Constitutional position of the president of india in relation to the council of ministers
Answers
Answered by
3
Dr. Rajendra Prasad gave an edge to the controversy by drawing attention to the fact that ‘there is no provision in the Constitution which in so many words lays down that the President shall be bound to act in accordance with the advice of his Council of Ministers”.
One view was that the President of India could not become a ‘real’ executive except by ignoring the Constitution. As against this, there was a small, but apparently growing, school of thought which tended to take an ultra-literal view of certain Constitutional Clauses and drew the conclusion that the President had considerable ‘real’ powers which he could use at his discretion.
A third school of thought took a middle position, namely, that while the President was a Constitutional head of State and acted ordinarily on the advice of the Ministers he had unspecified “reserve” powers, as guardian of the Constitution, to be used by him at his discretion. However, the intention of the founding fathers is not quite clear. “The President,” Dr. Ambedkar declared, “occupies the same position as the king in the British Constitution.”
He can do nothing contrary to their (Ministers’) advice. The President’s ‘symbolic’ position was repeatedly stressed. According to Dr. Ambedkar, he is “the head of the State, but not of the Executive”. At the same time, it is suggested that the framers expected the President to be more than a mere rubber stamp, as in Jawaharlal Nehru’s view the President of India would not be an automaton like the President of France: “We did not give him any real powers but we have made his position one of authority and dignity.”
I hope this answer helps you.
One view was that the President of India could not become a ‘real’ executive except by ignoring the Constitution. As against this, there was a small, but apparently growing, school of thought which tended to take an ultra-literal view of certain Constitutional Clauses and drew the conclusion that the President had considerable ‘real’ powers which he could use at his discretion.
A third school of thought took a middle position, namely, that while the President was a Constitutional head of State and acted ordinarily on the advice of the Ministers he had unspecified “reserve” powers, as guardian of the Constitution, to be used by him at his discretion. However, the intention of the founding fathers is not quite clear. “The President,” Dr. Ambedkar declared, “occupies the same position as the king in the British Constitution.”
He can do nothing contrary to their (Ministers’) advice. The President’s ‘symbolic’ position was repeatedly stressed. According to Dr. Ambedkar, he is “the head of the State, but not of the Executive”. At the same time, it is suggested that the framers expected the President to be more than a mere rubber stamp, as in Jawaharlal Nehru’s view the President of India would not be an automaton like the President of France: “We did not give him any real powers but we have made his position one of authority and dignity.”
I hope this answer helps you.
Similar questions