ASSIGNMENT REPORT

ON

PAPER 1

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY

ASSIGNMENT TOPIC

FEATURES OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT , ITS MERITS AND DEMERITS

SIGNATURE

-----------------------------

1
 CONTENTS

 Introduction

 Parliamentary system of government

 The theory of parliamentary system

 Characteristics of parliamentary system

 Merits of the parliamentary system

 Demerits of the parliamentary system

 Constitution and function of the Indian parliament

 Functions of Lok Sabah and Rajya Sabah

 Features of our parliament

 Why the framers of the Indian constitution adopted for the parliamentary form of

government?

 Conclusion

 Suggestions

 Reference

2
 INTRODUCTION

In primitive societies a single man-the chief or king-could himself supply all the powers of
Government. In the fifth century B.C. Herodotus classified all governments as monarchies
that are a government by a single person, aristocracies that are a government by elites and
democracies that are a government by all. Slowly, the concept of Democracy originated in
larger and more civilized states. Nowadays Democracy is preferred over other forms of the
government as in democracy decisions are ultimately controlled by all the members of the
society rather than by some specially privileged subgroup or one powerful member.

Almost every one in the world believes in democracy. But there is no agreement as to what
‘democracy’ is? There are many types of democracies e.g. liberal democracy, people's
democracy, guided democracy, proletarian democracy and so on. Many insist that only the
particular set of political institutions constitute true democracy. The term ‘democracy’ has
both a descriptive and also a persuasive function.

The meaning of ‘democracy’ can be summed up in the phrase ‘government by the people”.
The word Democracy (Greek: demos=people) means a state wherein the supreme power
belongs to the people or to their representatives. In his famous address at Gettysberg,
Abraham Lincoln described democracy as the “government of the people, by the people and
for the people,".

According to Daniel Webster1 “the people's government made for the people, made by the
people, and answerable to the people". Parliament2 is the chief instrument through which
that power is exercised. The people cannot administer the government. They ; cannot
themselves perform. They cannot normally initiate and propose the necessary legislation. A
mass cannot govern. Modern democracies hinge on majority rule. Power of the people is
exercised over the people by the people who constitute voting majority. Basic concepts of
democracy are: popular sovereignty, equality and self-government.

In a nutshell, as Austin Ranney says the working definition of democracy may be regarded as
“a form of government organized in accordance with the principles of popular sovereignty,
political equality, popular consultation and majority rule".3 Different countries have adopted

1
Amid Dhandha, N S Bindra's Interpretaion of Statutes 2 (5th Ed. 2010)
2
Ibid

3
different forms of government. The suitability of the one or the other form of Government
depends upon different factors like population, economy, social structure, social tensions and
consensus and political culture etc. of that country.

Every political system operates in an environment, and certain characteristics of the particular
environment contribute materially towards determining both its form of government and its
policy outputs. Broadly speaking, forms of democratic government may be summarised into
Parliamentary system, Presidential system and Convention type system or combination of any
two of these.

The framers of Indian Constitution adopted the British model of parliamentary government
because Independent India is a product of the most massive freedom movement. Hence it
could be a mass democracy, based on universal adult franchise. However they did not make it
a sovereign law making body like its English counterparts. They placed supremacy in the
hand of legislature, but it had to be restricted because unlike Great Britain, India has a
lengthy written Constitution, a federal distribution of powers and a list of fundamental rights.

Therefore parliamentary law to be valid must confirm in all respects with the constitution. In
the classic parliamentary example of the United Kingdom, the Parliament is the depository of
not only the legislative and executive powers but the ultimate judicial authority (the law lords
in the House of lords acts as the highest court of appeal). The Indian federal experiment also
significantly departs from the classic American federal system in as much as the Indian states
neither enjoy the residual legislative power (which belong to Parliament) nor is there equal
representation of federating states in the federal second chamber (as in the U.S. Senate). The
most important feature of Indian Constitution is Rule of Law and it is reflected in the
fundamental rights of citizens, specially the right to equality, liberty and justice and the
concept of “the procedure establish by law” which is explicitly mentioned in the Art. 21, but
it actually underlies all rights.

Indian democratic system presents a peculiar paradox of the fusion of parliamentary and
federal features of the governmental functioning. The founding fathers sought to inherit the
unique semblance of the Westminster model despite the peculiarities of the indigenous
political set up. However, they also attempted to imbibe the dynamism of the American

4
presidential system owing to its distinct characteristics and viability for a vast democratic
multiethnic society.

