevance of the President’s role in the modern
political system.
3. Lack of Accountability:
o The Council of Ministers is collectively accountable to the Lok
Sabha, but the individual accountability of Ministers is often weak.
 Ministers sometimes do not take responsibility for failures or mistakes
in their respective departments.
4. Coalition Politics:
o In situations where no single party holds an absolute majority, coalition
governments often result in unstable political alliances. This affects the
effective functioning of the Union Executive and governance, as
smaller parties may hold disproportionate power in decision-making.

Conclusion
The Union Executive in India plays a vital role in implementing and executing laws
and policies that govern the country. However, the Parliamentary system under
which the Union Executive operates has its strengths and weaknesses. While the
system ensures democratic accountability and separation of powers, it also
faces challenges such as centralization of power, the ceremonial role of the
President, and issues related to coalition politics.
Reforms are needed to ensure greater accountability and efficiency in the
functioning of the Union Executive, particularly in streamlining the roles of the Prime
Minister, Cabinet, and President.

Short Notes

a) Doctrine of Precedent
Definition: The Doctrine of Precedent refers to the principle that courts must follow
the decisions of higher courts when deciding cases with similar facts or issues. This
doctrine ensures consistency, stability, and predictability in the law. It is a
cornerstone of the common law legal system, which operates on the basis of case
law.
Key Features:
1. Stare Decisis: The principle of stare decisis (to stand by things decided)
underpins the Doctrine of Precedent. This means that once a court has
decided a legal issue, that decision should be followed in future cases with
similar facts.
 2. Binding vs. Persuasive Precedents:
o Binding Precedent: A decision made by a higher court (e.g., the
Supreme Court or High Court) must be followed by lower courts (e.g.,
District Courts).
o Persuasive Precedent: A decision made by a foreign court or a
lower court may not be binding but can be persuasive if the court
considers it relevant.
3. Ratio Decidendi vs. Obiter Dicta:
o Ratio Decidendi: The reason for the decision in a case. This part of
the judgment is binding.
o Obiter Dicta: Statements or observations made by the judge that are
not essential to the decision. These are not binding but may be
persuasive.
Significance:
 Consistency: Ensures the uniform application of the law, providing fairness
and predictability.
 Efficiency: Reduces the need for re-arguing established legal principles in
every case.
Limitations:
 Precedents can become outdated or inappropriate if social, political, or
economic conditions change.
 Lower courts may sometimes distinguish cases based on differing facts,
leading to some flexibility in following precedents.
Example in India:
 In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court laid
down the principle of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which became a binding
precedent and continues to influence constitutional law in India.

b) Role of the Governor: Some Controversies

Role of the Governor in India: The Governor is the constitutional head of the
state in each of India's states, appointed by the President of India. The Governor's
powers and functions are outlined under Article 153-167 of the Indian Constitution.
Though the Governor is meant to be a largely ceremonial figure, acting on the
advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, his role has been
subject to controversy and debate.
Key Functions of the Governor:
1. Executive Functions:
 o Appointing the Chief Minister and other ministers.
o Approving or withholding bills passed by the State Legislature.
o Appointing judges to the State High Court and other key officials.
2. Legislative Functions:
o Summoning and proroguing sessions of the State Legislature.
o Assenting to state laws, including money bills.
3. Judicial Functions:
o Exercising powers of pardons and reprieves.
4. Discretionary Powers:
o In certain exceptional cases, the Governor may act independently
(e.g., recommending President's Rule under Article 356).

Controversies Surrounding the Role of the Governor:

1. Interference in State Politics:
o The role of the Governor has been a source of tension between the
central government and state governments, particularly when the
Governor is seen as a representative of the Central Government.
o Governors are sometimes accused of using their discretionary powers
to dismiss elected state governments, as seen in instances of
political instability.
2. Appointment of Chief Minister:
o The Governor's discretion in appointing the Chief Minister has
raised questions. For instance, a Governor may be accused of
manipulating the process to appoint a Chief Minister from a minority
party or coalition, thereby overriding the will of the people.
3. Overuse of Discretionary Powers:
o The use of discretionary powers to impose President’s Rule under
Article 356 (also known as Emergency in states) has been
controversial. For instance, during the 1990s, the use of President's
Rule in some states was criticized for political reasons.
o S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is a landmark judgment that
clarified the limits of the Governor's discretion in recommending
President's Rule.
4. Inconsistent Implementation of Constitutional Provisions:
 o The Governor's role in State Legislative Assemblies has also been
controversial when their decisions have been perceived as politically
motivated, especially during election periods or when the ruling party
and the Governor are at odds.
5. Constitutional Functioning vs. Political Agenda:
o Critics argue that some Governors act in a manner that reflects the
political interests of the party in power at the Centre, undermining the
non-partisan nature of their office.
Example of Controversy:
 In Maharashtra (2020), the Governor’s role in inviting a particular coalition
to form a government was contested, with allegations of bias in favor of the
party in power at the Centre. The matter reached the Supreme Court for
adjudication, highlighting the contentious nature of the Governor’s office.

