4.1] Executive

1. Three Organs of Government

Executive, legislature and judiciary are the three main organs of the government. Each has distinct functions and powers to ensure a balance of power and effective governance.

The legislative branch is responsible for making laws. In India, at union level, it consists of parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) while at state level, it consists of state legislative assemblies and legislative councils (for some states only).

The laws made by legislature are implemented and enforced by executives. The executive wing includes the head of state (President/governor), the head of government (prime minister/chief minister) assisted by his council of ministers. These political executives are then assisted by permanent executives in the form of bureaucracy. 

While legislatures make laws and executives implement them, the task of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and administers justice. Along with various laws passed by parliament, judiciary is also tasked to interpret the supreme law of the land i.e. constitution and to ensure that other two organs abide by the constitutional code. The judiciary is composed of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate courts.

In this topic, we will deal with the executive branch of government.

2. President of India

The President of India is the ceremonial head of state and the highest constitutional authority in the country. The President is elected by an electoral college, which includes elected members of both houses of Parliament as well as the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of States and Union territories. The tenure of the President is five years, and he/she can be re-elected.

As the ceremonial head, the President represents the unity and integrity of the nation. He performs various important functions such as appointing the Prime Minister, other ministers, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and governors of states. The President also has the power to summon and prorogue Parliament sessions, and he can dissolve the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament, based on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.

While the President of India primarily holds a symbolic and ceremonial role, he does have some discretionary powers. These include the ability to seek information from the Prime Minister, ask the Council of Ministers to reconsider their advice, return a bill for reconsideration (except a money bill), or withhold the assent to the Bill (pocket Veto). The role of President also becomes significant in times of political instability or constitutional crisis, requiring him to make critical decisions to maintain the constitutional framework.

The question whether President is a mere ceremonial head or enjoys a substantial discretionary power, has remained a matter of debate since independence.

2.1 Analysis of the Position of President

Position of President in Original Constitution

The original Indian constitution does not create a rubber-stamp president. President had discretionary powers. e.g. President was not bound to act on the aid and advice. President enjoyed absolute veto i.e. power to not give assent to the bills of parliament as well as pocket veto i.e. power to withhold the assent to the bill.

However, there was lack of clarity. The approach of constituent assembly was not clear. The task was left on future generations to shape the institution. However, the conflicts started as early as from the first president of India. When Dr. Rajendra Prasad, first president of India conveyed his desire to exercise his own discretion in assenting to Bills, this view of president’s power was firmly opposed by Nehru.

In view of Dr. Rajendra Prasad expressed that Indian system is different from that in Britain. Whie in Britain, the monarch can do no wrong (as he /she acts always on the advice of ministers), in India the President is both elected and impeachable.

24^th Amendment Act

In 1971, the 24^th Constitutional Amendment made it binding on president to give ascent to constitutional amendment bills. The amendment added a new clause to Article 368, which specified that once a Constitutional Amendment Bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament by the required majority, the President “shall give his assent” to the bill. This removed any discretion the President might have had in withholding assent to amendments.

Thus, through the amendment, parliament removed the power of absolute veto of president in case of constitutional amendment bills. However, the time period for president to give his/her assent was not specified, and thus he retained the pocket veto i.e. to withhold the assent to the bill for indefinite time.

The 42^nd Amendment Act

The 42^nd Amendment, ended all uncertainties. Through this amendment, the President was explicitly required to act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers. Before this amendment, Article 74(1) of the Constitution only stated “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advice the President in the exercise of his functions”. This which was interpreted to mean that the President had some discretion. The 42nd Amendment made it mandatory for the President to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, thus eliminating any discretionary power. Now, the amended article read, “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice.”

This amendment 1) made it mandatory for president to act on aid and advice. Further by making provision in the constitution itself, 2) if the president does not act as per advice, it became clear that the ground of impeachment.

44th Amendment Act

he 44th Amendment retained the provision that the President must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. However, it reintroduced the President’s right to send back the advice once for reconsideration. If the Council of Ministers reiterated their advice, the President was then required to act on it. This restored a degree of discretion to the President, allowing for a second review of the executive’s advice.