This symbolizes between the parliamentary and presidential system has its decisive bearing
on the relationship between and among the three important pillars of governmental trinity,
namely, legislative, executive and judiciary. In every democratic system which has rule of
law and written Constitution, the Constitution becomes the Supreme law of the land and if it
incorporates Judicial Review as a fundamental feature of government, it entrusts to the
judiciary a pivotal role as a guardian of those constitutional values which are effective check
and safeguard against blatant abuse of governmental power. 4

Like all modern democratic Constitutions the Indian Constitution entrenches Judicial Review
as a paramount principle of public law and ultimately it is the Supreme Court which is the
final arbitrator of issue of constitutional interpretation. Judicial Review upholds the
supremacy of the Constitution, adjusting the Constitution to new condition and needs of the
time resulting into social and economic benefits to the people, evolving the consciousness of
right and keenness to achieve redress against violation of individual rights.

The separation of power has a great significance. It creates democratic balance in the
different branches of the government. In America it form the basis of it constitutional
structure in India, India follow a separation of function not separation of power. In practical
application three branches of the government have three separate of work.

Though just like American Constitution in Indian Constitution also, there is express mention
that the executive power of the union and of a state is vested by the Constitution in the
President and the Governor; respectively by Art. 53(1) and 154(1), but there is no
corresponding provision vesting the legislative and judicial powers in any particular organ. It
has accordingly been held that there is no rigid separation of power in India.

4
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (1997): Guidelines for the Training of Parliamentary Staff, CPA,
London
5
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

Parliaments are common over the whole of the civilized world. English parliament is the
Mother of all Parliaments. Parliamentary Government has been defined as “Government by
talk” or more precisely, “control of Government by talk”. The word “Parle” is a French word
and it means “Talk”.5 Parliament is often described as a mere “Talking shop”. Though this
description is used opprobrious, that is what the word ‘Parliament’ means and largely it
describes the actual institutions. It is a place where people talk about the affairs of the nation.

In the U.K. the Parliament consists of the King, the House of Lords and the House of
Commons. All three functionaries join together to complete the actions of Parliament. Both
the Houses are in fact two different institutions having different characteristics and different
functions.

The earliest document in which the word Parliament is found is the 11th century “Chanson de
Roland”, where it is used simply to refer to a conversation between two persons. However,
the word soon acquired a derivative meaning that of an Assembly of persons in which
discussions took place. Contemporaries referred to the meeting at Runnymede as the
‘Parliament’ in which King John “gave his charter to the barons.6

By 1258 ‘Parliament’ had evidently began to acquire a special meaning. In June of the same
year, one of the reforms demanded by the barons at Oxford was three ‘Parliaments’ a year to
treat the business of the King and the Kingdom. Therefore, it is clear that the essence of
Parliament is discussion and when the word was first applied to the great Councils of the
English Kings it was with a view to emphasizes its deliberative function.

The origin of Parliament may be traced to two ideas and both these ideas are of great
antiquity. 7

1. The first is that the King, always sought the advice of a council of the wisest and the most
experienced of his subjects,

5
Dua, B.D. et al. (ed.) Indian Judiciary and Politics, Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 2007, p.
19
6
Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution ; Corner-Stone of a Nation (London : Oxford University Press,
1966)
7
Ibid
6
2. The second idea is that of representation. Feeling his way toward an ideal of self-
government man has invented various Assembly and Parliament, at many different periods
and in many different countries

The Norman Kings held their courts in different Parliaments of the country and summoned
therein the prominent members of the Church, big Landlords and Knights for discussion on
national affairs. They were not the representatives of the people in the sense in which today
we understand the word ‘representative’. It took eight centuries to transform Parliament into a
governing body resting on the suffrage of all adult persons in the country. Earlier its form
was very different from what it is today. The origin of Parliament can be traced to the
Witanegemot and the Great Council.8

In 1295, Edward I summoned the ideal Parliament to which attention of the King was drawn
to sanction funds for public cause and before which problems of the people were placed. The
British King was not empowered to impose taxes without the approval of the Parliament. In a
bloodless revolution in 16889, Parliament attained supremacy. But the Parliament was not
democratic in character due to its limited franchise. With the passage of time persons of
young age were given the right to vote.

