Article 74 of Indian Constitution: Council of Ministers and Presidential Advice
India’s democratic framework operates on a delicate balance of power, with its Constitution meticulously outlining the roles, responsibilities, and limits of each branch of government. A pivotal component in this architecture is Article 74 of the Indian Constitution. It defines the relationship between the President—the head of state—and the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister. This provision not only anchors the parliamentary system but also preserves the spirit of responsible government by ensuring that executive decisions reflect the collective will of elected leaders rather than unilateral presidential discretion.
From the turbulent early years of the Republic to landmark Supreme Court cases, Article 74 has been both tested and upheld as a bedrock principle of Indian democracy. Its ever-evolving interpretation continues to shape how power is wielded at the highest levels of government. To appreciate its impact, one must look beyond its short textual provision to its historical context, judicial interpretation, and real-world significance.
The Text and Scope of Article 74
The Literal Provision and Its 42nd and 44th Amendment Modifications
Article 74, in its original form, stated: “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 succinct phrasing not only sets up the Council of Ministers as a constitutional body but also makes it explicit that the President is expected to act according to their advice.
The waters, however, became muddied during the Emergency era. In 1976, the 42nd Amendment further tightened this provision by making it mandatory for the President to act “in accordance with” the advice of the Council of Ministers—removing any ambiguity.
Barely two years later, the 44th Amendment clarified another critical aspect: that the President might require the Council to reconsider its advice once, but “shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.” This introduced an important, though limited, check while cementing the supremacy of ministerial advice.
Historical Influences and Comparative Context
India’s Article 74 draws inspiration from the Westminster model, where the monarch is bound by ministerial advice. Yet, the Indian context—given its written Constitution and history of colonial rule—required codification for clarity and to avoid disputes like those that marked pre-independence regimes.
In practice, Article 74 ensures a ceremonial presidency, with real executive authority vested in the elected government. This distinguishes India from purely presidential systems such as the United States, where the President can override cabinet advice.
Role of the Council of Ministers: Collective Responsibility and Policy Direction
Article 74 enshrines the idea that governance is a collective exercise. The Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, is responsible for all decisions made in the President’s name.
Collective Responsibility and Parliamentary Ethics
The concept of collective responsibility, mirrored in Article 75, stipulates that the entire Council of Ministers is accountable to the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament). This means:
- Policy decisions, even if formulated by individual ministers, ultimately require collective cabinet approval.
- If the Lok Sabha passes a vote of no confidence, the entire Council—including the Prime Minister—must resign.
This framework acts as a bulwark against arbitrary rule. As constitutional expert D.D. Basu notes:
“The advice tendered to the President must be the result of collective deliberation and not the whim of any individual minister. The President acts, but the responsibility always traces back to the Council.”
The Prime Minister’s Central Role
While the Council acts collectively, the Prime Minister emerges as “first among equals.” The PM heads decision-making, shapes the Cabinet agenda, and communicates advice to the President. In times of coalition politics—which have defined several eras of Indian governance—the Prime Minister’s skill in forging consensus within a diverse cabinet becomes especially crucial.
The President’s Role: Limits, Discretion, and Constitutional Duties
The Ceremonial Nature of Presidential Powers
Although the President is the formal head of the Indian Union, actual executive powers are wielded based on the advice of the Council. The President’s functions—ranging from summoning Parliament to promulgating ordinances—are acts carried out under ministerial guidance.
Exceptions to this rule are rare and carefully circumscribed. In moments of constitutional ambiguity—such as selecting the Prime Minister when no party has a clear majority—the President’s discretion comes into play. Even then, established conventions and precedents act as guide rails.
Reconsideration Power After the 44th Amendment
The 44th Amendment’s introduction of the power to ask for reconsideration is significant. It allows the President a brief—though important—window for pause, reflection, and potential cautioning of the Council. However, once the advice is tendered a second time, the President is constitutionally bound to comply.