The article 74(1) now read, (1) There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice:

Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.

According to the constitutional experts, this amendment was not correct in accordance to the parliamentary system. It was not motivated by any democratic concern but by political calculations. i.e. If the prime minister is from Congress and president from non-Congress, non-Congress parties can utilize the institution in their favor.  Both, 42^nd and 44^th amendment left the pocket veto as it is.

It is to be noted that even after the dissolution of Lok Sabha, the President in the exercise of his powers, is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Supreme Court, in UN Rao vs Indira Gandhi (1971) stated that ‘any exercise of powers by the President without the advice of the Council of Ministers shall be unconstitutional as being violative of article 74(1). 

2.2 Discretionary Powers of President

Despite active efforts to curb and limit the powers of president, the President of India enjoys certain discretionary powers. 

1. Constitutionally, the President has a right to be informed of all important matters and deliberations of the Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister is obliged to furnish all the information that the President may call for. (Art 78). The major cause behind the displeasure of president Zail Singh during Rajiv Gadhi’s prime ministership was the government not providing the copy of certain report, violating article 78.
2. In case of advice tendered to President by Council of Ministers, under article 74(1), “President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice.” However, “President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.”
3. Article 111 of the constitution stipulates that, when a bill is presented to the President after being passed by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, the President can 1) give assent to the bill, making it an act 2) withhold assent (exercise of Pocket Veto) or 3) return the bill, if it is not a money bill, with a request for reconsideration by Parliament. If the bill is returned and passed again by both houses with or without amendments, the President must give their assent.

This provision to keep assent to the bill for indefinite time was exercised by the president Gyani Zail Singh in 1986 with regard to Indian Post office (amendment) bill. After the term of Zail Singh, the new president Venkataraman sent the bill back to parliament for reconsideration. Since the government had changed in meantime, the bill was not brought back to the parliament.

• Apart from above situations, the role of president also becomes important when there is fractured mandate after elections. If there are multiple claims to form government, president has discretion to decide who really may have the support of the majority and can form the government. Accordingly, he can choose the candidate.

The election of 1998 is a vivid example of this. After the elections, BJP and its allies secured 251 seats, 21 short of majority. No party secured clear majority. In exercise of his discretion powers, president Narayanan asked Vajpayee to “furnish documents in support of claim” and to secure a vote of confidence within ten days of being sworn in.

While the constitution grants certain discretionary powers to President, it is not always desirable for president to exercise them. We cannot equate presidential activism with judicial activism. As per the principles of parliamentary system, president is not an institution of accountability; it is parliament and ultimately people.

The post-independence experience suggests that the presidential activism was directed more by party considerations than democratic considerations. Whenever the position of Prime Minister is weak because of hung parliament, there is a scope for other institutions like Judiciary, President to increase their power.

Best explained by former president R. Venkatraman. ‘President is an emergency lamp’. Prime Minister is a main power and president comes to light only when main switch is off. It is not proper to call president as rubber stamp. President is a position of dignity. He is a symbol of nation; hence it is better to describe president as constitutional head.

In parliamentary setup the role of president is that of a friend, philosopher and guide. There are three rights of Queen in Britain (Explained by Bagehot) – Right to 1. Informed 2. Advice 3. Warn

2.3 Co-habitation

Co-habitation, refers to a situation in a semi-presidential system of government where the president and the prime minister come from different political parties. This typically occurs in countries where the president is directly elected by the people and has significant executive powers, but there is also a prime minister who is responsible for running the government and is accountable to the legislature.

The concept of co-habitation is a feature of French constitution. In France, the position of president is good/smooth when prime minister is also from his party. However, the problem arises when they are from different parties. Co-habitation impacts the smooth functioning of government.

3. Vice President of India

Like president, the Vice President of India is elected for five years. His election method is similar to president, except that the members of state legislatures are not part of the electoral college. The office of vice president is the second-highest constitutional office after the president and ranks second in the order of precedence and first in the line of succession to the presidency.