THE THEORY OF PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

There are four things involved in the system of parliamentary democracy. First is the
Parliament of elected representative candidates. The second is a system of Parties, each
reflecting some general trend of thought pervading all the society-which will submit to the
electorate a number of candidates for its choice and the programme of policy for which the
candidates stand.

A system of parties is a necessary part of any system of representation. Granted an organised

electorate and a system of national parties, the third characteristic is a cabinet that guides the
parliament, and yet at the same time is itself guided by the parliament. The adjustment of the
whole machinery of the representative system of government is very fine and delicate. The
last and the foremost characteristic is the idea of representation 10. Each of the above four
concepts has to fit into the other three, each has to play its part and to be content with its part.
But practically it is not the easy thing for any of the four to be so content. Every human

8
Dr. Avatar Singh, Parliamentary form of governance, 5th Edn., Central Law Publications, (2015)
9
Ibid
10
Lok Sabha Secretariat : Information Folder-Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training Report (2011)
7
institution tends naturally to institutionalism. It exaggerates itself. The problem of human
government is a problem which can never be solved absolutely.

There are certain requisites for this system to be successful. It is said that an ounce of practice
is worth a pound of theory. Factionalism or irreconcilable conflict of parties is the one of the
saddest defects of a parliamentary system, for the party system is perhaps the most difficult of
all the elements.

The great merit of the parliamentary system is that it provides a constant training ground for
the statesmen, with an arena of peaceful competition in which they can test and measure their
powers before a watching and judging world.11

On the basis of the relationship between the executive and the legislature, governments have
been divided into two types, namely, the parliamentary form of government and the
presidential form of government. Between the two, the former is older. In the parliamentary
form of government, the executive is responsible to the legislature, but in the presidential
type, the executive is not responsible to the legislature.

In the Parliamentary form of government, the Parliament is supreme, and the governments,
comprised of some members of the Parliament, are accountable to it. Some of the best
examples of Parliamentary government are the governments in Britain, India, Australia and
Canada.12

CHARACTERISTICS OF PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

In the parliamentary system the chief executive of the state (Prime Minister) is not elected
directly by the people, but he is normally the leader of the majority party in the Parliament.
He chooses his own Cabinet which again, normally should be out of the Parliament only. The
entire Cabinet is accountable to the Parliament and as soon as it looses confidence of the
Parliament, it has to resign from the, office. As against this, in the Presidential system, the
chief executive i.e. the President is elected directly by the people for a fixed term and he
13
chooses his own ministers (called 'secretaries' in the U.S.). Neither the President nor the
Secretaries are accountable to the Parliament i.e. Congress.

11
SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in/Parliamentary democracy
12
Amid Dhandha, N S Bindra's Interpretaion of Statutes 2 (5th Ed. 2010)
13
Kashyap, Subhash C. (2003): Parliamentary Procedure - The Law, Privileges, Practice and Precedents (Two
Volumes), Universal Law Publishing Company, New Delhi.
8
1. Nominal or Titular Head:

In a Parliamentary form of government, there two heads, namely, nominal and real. The
nominal head is one who, though head of the state, is not head of government. His powers are
more apparent than real. He may be hereditary or elected.14

The British Queen is not elected. She got the throne on the heredity. But the President of
India who is also a nominal head has been el Parliamentary-government the real powers are
exercised by a Council of Ministers by a Prime Minister.

2. Collective Responsibility and Individual Responsibility:

The C Ministers is collectively responsible to the lower house of the legislature. It policy
decisions collectively and it collectively goes out of office when it loses thee of the lower
house of the legislature. A minister may express his disagreement policy when it is discussed
in the cabinet meeting, but he has to defend and support the cabinet takes the decision. A
minister is also individually responsible to the P for the acts of omission and commission of
his department.15

3. Political Homogeneity:

The ministers, normally being members of political party, share the same ideology and
approach. Even when there is a c government, the ministers are committed to a common
minimum programme. B single party government and a coalition government, there is a fair
amount of h and cooperation among the ministers. However, a single party government is
homogeneous than a multy-party coalition government,

4. Harmony between Executive and Legislature:

In a Parliamentary government the ministers are drawn from the legislature. As ministers,
16
they are part of the executive. They also remain members of the legislature. Thus the dual
identity of ministers con to a harmonious relationship between the executive and the
legislature.

