Parliamentary Form of Government

At a Glance

• What it is India has opted for the British parliamentary system of government rather than the American presidential system, at the Centre and in the states
• Other names Westminster model, responsible government, cabinet government
• Articles 74 and 75 at the Centre; 163 and 164 in the states
• Basis Co-operation and co-ordination between the legislative and executive organs
• Swaran Singh Committee (1975) Found the parliamentary system to be doing well and saw no need to replace it by the presidential system
• Exam link UPSC Prelims, Polity: Salient Features

Where Does It Fit?

The category on basic concepts compared the parliamentary and presidential systems in general. This topic takes up India’s own choice of the parliamentary form of government. It explains why the Constitution-makers preferred the parliamentary system and how the Indian model differs from the British one.

What Is India’s Parliamentary System?

The Constitution of India has opted for the British parliamentary system of government rather than the American presidential system. The parliamentary system is based on the principle of co-operation and co-ordination between the legislative and executive organs, while the presidential system is based on the doctrine of separation of powers between the two organs.

The system is also known as the Westminster model of government, responsible government and cabinet government. The Constitution establishes it not only at the Centre but also in the states. Articles 74 and 75 deal with the parliamentary system at the Centre, and Articles 163 and 164 deal with it in the states.

The features of parliamentary government in India are the presence of nominal and real executives, majority party rule, collective responsibility of the executive to the legislature, membership of the ministers in the legislature, the leadership of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, and the dissolution of the lower House (the Lok Sabha or the Assembly). Article 74 provides for a council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister to aid and advise the President, and the 42nd and 44th Amendment Acts have made the ministerial advice binding on the President.

In a parliamentary system, whether in India or Britain, the role of the Prime Minister has become so significant that political scientists like to call it “Prime Ministerial Government”.

Why Did the Constitution-Makers Choose It?

A plea was made in favour of the US presidential system in the Constituent Assembly, and K.T. Shah favoured its adoption. The founding fathers nevertheless preferred the British parliamentary system for four reasons.

1. Familiarity with the system: The Constitution-makers were somewhat familiar with it, as it had been in operation in India during British rule. K.M. Munshi argued that for thirty or forty years some kind of responsibility had been introduced in the governance of the country, that constitutional traditions had become parliamentary, and asked why the country should go back and buy a novel experience.
2. Preference to more responsibility: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar pointed out in the Constituent Assembly that a democratic executive must satisfy two conditions, stability and responsibility, and that it had not been possible to devise a system that ensures both in equal degree. The American system gives more stability but less responsibility; the British system gives more responsibility but less stability. The Draft Constitution preferred more responsibility to more stability.
3. Need to avoid legislative-executive conflicts: The framers wanted to avoid the conflicts between the legislature and the executive that are bound to occur in the presidential system of the USA. They thought an infant democracy could not afford a perpetual feud or threatened conflict between the two organs, and wanted a form of government conducive to the manifold development of the country.
4. Nature of Indian society: India is one of the most heterogeneous states and most complex plural societies in the world. The parliamentary system offers greater scope for giving representation to various sections, interests and regions in the government, which promotes a national spirit and builds a united India.

Whether the parliamentary system should be continued or replaced by the presidential system has been a point of debate in India since the 1970s. The Swaran Singh Committee, appointed by the government in 1975, considered the matter in detail and opined that the parliamentary system has been doing well, and hence there was no need to replace it by the presidential system.

How Does the Indian Model Differ from the British Model?

The parliamentary system in India is largely based on the British parliamentary system, but it never became a replica of it.

Three Prime Ministers of India, Indira Gandhi (1966), Deve Gowda (1996) and Manmohan Singh (2004), were members of the Rajya Sabha when they held office.

Why Is This Topic Important?

• Explains the system: It gives the reasons for India’s choice and answers the standard question on how the Indian model differs from the British.
• Statements for Mains answers: Ambedkar’s remarks on stability and responsibility and Munshi’s remarks on familiarity can be quoted in Mains answers.
• Links to the basic structure: The parliamentary system is one of the elements of the basic structure.

What Came Next?

The next topic examines the synthesis of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy, the other point on which India differs from the British model.

Key People and Terms

• Westminster model The parliamentary system, named after the location of the British Parliament
• Swaran Singh Committee Appointed in 1975; found no need to replace the parliamentary system
• K.M. Munshi Argued from familiarity with responsible government
• K.T. Shah Favoured the presidential system in the Constituent Assembly
• Shadow cabinet A British institution formed by the opposition; absent in India
• Stability and responsibility The two conditions Ambedkar set for a democratic executive

Exam Corner

Mains Angle

Questions ask for the reasons for the choice and the differences from the British system. Use these points to add depth.

• Responsibility over stability: Ambedkar said the Draft Constitution preferred more responsibility to more stability.
• An infant democracy: The framers wanted to avoid the legislative-executive conflict they associated with the presidential system.
• Representation: The heterogeneity of Indian society made a system that offers wide representation suitable.
• Not a replica: India has a republic, a limited Parliament, a Prime Minister from either House, and no legal responsibility of ministers or shadow cabinet.
• Tested and retained: The Swaran Singh Committee found it unnecessary to replace the system in 1975.