The Vice President acts as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and takes over the office of the President when there is a vacancy by reasons of death, resignation, removal by impeachment or otherwise.

The Vice President acts as the President only until a new President is elected. In Indian history, vice president B. D. Jatti acted as President on the death of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed in 1977, until a new President was elected.

4. Council of Ministers

As laid down in Article 74, there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister the head to aid and advice the President… 

After elections, the political party or a coalition which successfully won the majority of seats makes claim to form the government. A leader who has the support of the majority is appointed by the President as Prime Minister. The Prime Minister then decides who will be the ministers in the Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister allocates ranks and portfolios to the ministers. Depending upon the seniority and political importance. The prime minister and all the ministers have to be members of the Parliament. If someone becomes a minister or prime minister without being an MP, such a person has to get elected to the parliament within six months. (In the same manner, Chief Ministers of the States choose ministers from their own party or coalition.)

4.1 Collective Responsibility

The council of ministers, headed by prime minister, is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This provision means that the government which loses confidence of the Lok Sabha is obliged to resign. The principle indicates that the ministers is an executive committee of the Parliament and it collectively governs on behalf of the Parliament. In the U.K. the concept is that of individual and collective responsibility of ministers. However, our constitution only provides for collective responsibility. There is no no-confidence against a single minister. i.e. the council of ministers stands and falls together.

In Britain, every act or order for the public is countersigned by a Minister. Thus, there is ministerial responsibility. In India, however, ministers have no legal accountability for acts of the state which are done in the name of the president and are required to be countersigned by a secretary or an authorized officer.

4.2 Size of Council of Ministers

Before the 91st Amendment Act (2003), the size of the Council of Ministers was determined according to exigencies of time and requirements of the situation. But this led to very large size of the Council of Ministers. Besides, when no party had a clear majority, there was a temptation to win over the support of the members of the Parliament by giving them ministerial positions as there was no restriction on the number of the members of the Council of Ministers. This was happening in many States also. Therefore, an amendment was made that the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15 percent of total number of members of the House of the People (or Assembly, in the case of the States).

5. Prime Minister

There is often debate on whether the position of the Prime Minister in India vis-à-vis other ministers should be described as “primus inter pares” (first among equals) or as “inter stellas luna minor” (moon among the stars). While there are some institutional factors which contribute to this, a lot also depends on the personality of the prime minister and the position of his party in parliament.

1. The Prime Minister in Indian setup enjoys a pre-eminent place in the government. The Council of Ministers cannot exist without the Prime Minister. The Council comes into existence only after the Prime Minister has taken the oath of office.
2. Further, the death or resignation of the Prime Minister automatically brings about the dissolution of the Council of Ministers but the demise, dismissal or resignation of a minister only creates a ministerial vacancy.
3. The prime minister acts as a link between council of ministers in one end and the president as well as parliament on the other.
4. Prime minister leads the nation in international arena.

However, as said above, a lot also depends on prevailing political situation and the personality of prime minister. Whenever there is majority of a single political party, the position of prime minister is unassailable.

On the other hand, in a coalition government, major decisions often necessitate consultations between political partners, and this erodes the authority of the prime minister. Prime minister cannot unilaterally choose his own ministers, nor can he be adamant about government policies and programs. Thus, prime minister has to act more as a negotiator than as a leader of the government.

We can also trace out how the personalities of different prime ministers played role in their position vis-à-vis council of ministers.

Pt. Nehru

Initially, Nehru shared power with strong leaders like Sardar Patel, maintaining a collegial atmosphere within the Cabinet. However, after Patel’s death, Nehru’s dominance increased, and he became more of a central figure, overshadowing other ministers and leading the government with considerable personal authority.

Indira Gandhi

In case of Indira Gandhi, she transformed the parliamentary system into a more centralized prime ministerial system. Her tenure saw a significant shift towards authoritarian trends, and diminishing the collective nature of the Cabinet. There was less consultation from the Council of Ministers, and loyalists within the government had more influence than the ministers themselves.