5. Rigidity of Party Discipline:

14
Ibid
15
Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com
16
Gupta, Ram Kishore (ed.) (1993): Parliamentary Companion - A Work for Reference and Record, Shikha
Publication, New Delhi
9
In a Parliamentary government, the party discipline is rigid.17 The members of a political
party whether in power or in opposition are required to defend and support the stand of their
party on any issue both in the legislature and outside.

6. Leadership of the Prime Minister:

The Prime Minister is the leader of the C of Ministers. On his advice, the ministers are
appointed and dropped. They stay in during his pleasure. He presides over the meetings of the
cabinet. He exercises preponderant influence in domestic policy as well as foreign policy.

He is more powerful and important than any other member of the cabinet. It has been rightly
observed that “he (Prime Minister is central to its (ministry’s) birth, central to its life and
central to its death.”18

We can pointed out other features as19

(1)In a Parliamentary system powers are centered in the Parliament, The Legislature takes the
responsibility of government.

(2) The executive is divided in two parts- Head of the state i.e. Monarch or the President, and
the head of the Government i.e. Prime Minister. The former, is the titular head and the latter
is the real executive head. Relationship between the two has been regulated in India by the
law of Constitution while in England it is left to the operation of flexible conventions.

(3) The head of the State appoints the head of the Government. In case of Majority
Parliamentarianism, the President or the crown has no option but in minority
Parliamentarianism the President or the crown may enjoy prerogative in this matter.

(4) The head of the Government has full say in appointment of his Ministry. Ministers are
formally appointed by the crown but Prime Minister alone is responsible for the composition
of the Ministry.

(5) The Ministerial responsibility is collective. It indicates both the cause and the effect of the
cabinet solidarity. The Government can remain in office as long as it enjoys the confidence of
popular house.

17
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (1997): Guidelines for the Training of Parliamentary Staff, CPA,
London
18
Ibid
19
Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com
10
(6) Collegiate Nature of the executive indicates that a decision making process has been
shifted to a collective body.

(7) Ministers are usually members of the Parliament.

(8) The head of the Government may advice the head of the State to dissolve the Parliament.

(9) There is a mutual dependence between the government and the parliament.

(10) The government as a whole is only indirectly responsible to the electorate.

(11) Though the ultimate power to control and supervise the executive rests with the
Parliament, in practice, it is the Prime Minister who has become all powerful.

(12) This system does not represent truly the principle of separation of powers. There is no
separation of personnel between the executive and the legislature.

MERITS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

 One of the commonly attributed advantages to parliamentary systems is that it’s faster
and easier to pass legislation. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon
the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of
the legislature20. Thus, this would amount to the executive (as the majority party or
coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes in order to pass
legislation.
 Evidently, an executive in any system (be it parliamentary, presidential or semi-
presidential) is chiefly voted into office on the basis of his or her party’s
platform/manifesto. It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily
instituted within a parliamentary system.21
 In addition to quicken legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for
nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided.
 In a uni-personal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the
president.
 In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. It can
also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure

20
Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution ; Corner-Stone of a Nation (London : Oxford University Press,
1966)
21
Dua, B.D. et al. (ed.) Indian Judiciary and Politics, Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 2007, p.
19
11
 of parliamentarianism. The prime minister seldom tends to have as high importance as
a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its
political ideas than voting for an actual person.22
 Parliamentarianism has been praised for producing serious debates, for allowing the
change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time.

DEMERITS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

 Weak Separation of Powers:

In this system, the principle of separation of powers is violated. As the ministers are the
members of the ruling party or coalition, they dominate policy-making though, in principle,
policy-making is the domain of the legislature.23

 Cabinet Dictatorship:

The Council of Ministers, with the support of the majority in the lower house of the
legislature, tends to be authoritarian and irresponsible. Being assured of the support of the
majority, it does not care for the feelings and views of opposition.

It has also little respect for the legislature as the majority is bound to supp the government.
Thus, the Cabinet Government is reduced to party government, and parliamentary democracy
is turned into Cabinet Dictatorship. Lord Herbert is, to so extant, right in criticizing the
Cabinet system as ‘the New Despotism’.24

 Failure to Take Prompt Decision:

As the Council of Ministers does not enjoy a fixed tenure, it is not able to adopt any bold,
long-term policy. The problem is compounded I in a coalition government which is often
unstable. The coalition partners tend to fight among themselves. As a result, they fail to adopt
any bold policy.

