Presidents are not just rubber stamps

going to india to elect its new president on 18 July, The new president will take oath on July 25. The election of a presidential candidate is an intensely political exercise. Deep political calculations go into it. This is the reason why the country is often surprised by the election of the ruling party. But once the President is elected, the enthusiasm wanes and Rashtrapati Bhavan does not get much attention for the next five years.

issue of importance

Yet, in the current political climate, the question is ‘what kind of president does India need?’ holds great importance. It is true that the candidate of the ruling coalition is going to be the next President. Still, the stature, moral standing, and level of acceptability of the individual are important considerations when the country elects a new president.

Read also | BJP wants President’s office to be rubber stamp: Yashwant Sinha

Let’s first take a closer look at the president who emerged from the constitution. There was a lot of debate about the President in the Constituent Assembly. The main question therein was whether India should have a directly elected President or an indirectly elected President. The Assembly opted for an indirectly elected President. There were members like Professor KT Shah who argued vigorously for a directly elected President. He asked a rhetorical question, which was whether the Assembly wanted the President to be “the Prime Minister’s mere gramophone”. Dr. BR Ambedkar said: “Our President is only a nominal person. He has no conscience; He has no power of administration.”

But is the President of India only a person? Article 53 of the Constitution states that “the executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.” This means that the President exercises these powers only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. So, it makes sense for people to ask why we should have a president who signs on the dotted line. The way some of our presidents have acted in the past reinforces public perception. But we must not forget that some of our presidents lived up to the implications of the office of President of the Republic. So, we come back to the question of how important this office is to the governance of the country.

Voting method, role of people

To answer this question, we first need to take a closer look at method of election of the president, It is an indirect election in the sense that the people do not directly elect the President. Under Article 54, the President is elected by an electoral college consisting of only elected members of both the Houses of Parliament and elected members of the State and Union Territory Assemblies.

However, the point of importance in this context is the vote value of the members of the Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) and the formula for its calculation. A legislator’s vote, however one, is given a certain high value. This value is calculated by first dividing the total population of the state (as per the 1971 census) by the total number of Legislative Assembly, and then dividing the quotient by one thousand. The result is the value of one vote. Calculated in this way, for example, the vote value of an MLA in the state of Uttar Pradesh is 208.

The point is that the population of the state is an important factor in calculating the value. In other words, the population of the country is an important factor in the election of the President, which means that the presence of the people is very much visible in the process of election of the President. It gives a wider base to the President on the basis of one member, one vote as compared to a vote by legislators only. It also gives more moral authority to the President. So, the Indian President is not and cannot be just a rubber stamp. He does not directly exercise the executive authority of the Union, but he may disagree with the decision of the Council of Ministers, caution them, advise them, and so on. The President can ask the Cabinet to reconsider its decisions. It is another matter that if the cabinet after such reconsideration sends back the same resolution without any changes, then the President will have to sign it. This is because under the cabinet system of government, it is the cabinet which is responsible for the decisions of the government. The President is in no way personally responsible for the decisions he approves.

editorial | Known Unknown: On the presidential election

But the point to be noted is that the President can disagree with the decisions of the Cabinet and ask the Cabinet to reconsider them. The Constitution of India wants the President to be cautious and accountable, and gives him the freedom to have a broad view of things unaffected by the narrow political view of the executive.

This thing becomes more clear when we take a look at the oath taken by the President before assuming office. The oath contains two solemn promises. First, the President will uphold, defend and defend the Constitution. Second, the President shall dedicate himself to the service and welfare of the people of India. A President who makes the above promises under oath to the people cannot act as the Prime Minister’s gramophone, in the words of Professor KT Shah.

But how does a president defend, protect and defend the Constitution? This is a very difficult area. Experience shows that our President usually does not think about his oath when the executive proceeds to bulldoze the rights and liberties of citizens. There are very few democratic countries in the world where the executive has concentrated as much power in itself as in India. This trend began in the 1970s, and over the years the executive has grown into a giant figure.

an approach

So, when the almighty executive takes steps to crush the liberties of citizens, in general, people do not think of approaching the President, who is otherwise sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The reason is that the President usually does not intervene on behalf of the aggrieved citizens, even if there is a gross violation of the rule of law and constitutional guarantees given to the citizens. There were presidents like Rajendra Prasad and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan who openly differed with the government on certain policy issues and could exert tremendous influence on the government. Thus, it is possible for the President to disagree with the government or intervene on behalf of the citizens against the tyranny of the executive and persuade him to go his way. The solemn oath that the President takes is required to be done. Such persons can rise to the level of President alone; Others can only be holders of the presidency. India needs presidents, not the holders of the presidency.

PDT Acharya is former Secretary General of Lok Sabha