Rajiv Gandhi

In case of Rajiv Gandhi, his preference for technocrats and advisors diminished the role of experienced ministers, leading to a more top-down approach in decision-making.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Despite leading a coalition government, Vajpayee’s strong and charismatic personality allowed him to maintain effective leadership.

Manmohan Singh

While in his first term, Singh managed to provide effective leadership despite coalition constraints, in his second term, the emergence of a diarchy with Sonia Gandhi affected exercise of his powers. This resulted in a division where Singh had the responsibility but not the full authority.

Narendra Modi

Narendra Modi has centralized power significantly, much like Indira Gandhi. His dominant personality has led to a strong prime ministerial role, with a marked reduction in the collective nature of the Cabinet’s decision-making. This has enabled him to push through major reforms and initiatives, reflecting a highly centralized leadership style.

Thus, the role of the prime minister vis-à-vis the council of ministers has varied greatly, largely influenced by the personalities of the individuals holding the office. While some, like Vajpayee, managed to lead effectively even in coalition settings, others, like Indira Gandhi and Modi, have centralized power to a great extent. Conversely, the diarchal setup during Manmohan Singh’s second term illustrates how power can shift away from the formal head of the government, depending on the political context and personalities involved.

6. Office of Governor

As per Art 153, there shall be a governor for each state. According to article 154, the executive power of the state shall be vested in Governor…

The Governor is the constitutional head of each of the Indian states, functioning as the representative of the President at the state level. He is appointed by the President, and the tenure of Governor is typically five years, though they can remain in office until a successor is appointed. The role of the Governor is largely ceremonial, mirroring the parliamentary system where the real executive power rests with the elected Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers. However, the Governor holds significant discretionary powers, resulting in, at times, misuse of these powers.  

6.1 Need for post of Governor.

Like union system, India have adopted ‘parliamentary system’ even at the state level, and according to the theory of parliamentary system, there is a need of two heads i.e. nominal and real head. Further, parliamentary system is inherently unstable, thus, the head with fixed term is needed for the purpose of continuity in administration. Additionally, since parliamentary system is based on party politics. Hence a head is needed who can be treated as above party politics.

All of these factors, coupled with India’s experience with the British system, the secessionist tendencies of Indian states and the experience of partition, led to naturally incorporate the office of Governor in Indian political setup. As suggested by Paul Brass, unlike Nehru’s view, Indian constitution has been framed not in the atmosphere of optimism but in the atmosphere of fear, trepidation.

Thus, at state level, if the Chief Minister is the real head, Governor is a nominal head. Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh case has clarified that there is no difference in the status of President and Governors, both are constitutional heads.

6.2 Duties and Powers of Governor

1. Governor’s responsibilities include giving assent to bills passed by the state legislature, summoning and proroguing the state legislative assembly, and dissolving the legislative assembly on the advice of the Chief Minister.
2. The Governor also plays a key role in the administration of the state by appointing the Chief Minister, who must have the majority support in the state legislative assembly.
3. During times of President’s Rule in a state, the Governor assumes more direct control over the state’s administration, acting under the guidance of the President and the central government.

Governor has dual responsibility. Besides the nominal head of the state, he is also a link between union and state. In the words of Sarkaria commission, ‘Governor is a lynchpin’.

Unlike USA, which has dual federalism, India has cooperative federalism. The union and the state governments are not independent, rather they are interlocked. Governor has an important position in linking the two sets of governments. However, in reality, the institution of cooperative federalism turns out to be the institution of bargaining federalism.

As a lynchpin, Governor has to do ‘bridge-building’. 1) He has to communicate the state’s aspirations to the Union and 2) Governor has to national perspective at the state level. Thus, Governor is like ‘eyes and ears’ of Union at the state. Governor is like ‘long arm’ of Union with iron fist and velvet gloves.