According to Dicey, I government fails to take prompt, bold and effective steps during a
crisis or a war. The Prime Minister takes time to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to
take a decision. Similarly, it is not easy for the government to persuade the legislature to take

22
Amid Dhandha, N S Bindra's Interpretaion of Statutes 2 (5th Ed. 2010)
23
Ibid
24
Lok Sabha Secretariat : Information Folder-Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training Report (2011)
12
a prompt decision to manage a crisis. This stands on the way of taking quick decision even in
emergency situation.25

 Partisanship:

In a Parliamentary system, political parties are guided morel partisan motives than by
national or people’s interests. The ruling party and the opposition I pee each other as
enemies. While the ruling party seldom sees any merit in the criticism the opposition, the
opposition often opposes the government for the sake of opposition.

 Government by Amateurs:

The Parliamentary government lacks competence and effectiveness, because the ministers are
mostly amateurs. As the ministers have to be appointed from among the members of the
legislature, the scope for appointing talented and competent people as ministers is limited.

Many times, important considerations in appointing ministers are not skill, competence and
talent but caste, religion, community faction and influence in the party.26

 Control by Bureaucracy:

While the Cabinet is powerful, more powerful is the bureaucracy. The ministers, being
mostly amateurs, depend upon civil servants for expert advice and guidance. The civil
servants exercise real powers in the name of minister. They do not come out to the front.
They are not accountable to the legislature.

It is the ministers who are held responsible for the decisions taken by civil servants in the
name of ministers. This leads to irresponsibility and redtapism. Ramsay Muir has aptly
observed, “Bureaucracy thrives upon the cloak of ministerial responsibility.”27

The Parliamentary form of government, no doubt, has certain lacunae. In particular, it is

handicapped by immense partisanship, lack of expertise, and difficulty in taking prompt
decisions during crises, but its main merit is accountability.

25
Ibid
26
Kashyap, Subhash C. (2003): Parliamentary Procedure - The Law, Privileges, Practice and Precedents (Two
Volumes), Universal Law Publishing Company, New Delhi.
27
Gupta, Ram Kishore (ed.) (1993): Parliamentary Companion - A Work for Reference and Record, Shikha
Publication, New Delhi
13
CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTION OF THE INDIAN PARLIAMENT

The Indian Parliament comprises of: 28

1. The President

2. Lok Sabha (House of the People)

3. Rajya Sabha (Council of States)

Parliament is the supreme legislative body of the country. The President is elected through
the system of proportional Representation by means of the single transferable Vote. The
Constitution provides that the President will act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

Lok Sabha is constituted for a term of five years through direct election held based on adult
franchise. Lok Sabha elects one of its own members as its Presiding Officer and he is called
the Speaker. He is assisted by the Deputy Speaker who is also elected by Lok Sabha. The
conduct of business in Lok Sabha is the responsibility of the Speaker.

Rajya Sabha constitutes of representatives of each State who are elected by the elected
members of the Legislative Assembly of a State and 12 members are nominated by the
President. It is a permanent body with one-third of its membership renewed every second
year.29 The tenure of every member is six years. The Vice-President of India is the ex-officio
Chairman of Rajya Sabha, He is elected by the members of an Electoral College consisting of
members of both the Houses of the Parliament. Rajya Sabha also elects one of its members to
be the Deputy Chairman30

FUNCTIONS OF LOK SABHA AND RAJYA SABHA

The main function of both the Houses is to pass laws. Every Bill has to be passed by both the
Houses and assented to by the President before it becomes law. The subjects over which
Parliament can legislate are the subjects mentioned under the Union List in the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India. Broadly speaking, Union subjects are those important
subjects which for reasons of convenience, efficiency and security are administered on all-
India basis. 31

28
Dr. Avatar Singh, Parliamentary form of governance, 5th Edn., Central Law Publications, (2015)
29
supra
30
Lok Sabha Secretariat : Information Folder-Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training Report (2011)
31
Ibid
14
The principal Union subjects are Defence, Foreign Affairs, Railways, Transport and
Communications, Currency and Coinage, Banking, Customs and Excise Duties. There are
numerous other subjects on which both the Parliament and the State Legislatures can
legislate. Under this category, mention may be made of economic and social planning, social
security and insurance, labour welfare, price control and vital statistics.

