India
Presidential Election in India, a Remnant of British Rule?
How Ambedkar was faced with the mammoth task of coming up with a constitutional framework that would suit the needs of Independent India.
After weeks of convincing and canvassing of presidential candidates nominated by various political parties, NDA government’s pick for President’s post Ram Nath Kovind was sworn in on 25 July. He was picked from his home and driven to Parliament in a special buggy. The Chief Justice of India administered oath to the new President. This is the second time a Dalit is holding the Presidential office– after K R Narayanan who served between 1997 to 2002.
The Presidential Office in India is the highest authority in the country and is one of the most prominent remnants of the British Rule. Like the British Crown, the post of President is that of a figurehead. And yet, unlike the role of the monarch in Britain, President is given powers that the King does not enjoy. The story of how the role and President’s powers came, needs to be traced back to post-Independence.
Framework of the Presidential Office
Post Independence, before we had our own Constitution, India was given a dominion status among Commonwealth Nations. King George VI was the head of the state and his representative in Independent India was Governor General.
Under the leadership of B R Ambedkar, the Constituent Assembly had a mammoth task of coming up with a framework that would suit the needs of Independent India. Years were spent poring over constitution of other countries. One particular model wasn’t taken– rather, best administrative ideas from different countries were taken to form the Constitution document. The Constituent Assembly framework for the the Presidential Office is the best example of this.
Dr B R Ambedkar said in a speech to Constituent Assembly :
The President occupies the same position as the King in English Constitution. He is head of the nation but not of the executive. He represents the nation but does not rule it. He will be bound by advice of his ministers. He can do nothing contrary to their advice and nor can he do anything without their advice.
More Power than British Monarch
The President of India has comparatively more power than the the British monarch. Unlike the case of Britain where the Prime Minister’s advice is final and not subject to further consultations, the President can bar a decision by a minister or ministers– and send the decision to cabinet of Ministers for further discussion. The powers of Prime Minister of India is diluted compared to the Prime Minister of Britain. Some decisions of the Cabinet require President’s seal of approval.
Dr B R Ambedkar had also said that what the role of President borrows from the US is the name of head of the state however unlike the US, where the President is elected both directly and indirectly by the people– the electoral college here elects the president.
There was a debate in the Assembly on the nature of electoral procedure for President. As the President was the representative of the nation, some members of the assembly felt that direct election would bring about a sense of unity in the country. The electoral college, they believed, could not represent the people’s will. These arguments were rejected and indirect form of election for presidential office was adopted. The rationale behind this, Jawaharlal Nehru explained:
“The framers of the Indian Constitution wanted to emphasise the ministerial character of the Government that power really resided in the Ministry and in the Legislature and not in the President as such…Now, therefore, if we had an election by adult franchise and yet did not give him any real powers, it might become slightly anomalous.”
No Direct Election
Dr Ambedkar agreed with Nehru. He said, “having regard to the size of the electorate, the paucity of administrative machinery, necessary to manage elections on such a vast scale and that the President does not possess any of the executive or administrative powers which the President of the United States possesses, it is unnecessary to go into the question of adult suffrage and to provide for the election of the President on that basis.”