6.3 Discretionary Powers of Governor

When a constitutional functionary has to take decision solely on the basis of reason, it is called discretionary power. According to Indian constitution, Art 163 (1) – “There shall be a council of ministers with the Chief Minister as the head to aid and advice the Governor, except where constitution requires Governor to act in his discretion.”

There are five broad areas where Governor can exercise his/her discretion.

1. Art 174 prorogue and dissolve the assembly. 
2. Art 175 – Send messages to the assembly. 
3. Art 200 – Giving ascent to the bills. 
4. Art 201 – Reservation of Bills for president’s consideration. 
5. Art 356 – Recommendation of president’s rule.

In some states like Nagaland, Governors have special responsibility.

6.4 Scope of Governor’s Discretionary Powers

According to Art 163(2). “If any question arises whether the matter is such where Governor should exercise his discretionary powers or should not exercise, the decision of Governor will be final and cannot be called into question.” (Suggesting that such exercise of power is beyond the scope of judicial review.)

Further, according to Art 361 – “Neither president, nor governor is answerable to any court for anything said or done in context of its constitutional responsibility.”

However, Supreme Court in Nebam Rabia case opined that, “the decision of governor is not beyond the scope of judicial review. Judiciary can enquire whether the action of governor was with mala-fide intention.”

6.5 Examples of the arbitrary exercise of power.

Most of the examples are with respect to the misuse of Art 356. The misuse started during the time of Pandit Nehru itself.

 1) 1952 – Governor of Tamil Nadu T Prakasam, instead of inviting communists who had more seats invited C Rajagopalachari of Congress to form the government. 

2) In 1959 the first misuse of Art 356 when the communist government of Kerala was thrown out of power without valid reasons.

3) In 1984, Governor of Andhra Pradesh dissolved the government on the ground that NTR (N T Ramarao), the then Chief Minister was abroad for medical treatment. 

6) In 2016 the Governor of Uttarakhand gave government time to prove the majority but dissolved the assembly 1 day before. The basis of the decision was a sting operation released by media. The governor assumed that existing Chief Minister will offer bribe to the MLAs to support him.

8) 2017, Governors of Goa and Manipur did not invite the largest party to form the government. In Goa BJP got 13 seats, Congress got 17 seats. In Manipur BJP got 21 seats, Congress got 28 seats. Both places, BJP was invited to form the government.

9) In recent case of Maharashtra, around 40 MLAs of ruling Shiv Sena decided to go with opposition (BJP party). While the matter of defection of these MLAs was sub-judice, the governor asked Chief Minister Uddhav Thackery for a floor test. Fearing humiliation, Thakrey resigned and the leader of rebel MLAs Eknath Shinde sworn in as new Chief Minister. Later Supreme Court ruled that the decision of Governor to direct the floor test was illegal. However, nothing could be done since Thakrey had already resigned.

Above analysis show, whichever is the ruling party at union, it tends to misuse the position of governor.

6.6 Should we abolish the post of Governor?

According to legal experts like Gautam Bhatiya, it would be a great service to the nation if we abolish the post. However, since that is not possible because of the parliamentary system, it would be better to reform the post.

6.7 What Reforms are Needed?

1] Reform the system of appointment.

Governors are appointed by Union. The bigger problem is constitution hardly mentions the qualification. Only two qualifications – Must have completed 35 years of Age, Citizen of India.

The issue was raised in the assembly. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargav asked Pandit Nehru, we should provide specific qualifications to prevent misuse. Pandit Nehru assured that there is nothing to worry, healthy conventions will be followed. What conventions? 1) Eminent persons.  2) Governor will not be from the same state.  3) No active political or administrative background.

6.8 Actual Practice

Spoils system was introduced. Means appointment of favorites. The post of Governor became the post of rehabilitation for the rejected politicians. The politicians losing elections have been made governors and have been used to undermine the Chief Ministers elected by the people. 

Besides this, ex-Bureaucrats including judges have been appointed even without cooling period.

What is to be done?

1)  Since healthy conventions have not been followed, it is better to write the qualifications in black and white.