Besides passing laws, the Parliament can by means of resolutions, motions for adjournment,
discussions and questions addressed by members to Ministers exercise control over the
administration of the country and safeguard the people’s liberties.

FEATURES OF OUR PARLIAMENT

Our system of Government is the “Parliamentary system” on the British pattern also called
the Westminster model. In a Parliamentary system there is no strict separation of powers
between the Legislature and the Executive. It involves a fusion of legislative and executive
powers than a strict separation of those powers.32

Executive is divided into two parts-President is the Head of the State who reigns the country
and the Prime -Minister is the head of the Government, who governs the country.

All the actions are taken in the name of the Head or the President, but responsibility is that of
the Councils of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minster. The executive is drawn from the
legislative-majority and can count on automatic endorsement of its programmes. The
Ministers are to be members of Parliament. 33

The cabinet enjoying the majority in the Parliament concentrates in itself the virtual control
of both the legislative and executive functions. The executive has the primary responsibility
for the formulation of governmental policy and its transmission in to the Law. The
responsibility for success or failure of policies is clear and identifiable

Why the framers of the Indian Constitution adopted for the Parliamentary Form of
Government?

The members of the Constituent Assembly because of their experience during British times
entertained suspicion and mistrust of executive autocracy. They had much greater faith in the

32
Kashyap, Subhash C. (2003): Parliamentary Procedure - The Law, Privileges, Practice and Precedents (Two
Volumes), Universal Law Publishing Company, New Delhi.
33
Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
15
legislature as protector of peoples’ rights. Sapru Report suggested about the Parliamentary
type executive. Some of the Muslim members in the Constituent Assembly supported the idea
of elected Ministry on the Swiss model. Munshi in his Draft Constitution provided for a Head
of State with powers like those of the British monarch and a British Cabinet system with joint
responsibility of ministers.

The Union Constitution Committee at first thought of making an express provision that the
Prime Minister should be a person most likely to command a majority in the Lower House of
Parliament. This idea was subsequently given up and it was merely provided that the Council
of Ministers should be headed by a Prime Minister to aid and advise the President. Another
proposal which was mooted was to make special provision to ensure greater governmental
stability. 34The Committee decided against this proposal as it thought that the ministries to be
formed in future would be Congress Ministries and in view of the great hold of the party over
the people, the ministries would not suffer from instability.

The Union Constitution committee decided that the electoral-college for the election of the
President should consist of two Houses of Parliament and the Lower Houses of the State
Assemblies. Pandit Nehru 35in the course of a speech expressed that the President should be a
non-party man and he should behave in an' impartial manner in his office. Dealing with the
suggestion that the President should be elected by adult franchise, Nehru observed that it
might result in slight anomaly as they wanted to emphasize the fact that the real power
resided in the ministry and the legislature and not in the President as such.

Munshi 36then came out with a suggestion that the President and the Governors be elected by
electoral-college directly elected for this purpose. There was initially some difference on the
point as to whether there should be a Vice-president. B.N. Rau did not contemplate the office
of Vice President. The Union Constitution Committee decided that besides the President
there should also be a Vice-President who too was to be indirectly elected.

For the States also they decided in favour of the system of Cabinet Government. Some
Muslim members favoured a directly elected head of the State and an indirectly elected
ministry. They believed that this would ensure greater protection for the minorities. Elected
ministries, according to the Muslim members, would be more stable considering the diversity

34
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (8th ed. 2007)
35
Amid Dhandha, N S Bindra's Interpretaion of Statutes 2 (5th Ed. 2010)
36
M.P. Singh, V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India (11th ed. 2008)
16
of India’s religious and other groups. Ministers, according to one suggestion, ought to be
elected by the members of the legislature from amongst their own number by proportional
representation and ought to have a fixed term of office as in Switzerland. Aziz Ahmed Khan
37
while dealing with the ministers in the States pleaded for their election by the State
Assemblies by a single non-transferable vote in order that all the parties on whose behalf the
ministers would govern should have a hand in their appointment to secure the confidence of
eveiy party. He expressed the view that very few parties were based on political principles
and most of them depended upon religious distinctions.

Munshi, while defending the British system observed that ministries elected by a system of
proportional representation would make their appeals to groups and this might led to
fragmentation of the political life of the country and would result in a feeble government.
Members were also told that the British system surpassed all others in terms of stability and
strength. An infant democracy cannot afford under modern conditions to take a risk of
perpetual cleavage,’ feud, or conflict between the legislature and the executive.

