Law & Political Science
Like the British Monarch, the Indian President is excluded from the cabinet. He does not attend its meetings. The reason for this practice is that he is not responsible for the decisions of the Cabinet, although it takes all decisions in his name He is the constitutional head of State, and not responsible for what the cabinet does in his name.
Apparently there seems to be much in common between the Presidents of India and USA. Both are elected heads of their respective. States Both have been vested with a formidable list of powers. Both of them have the power to appoint their Ministers and all other important officers of the Government. Both can be impeached for violation of the constitution.
The above survey shows that the Indian Constitution has vested the President with a formidable and frightening, list of powers. And they become all the more so when we remember that it has set up a federation with a very strong Centre, which can be changed into unitary state in many ways and on many occasions. That's why its critics have subjected it to a scathing criticism.
The supreme executive powers are vested by the President. He can directly exercise these powers and can do it through officers subordinate. As such all executive actions of the Government of India will be expressed to be taken in the name of the-President. He is responsible for the appointment the Prime Minister and on his advice other Ministers,
The Union Executive of India consists of the President, Vice President and the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister. India has a Parliamentary system of executive with the President as the head of the Union, while the Prime Minister is the head of the Executive. The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers which is collectively responsible to the Lower House of the Union Parliament.
In view of the unitary features of Indian constitution, several political writers have asserted that the Indian Constitution is federal only in form but is unitary infact. It is not a genuine federation. Professor G.N. Joshi said that India is not striking a federal state for it has a quasi-federal constitution. Professor K.C. Where an authority on federalism, commented that India is a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state
A critical evaluation of the Indian Constitution reveals the fact that it combines both federal and unitary feature. Nevertheless, the centripetal bias in it is strong that it is only federal in form and unitary in spirit and therefore, quasi-federal in nature. As such it can operate as a federal or as a unitary constitution as time or circumstances require.
The Lok Sabha or the House of People is the lower chamber of parliament. It is a representative house consisting of members directly elected by the people. The Indian constitution has fixed its membership at 520. However, through various constitutional amendments (7th, 14th. And 31st) its strength has been changing from time to time.