Conclusion
The Doctrine of Precedent ensures consistency and predictability in the judicial
system by binding courts to follow past decisions. However, the role of precedents
is not absolute and may be reconsidered or overruled in certain cases.
On the other hand, the role of the Governor in India is constitutionally outlined but
often faces criticism due to its discretionary powers and political controversies. The
Governor’s position as a representative of the President and the Central
Government has led to tensions, especially in times of political instability,
reflecting the complex relationship between the Centre and the States in the Indian
political system.

Short Notes

a) Legislative Council
Definition: The Legislative Council is the upper house of the state legislature in
India, established under Article 169 of the Constitution of India. It is a bicameral
legislature system, present in certain states (like Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra,
Uttar Pradesh, Telangana, and West Bengal), as opposed to the Legislative
Assembly, which is the lower house.
Composition:
 The Legislative Council consists of members who are indirectly elected or
nominated, unlike the Legislative Assembly, where members are directly
elected by the public.
 The composition of the Legislative Council includes:
 1. Members elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly
(MLAs) in the state.
2. Members elected by graduates (for example, graduates from the
state are eligible to vote for these members).
3. Members elected by teachers (from the state’s educational
institutions).
4. Members nominated by the Governor (up to one-third of the total
members can be nominated, typically from the fields of literature,
science, arts, and social services).
Powers and Functions:
1. Legislative Powers: Similar to the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) at the
national level, the Legislative Council's primary role is to review, debate, and
suggest amendments to the bills passed by the Legislative Assembly.
2. Non-Veto Power: It cannot veto bills entirely, but can delay them for a
certain period.
3. Financial Bills: Unlike the Lok Sabha, the Legislative Council does not
have the power to introduce or amend money bills.
4. Debate and Scrutiny: It performs a scrutinizing role, offering suggestions on
policy and legislation passed by the Legislative Assembly.
Key Characteristics:
 The Legislative Council is not directly accountable to the public since its
members are not elected by direct public voting.
 States like Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh have
Legislative Councils, but other states like Delhi and Puducherry have only a
Legislative Assembly.
Recent Criticism:
 The relevance of the Legislative Council has often been questioned due to its
limited powers and undemocratic nature, with debates regarding whether it
should be abolished in some states.

b) Administrative Relations
Definition: Administrative Relations refer to the system of relationships that exist
between the Union (Central Government) and the States in India. These relations
are vital for ensuring the uniform application of laws and policies across the
country, as well as for dealing with issues of governance that are of both national
and state interest.
Constitutional Basis: Administrative relations between the Union and States are
governed by Part XI of the Constitution of India, which deals with the distribution of
executive, legislative, and judicial powers between the Union and the States.
Key Provisions:
1. Union’s Role in State Administration:
o Article 256: The Union can issue directions to the States to ensure that
the laws made by Parliament are implemented in the states.
o Article 257: The Union can make laws that prescribe the manner in
which administrative machinery in the states is to operate, ensuring
consistency with national policies.
2. State's Role in Union Administration:
o States are expected to cooperate with the Union in administering laws
and policies. For example, states are expected to provide the
necessary administrative support for central schemes and projects.
3. Central Control over State Administration:
o Under certain conditions, the Union Government can control the state
administration, such as during the imposition of President's Rule
under Article 356 (if the state government is unable to function
according to the provisions of the Constitution).
4. All India Services:
o Members of the All India Services (IAS, IPS, IFS) serve both at the
Union and State levels. These officers are appointed by the President
and can be allocated to different states, acting as a connecting bridge
between the Union and State administrations.
5. Discretionary Powers of the Governor:
o The Governor can take decisions in certain emergency situations that
require central intervention in the state's administration (e.g.,
President’s Rule or National Emergency).
6. The Role of the Finance Commission:
o The Finance Commission (under Article 280) plays an essential role
in ensuring financial relations between the Union and the States,
recommending the division of financial resources between the Union
and State governments.
Significance of Administrative Relations:
 Coordination and Cooperation: Effective administration requires seamless
coordination between the Union and State governments. For example,
central laws related to education, health, and security need cooperation
from the states for implementation.
  Federal System: Administrative relations help maintain the federal nature of
India’s governance, balancing the independence of states with the central
authority.
 Conflict Resolution: Administrative relations mechanisms help resolve
conflicts between the Union and States, often through intergovernmental
forums like the Inter-State Council (Article 263).
Criticism:
 Centralization of Power: Critics argue that the Union often uses its
administrative powers to control the states, leading to a centralization of
power.
 Disruption of Federal Balance: The imposition of President's Rule under
Article 356 is often seen as undermining the federal structure and state
autonomy, especially if done in a politically motivated manner.

Conclusion:
Both the Legislative Council and Administrative Relations play crucial roles in the
governance structure of India. While the Legislative Council is an important part of
the state legislature in certain states, its relevance has often been questioned. On
the other hand, Administrative Relations ensure cooperation and coordination
between the Union and States, maintaining the federal structure, but also often face
criticism for centralization of powers.