Looking at it from the point of view of responsibility, a non Parliamentary executive, being
independent of parliament, tends to be less responsible to the legislature, while a
Parliamentary executive, being more dependent upon a majority in Parliament, becomes more
responsible.38 The Parliamentary system differs from, a non Parliamentary system inasmuch
as the former is more responsible than the latter but they also differ as to the time and agency
for assessment of their responsibility. Under the non-Parliamentary system, such as the one
that exists in the United States of America, the assessment of the responsibility of the
executive is periodic. It takes place once in two years.

It is done by the electorate. In England, where the Parliamentary system prevails, the
assessment of responsibility of the executive is both daily and periodic. The daily assessment
is done by Members of Parliament, through questions, resolutions no-confidence motions,
39
adjournment motions and debates on Addresses. Periodic assessment is done by the
electorate at the time of the election which may take place every five years or earlier. The
daily assessment of responsibility which is not available under the American system is, far
more effective than the periodic assessment and far more necessary in a country like India.

37
Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution ; Corner-Stone of a Nation (London : Oxford University Press,
1966)
38
Surya Prakash, A. (1995): What Ails Indian Parliament ? An Exhaustive Diagnosis, Indus, New Delhi
39
Dua, B.D. et al. (ed.) Indian Judiciary and Politics, Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 2007, p.
19
17
The Draft Constitution in recommending the Parliamentary system of Government has
preferred more responsibility to more stability.

Looking in retrospect it can be said that whatever might have been the experience of the
United States about the Presidential system,40 the experience of that system in Asian and
African countries has been that hardly any President has gone out of office as a result of
election. Only natural death or coup has resulted in the displacement of the President. As
against that only in a Parliamentary system could Mrs. Gandhi be forced to step down from
the office of the Prime Minister as a result of elections in 1977 and again only in a
Parliamentary system could she return to that office in 1980 as a result of elections. One
looks in vain for such a precedent in Asian and African countries having Presidential system.
Another question which attracted interest was whether the appointment of the Prime Minister
rested on the discretion of the President.

Dr. Ambedkar 41in this context observed that it is not possible to avoid vesting the discretion
in the president but the only other way by which it could be provided for the appointment of
the Prime Minister without vesting the authority or the discretion in the President, is to
require that it is the House which shall in the first instance choose its leader, and then on the
choice being made by a motion or a resolution, the President should proceed to appoint the
Prime Minister. It was quite unnecessary. Supposing the President made the choice of a
wrong person either because he had not a stable majority in the House, or because he was
persona non-grata with the House : the remedy lies with the House itself, because the moment
the Prime Minister is appointed by the President, it would be possible for the House or any
member of the House, or a party which is opposed to the appointment of that particular
individual, to table a motion of no confidence against him and get rid of him altogether if that
is the wish of the House. 42

Therefore, one way is as good as the other and it is therefore felt desirable to leave this matter
in the discretion of the President. Rau in made a suggestion that the Constitution should
provide for a Council of State which would be a sort of Privy Council and whose advice
would be available to the President whenever he chose to obtain it in all matters of national
importance in which he is required to act in his discretion. According to Rau, this Council,
was to consist of the Prime Minister and his deputy, the Chief Justice, the Presiding Officers

40
Amid Dhandha, N S Bindra's Interpretaion of Statutes 2 (5th Ed. 2010)
41
Ibid
42
M.P. Singh, V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India (11th ed. 2008)
18
of the two Houses of Parliament, the Attorney-General, besides all former Presidents, Prime
Ministers, Chief Justices and others appointed by the President.

The Council was to have a dual role. It could advise the President on the appointment of
Judges and in the exercise of other such functions. The Council was also to advise the
President in the use of discretionary powers. Rau contemplated that the President would have
special responsibilities like the Governor General under the Government of India Act of
1935. Inspiration for the above proposal of Rau was sought in the Irish Constitution. Munshi
suggested for a council of elders to advise the President43.

