Article 74 of Indian Constitution: Council of Ministers and President’s Aid

Article 74 of the Indian Constitution sits at the core of India’s parliamentary democracy, defining the foundational relationship between the President—the ceremonial head of state—and the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister. Far from being a purely theoretical provision, Article 74 has shaped real-world governance, navigated constitutional crises, and influenced pivotal Supreme Court decisions. By codifying the President’s obligation to act on ministerial advice, this article is not simply a legal technicality but a safeguard for democratic accountability. Amid evolving politics and frequent power shifts, Article 74’s relevance echoes through daily governance and momentous national events alike.

Article 74: Text and Constitutional Framework

The original text of Article 74 is concise, yet its implications are profound:

“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.”

Historical Context and Intent

When India’s Constituent Assembly debated Article 74 (then Draft Article 61), concerns revolved around preventing any return to colonial days of discretionary executive power. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution, reasoned that the real executive power should vest in the Council of Ministers, with the President bound to act on their advice—in contrast to the Governor-General of British India, whose discretion could override elected advice.

This framework enshrines the Westminster model, ensuring the executive remains accountable to the legislature and, by extension, the people.

The 42nd and 44th Amendments: Clarifying the President’s Role

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976), passed during the Emergency, explicitly bound the President to act on ministerial advice—leaving no ambiguity about where executive authority lies. Later, the 44th Amendment (1978) introduced a critical nuance: the President could “require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice,” but after reconsideration, must accept it.

This balance addressed fears of presidential rubber-stamping while preventing presidential activism. As constitutional law expert Dr. Subhash Kashyap puts it:

“The President has the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn—but not to veto the will of the elected government.”

The Council of Ministers: Collective Responsibility and Dynamics

Composition and Functioning

The Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, is the nerve center of India’s executive machinery. It comprises three tiers: the Cabinet Ministers (core decision-makers), Ministers of State, and Deputy Ministers. Decisions are made collectively, reflecting the majority will, with the Prime Minister serving as the link between the Council and the President.

Principles of Collective Responsibility

Central to Article 74 is the doctrine of collective responsibility. This means:

• The entire Council stands and falls together; if a government loses the confidence of the Lok Sabha, all ministers must resign.
• Advice to the President is a Cabinet decision, not that of an individual minister.
• Dissent is permitted only within Cabinet meetings; public unity is mandatory.

This principle, emulated from the United Kingdom, has ensured government stability and coherence in policymaking, even as coalition governments have become more frequent in India’s diverse political landscape.

Real-World Demonstration: The 1979 and 2014 Transitions

The fall of the Janata Party government in 1979, leading to the resignation of Prime Minister Morarji Desai, and the subsequent appointment of Charan Singh, was handled entirely within the Article 74 framework. More recently, the 2014 general elections saw a smooth transfer of power from the incumbent United Progressive Alliance to the National Democratic Alliance, reflecting the constitutional provision’s robustness.

The President’s Powers: Limits and Influence

Acting on Aid and Advice

Article 74 removes scope for personal discretion in routine matters. The President, while holding vast formal powers—appointing the Prime Minister, assenting to bills, declaring emergencies—exercises these powers strictly on the advice of the Council. In exceptional cases, such as a hung parliament, the President’s role in inviting a leader to form the government gains prominence but remains guided by established conventions.

Scope for Dissent: Advisory vs. Binding Roles

While Article 74 requires compliance with ministerial advice, constitutional conventions and the 44th Amendment allow the President limited recourse:

• The President may send back advice for reconsideration, once.
• After reconsideration, the advice is binding.

This mechanism has rarely led to deadlock, but notable instances—such as President KR Narayanan questioning the imposition of President’s Rule in Bihar in 1998—show the President’s power to seek clarification or highlight constitutional concerns.

Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s Guidance

Article 74 has been a subject of judicial scrutiny, sharpening its contours over time.

Key Supreme Court Decisions

• Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab (1974): Affirmed that the President (and the Governors) must act on ministerial advice, delineating ceremonial versus real powers.
• S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994): Clarified limits on executive power concerning the dismissal of state governments, strengthening federalism.
• Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955): Distinguished between “de jure” and “de facto” executive, reinforcing Cabinet supremacy.

The Secrecy of Advice

Ruling on several occasions, the Supreme Court has held that advice given by ministers to the President cannot be questioned in court, nor is the President required to disclose it—a safeguard promoting frank ministerial counsel, unhindered by political fallout.

“The underlying spirit of Article 74 is to ensure a seamless fusion of ceremonial leadership and responsible executive government,” notes constitutional scholar Granville Austin.

Article 74 in Practice: Controversies and Crisis Management

Political Crises and Presidential Discretion

During times of political uncertainty—like hung parliaments, votes of no-confidence, or potential misuse of presidential powers—the relevance of Article 74 becomes pronounced. Choices such as dissolving the Lok Sabha or appointing a Prime Minister in a fractured mandate underscore the delicate interplay between written law and constitutional convention.

Recent Examples

While the majority of presidential actions are routine, exceptions persist. For instance, the controversy over government recommendations for President’s Rule in states (particularly before judicial interventions in the 1990s) illustrated the tension between political expediency and constitutional boundaries. Over time, clarity evolving from Supreme Court judgments has minimized such disputes.

Evolving Debates: Accountability, Transparency, and Good Governance

Calls for Enhanced Presidential Oversight

Critics occasionally suggest expanding the President’s powers to act as a more robust constitutional check. However, the prevailing consensus is that the President’s primary role is safeguarding the Constitution, not acting as a super-executive. Strengthening internal mechanisms—such as detailed cabinet notes and robust legislative scrutiny—remains the preferred path for enhancing government accountability.

International Comparisons

India’s system closely mirrors the United Kingdom’s, where the monarch acts only on ministerial advice. Contrasts can be drawn with presidential systems (e.g., the United States), where the President is directly elected and wields real executive power, highlighting Article 74’s unique contribution to parliamentary democracy.

Conclusion: Article 74—Pillar of Responsible Government

Article 74 of the Indian Constitution stands as a pillar ensuring the primacy of a democratically elected executive while retaining constitutional checks through the office of the President. Its evolution—through amendments, conventions, and judgements—underscores India’s journey towards institutional maturity. As political dynamics evolve, the essence of Article 74 continues to balance authority and responsibility, ceremonial dignity and democratic legitimacy, making it a cornerstone of the world’s largest democracy.

FAQs

What is the main purpose of Article 74 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 74 ensures the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, placing real executive authority in the hands of the elected government and guaranteeing responsible governance.

Can the President of India ever refuse the Council of Ministers’ advice?
The President may send advice back for reconsideration once but must ultimately accept it, as clarified after the 44th Amendment.

How does Article 74 compare to similar provisions in other countries?
It resembles the United Kingdom’s system where the monarch acts only on ministerial advice, unlike presidential systems such as the U.S., where the President exercises real executive power.

What happens if the Council of Ministers loses the Lok Sabha’s confidence?
The entire Council, including the Prime Minister, must resign, emphasizing the principle of collective responsibility essential to parliamentary democracy.

Has Article 74 been involved in any major constitutional crises?
Yes, Article 74’s scope has been central in times of political instability, such as the dismissal of state governments and during hung parliaments, with the Supreme Court and presidential discretion shaping outcomes.

Why can’t the President’s advice from ministers be made public?
The confidentiality ensures candid, uninhibited advice within the government, a practice supported by Supreme Court rulings to protect the integrity of the executive process.