2) Rajamannar committee of Tamil Nadu Govt., Sarkaria Commission, 1st ARC, 2nd ARC suggested prior consultation with the Chief Minister. If Chief Minister is not comfortable, such person should not be appointed.

3) Punchhi commission suggested to use the platform of inter-state council, prepare a panel, appoint Governors in auto-pilot mode.

Above suggestions can improve the situation.

6.9 Removal of Governor

As far as removal of Governors is concerned, Governors are at the pleasure of President, which means Union govt. In this context, Supreme Court’s Ruling in B. P. Singhal vs Union of India case 2010 has made the necessary amendments.  1) According to Supreme Court, pleasure doctrine for removal is acceptable.  2) Union should retain the power to remove the Governor, whenever it become necessary in its point of view.  3) No need to give reasons to the governor, no need to give opportunity to the governor to present his case.

However, 1) Governors should be allowed to complete their terms. 2) Governor adheres to an ideology different from the ideology of ruling party at the union is not a basis to remove governor. 3) The decision of the union executive is subjected to the judicial review.

6.10 Important judgements of Supreme Court on Governor

1] Hargovind Pant vs Raghukul Tilak case 1974. The judgement was given by constitutional bench, with unanimity. 1) The office of Governor is a constitutional office of dignity.  2) Even when Governor is appointed and removed by Union, he is not employee of Union.  3) He is not answerable to Union for the conduct of the duties of his office.  4) Discretion of the Governor should be Governor’s discretion and not Union government’s discretion.

2] Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India case 2006. Supreme Court expressed concerns over the state of the institution. Held that the office of Governor is a office of dignity. Governor takes the oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and to serve the people of the state.

3] D C Badhawa vs State of Bihar. Ordinance making power of Governor. The ordinance making power cannot be the basis for bypassing the power of parliament or legislature. It will be treated as ‘colourable exercise’ and fraud on the constitution. It is within the scope of judicial review.

6.11] April 2025 SC Judgement (Governor of Tamil Nadu)

In a recent landmark judgment on April 8, 2025, in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu v. the Governor of Tamil Nadu & the Union of India (2025), Supreme Court clarified the constitutional boundaries of a Governor’s powers concerning state legislation.

However, before getting into the SC judgement, let us understand the powers of governor concerning Bills.

1] Article 200

Article 200 of Indian Constitution holds that that when a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State and is presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare:

1. Either that he assents to the Bill or
2. He withholds assent therefrom or
3. He reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President.

Additionally, Governor can also return the bill for reconsideration of assembly. However, once such bill is presented to the governor again (with or without changes), Governor cannot withhold his assent.

2] Application of Article 200

In practice, the 2^nd provision i.e. withholding assent to the bills was used by governors as Pocket veto i.e. indefinitely holding the bill without either returning or  passing to the President’s consideration.

In light of such misuse of powers. Tamil Nadu government approached Supreme Court.

3] Supreme Court Judgement

1. The Supreme Court found under the Constitution, Governors were entitled neither to exercise a veto nor a pocket veto over the State Legislative Assembly’s Bills. Nor could Governors first return a Bill to the State Legislature, and then refer it to the President.
2. The President, as well, when considering State Bills, could not withhold their assent unless there was a constitutionally-sanctioned reason for doing so .
3. Supreme court further laid down specific timelines within which the Governor and the President were required take action on State Bills.
4. Further, in this specific case, having found that the Governor had acted without bona fides, and that years had passed since the Bills were first sent to his office, the Supreme Court invoked its power to do “complete justice” under Article 142 of the Constitution, and held that these Bills were deemed to have been passed, and were now law.

4] Analysis by Gautam Bhatia

Many of the Governor related provisions were not extensively written down by the constituent assembly. It was left to the constitutional conventions. The system relied on the good faith. However, it was prone to misuse and it extensively happened. The provision needed a correction and Supreme Court have done that.

