Conclusion of Essay on chief minister
Answers
Answer:
India has adopted the parliamentary form of government. But the adoption of
parliamentary fonn of government has not happened through a process of
gradual evolution, as in England. In India, this form of government was
deliberately adopted by the Constituent Assembly. Since adoption of the
Constitution, over the years, especially after 1977, India is witnessing a phase of
political transition. There has been a mushrooming growth of political parties. In
spite of adoption of the first-past-the-post system, electorate is divided and is
returning hung Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
Under Art. 75(1) of the Constitution, the President has the power to appoint
the Prime Minister and under Art. 164( 1) the Governor has the power to appoint
the Chief Minister of a State. However, apart from Art. 75(3) and 164(2), which
mention about the principle of collective responsibility of the council of
ministers to the respective House, there is no other guidance provided as to
whom the President or the Governor should appoint as the Prime Minister or the
Chief Minister. The Constitution is completely silent as to whom the President
should invite to form the government in case of hung parliament. In case of clear
electorate mandate, the choice for the President and the Governor is obvious. The
leader of the majority party in the House of the People or the State Legislative
Assembly is appointed. With the fractured electoral mandate, where no political
party has a clear majority in the House, the exercise of this power by the
President and the Governor has been becoming increasingly difficult.