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.
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.”
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 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, 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.
Central to Article 74 is the doctrine of collective responsibility. This means:
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.
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.
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.
While Article 74 requires compliance with ministerial advice, constitutional conventions and the 44th Amendment allow the President limited recourse:
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.
Article 74 has been a subject of judicial scrutiny, sharpening its contours over time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Charitable organizations serve as pillars of welfare and social growth, addressing gaps in healthcare, education,…
Few legal protections are as deeply rooted in the fabric of criminal justice as the…
The Indian Constitution stands out among the world’s great charters for its dedication to fundamental…
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) stands as the foundation of criminal law in India, meticulously…
In India’s legal landscape, the principle of joint liability forms the spine of prosecuting offenses…
In India's parliamentary system, fiscal policy is both a political linchpin and a constitutional balancing…