However, by prescribing a timeline, Supreme Court has crossed its mandate and gathered more power for itself. Such intervention is not sustainable in the long term. The recent judgement is only a band-aid and an urgent discussion on the outdated provisions of Constitution is needed, starting with the office of Governor.  Reference

6.12 Way forward

Governors can do great good if they are good governors. They can do great harm if they are bad governors. – Soli Sorabjee in his book ‘Sage or Saboteur’

The importance of Governor has increased because of rising internal security challenges.  Discretionary powers cannot be used in arbitrary manner. – Punchhi Commission

Former prime minister Manmohan Singh gave four mantras to the Governors in Governors conference. 1) You are the sole judge of what is right and what is wrong. 2) You have to see what is in the best interest of the country. 3) It is your judgement to understand mandate of the constitution. 4) It is your obligation to understand what people expect from you.

7. A Short Note on Permanent Executive: Bureaucracy

Apart from politically elected executives, bureaucracy or the administrative machinery remains an important part of executives. This wing is often called as civil service, to create a clear distinction from the military service. Bureaucracy consists of trained and skilled officers who work as permanent government employees, and assist ministers in formulating and implementing policies.

The administrative machinery Includes all-India services, state services, and local government employees. The recruitment of these is done through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and State Public Service Commissions. The recruitment is done based on merit, with provisions for reservation for weaker sections.

7.1 Functions and Purpose of Bureaucracy

While the elected representatives and ministers oversee the administration and the legislature exercises control over the administration, administrative officers must adhere to policies set by the legislature. It is expected that the bureaucracy will be politically neutral. It must implement policies of the current government regardless of political changes.

Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS) serve as the backbone of higher-level bureaucracy in the States. While these are appointed by the central government but work under State government supervision. However, the central government retains disciplinary control.

7.2 Problems with Present Bureaucracy

1. Political Interference: Across the spectrum, political interference is regarded as the biggest cause that inhibits the full potential of Indian bureaucracy. Civil servants often face pressure to align with political agendas, compromising their impartiality and efficiency.
2. Corruption: Widespread corruption at various levels, leads to inefficiency and loss of public trust.
3. Red Tape and Bureaucratic Delay: Excessive procedural formalities and paperwork result in delays. Inefficient processes hinder timely implementation of policies and delivery of services.
4. Lack of Accountability: The government policies are often designed to address multifaceted issues that require comprehensive, long-term strategies. As a result, the goals set forth in such policies are broad and ambitious, making it difficult to translate into specific, actionable objectives for bureaucrats. This results in a situation where there is no proper performance metric for bureaucrats. This makes it difficult to hold bureaucrats accountable.
5. Centralized Decision-Making: Concentration of decision-making power at higher levels, also leads to inefficiency and disconnect from local issues.
6. Poor Work Culture and Low Motivation: Bureaucratic work culture often marked by complacency and lack of motivation. Performance-based incentives and promotions are rare. This discourages the new recruits, perpetuating the system.
7. Insensitivity to Public Needs: Bureaucrats are often perceived as being unapproachable and insensitive to the needs of ordinary citizens. Public services are not always citizen-friendly and there is public fear and perceived insensitivity of bureaucrats.

7.3 Reforms Needed in Indian Bureaucracy

1. Ensuring Bureaucratic Accountability: Strengthen mechanisms for accountability, such as performance evaluations and public feedback systems. This can also be done by more initiatives on the line of RTI act.
2. Reducing Political Interference: There needs to be stricter guidelines to protect civil servants from undue political interference. This can also be done by laying down clear guidelines, in matter of appointments and transfers of civil servants.
3. Simplifying Procedures and Reducing Red Tape: These is need to streamline administrative processes to reduce delays and inefficiencies. There needs to more initiatives in areas like e-governance and digitalization of public services.
4. Improving Training and Capacity Building: There needs to be provision for continuous training programs to equip civil servants with modern governance skills. Additionally, civil servants also need to be trained in in public relations and customer service, to make them more approachable.

By addressing these issues and implementing the necessary reforms, the Indian bureaucracy can become more efficient, transparent, and responsive to the needs of the public, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of governance in the country.