This amendment was, in part, a response to the perceived misuse of executive power during the Emergency period. It aimed to provide a constitutional safety valve without undermining parliamentary supremacy.
Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases
The Supreme Court of India has frequently clarified Article 74’s contours, especially during periods of political flux or constitutional challenge.
Landmark Judgments
- Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): The Court held that the President and Governors must exercise all executive functions strictly on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The judgment anchored responsible government as an immutable constitutional value.
- S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): In the context of President’s Rule, the Court reaffirmed that the President cannot act without or against Cabinet advice.
- R. K. Jain v. Union of India (1993): The Supreme Court reiterated that the right of the President to ask for reconsideration of advice is a constitutional right.
Beyond these, a host of cases have shaped the practical limits of “aid and advice.” The judiciary’s consistent stance has preserved parliamentary democracy while preventing presidential activism.
“The President is not a rival center of power, but a symbolic head who embodies the unity and continuity of the nation. Article 74 is the constitutional bridge that ensures that the real power remains with those who are directly accountable to the people.”
— Justice P.N. Bhagwati, summarizing the essence of executive responsibility.
Article 74 in Practice: Crisis, Coalition, and Contemporary Relevance
The Emergency and Its Aftermath
The Emergency (1975-77) starkly illustrated the vulnerabilities in India’s executive structure. Indira Gandhi’s government wielded sweeping powers, triggering concerns over presidential rubber-stamping and the erosion of constitutional checks and balances. The subsequent amendments to Article 74 were direct responses to these excesses, designed to restore accountability and democratic processes.
Coalition Governments and Shifting Complexities
In the era of coalition governments, the Council of Ministers often comprises diverse partners with varied interests. The President’s role in government formation—especially in the event of a hung Parliament—has sometimes become the focus of scrutiny. Here, Article 74 operates in tandem with constitutional conventions and precedents, balancing the letter of the law with the realities of parliamentary arithmetic.
Recent Debates and Continuing Significance
Article 74 continues to be discussed in contemporary political analysis, particularly when questions arise about executive accountability or the line between presidential and prime ministerial prerogative. Its principles influence not just the protocol of decision-making, but also the durability of Indian parliamentary democracy.
Conclusion: Enduring Safeguard of Responsible Government
Article 74 of the Indian Constitution is far more than a procedural clause. It is a foundational pillar that sustains the delicate equilibrium between the President’s role and cabinet responsibility, ensuring that executive power remains tethered to democratic accountability. By embedding the principle of aid and advice at the constitutional level—and by allowing minimal but meaningful presidential discretion—it guards against both arbitrary rule and paralysis, reflecting a mature synthesis of historical experience and institutional foresight.
As India continues to evolve, Article 74 remains a living testament to the country’s commitment to responsible, accountable, and representative governance.
FAQs
What is the main purpose of Article 74 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 74 ensures that the President of India acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, maintaining the principle of responsible government and preventing arbitrary use of executive powers.
Can the President of India refuse to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers?
The President can ask the Council of Ministers to reconsider its advice once, but after reconsideration, the President is constitutionally bound to act on the advice provided.
How did the 42nd and 44th Amendments affect Article 74?
The 42nd Amendment made it mandatory for the President to act according to ministerial advice, while the 44th Amendment introduced a provision allowing the President to ask for reconsideration of advice one time.
What role does the Council of Ministers play under Article 74?
The Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, collectively guides and advises the President, thereby holding real executive authority and being accountable to Parliament.
When does the President have discretionary powers under Article 74?
The President’s discretionary powers are highly limited, typically arising only in specific situations like appointing a Prime Minister when no party commands a clear majority in the Lok Sabha.
Why is Article 74 considered vital for parliamentary democracy in India?
Article 74 anchors the supremacy of the elected government, ensures smooth executive functioning, and protects the constitutional principle of collective responsibility, which is central to the parliamentary system.