According to Munshi the President should be directly elected and the council of elders should
comprise ten Vice-Presidents who were to be representatives of different communities and
princely States and certain Cabinet ministers. It was only on the advice of this Council that
the President could, according to Munshi, dissolve the Parliament, assent or refuse assent to
bills and promulgate ordinances.44 The President could also with the concurrence of six
members of the council take action against the will of the Parliament. Munshi’s idea was
criticised as it would split the executive into two sections. The members of the Union
Constitution committee rejected the suggestion of Munshi as well as the proposal of Rau.
Proposal was then mooted for an Instrument of Instruction for the President. The proposal
ultimately turned down.

The Instrument would enjoin the Head of the State to form an Advisory Board consisting of
not less than 15 members of both Houses of Parliament. These members were to be elected to
the Board by proportional representation and were to advise the President in the matter of
appointments like those of Chief Justices and Judges of the Supreme Court and the High
Courts, Ambassadors to foreign States, Auditor General of India, Chairman and Members of
the Public Service Commission and Members of the Election Commission. In the event of
any dispute between the President and his Advisory board,45 the matter was not in favour of
the unequivocal acceptance of the British Cabinet system. According to Ambedkar the
political majority as contemplated by that system, would be nothing more than the communal
majority. Such majority would be under no obligation to bring representatives of minority

43
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (1997): Guidelines for the Training of Parliamentary Staff, CPA,
London
44
Ibid
45
Surya Prakash, A. (1995): What Ails Indian Parliament ? An Exhaustive Diagnosis, Indus, New Delhi
19
communities into the cabinet. None of these suggestions, found favour and were ultimately
turned down.

The members of the Assembly also thought of preventing the Head of the State from serving
more than two terms in office. This was in accordance with the provisions of the Irish
Constitution. This restriction, though initially accepted was ultimately dropped as it was
thought that the matter should be left to convention. The question as to whether Union
Parliament should have an Upper House also evoked considerable interest. Before the
liberation of the country, Nehru Report had envisaged an Upper House of Legislature as a
part of the federal structure. It was said, such a house would provide an opportunity for
reconsideration of legislation in a somewhat cooler atmosphere than that provided in the
lower House. 46

This was necessary because of the existence of communal feelings. When the matter came up
before the Assembly, Rau, gave arguments both for and against the existence of an Upper
House. The arguments in favour of the Upper House were the desire to impose a check on
hasty legislation, the desire to provide representation for interests difficult to include in lower
House.47 The arguments against the formation of an Upper House were that it was
undemocratic and needlessly slowed down the democratic process. The Union Constitution
Committee decided in favour of the Upper House. It rejected the idea of equal representation
for each State in the Upper House. No Province or State was to have more than 20 members
in the Upper House.

The allocation of number of seats to the States and Union territories for the Council of States
is now governed by the Fourth Schedule. During last fifty four years Rajya Sabha’s only
utility so far exhibited is that it has offered a safe berth to the abruptly appointed Central
Ministers and popularly unwanted but comparatively important Politicians. Due to historical
reasons in the U.S. and the U.K48., the exodus is from the Lower to the Upper house, the
tendency is in the other way in India. There are more people in the Lower House with longer
experience than in the Upper House at any time Regarding the State legislatures the members
were not agreed as to whether there should be a Second Chamber. Some members said that
Upper Houses were a good check on the democratic process.

46
Dr. Avatar Singh, Parliamentary form of governance, 5th Edn., Central Law Publications, (2015)
47
Supra
48
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (8th ed. 2007)
20
Others expressed the view that the Upper Chambers would safe guard the interests of
propertied classes and vested interests which had buttressed and bolstered up British rule.
Some others said that an upper House introduced an element of sobriety and second thought.
As against that view was advanced that the Upper House would act as clogs in the wheel of
progress. The question of Upper House for the State legislatures was thereafter left to the
Provincial delegations in the Assembly. Most of the Provinces decided to have bicameral
legislature. Bombay, Madras, Bihar, East Punjab, U.P and Orissa and West Bengal decided in
favour of Second Chamber while Assam and Central Provinces decided against it. 49

While the general pattern of our Parliament is the same as the British Parliament, and for that
reason our study will involve comparison with the British Parliament but we have to note a
vital difference in the approach. In England, nobody gave powers to the Parliament, and no
Constitution made the Commons (except for the 1911 Act) more powerful than the Lords.

These powers were assumed by it because in England Parliament was the instrument through
which autocracy of the King was converted into democracy; and this was done because the
People slowly realised that the power really belonged to them. Our case is different. We have
made certain modification in the British system to suit our federal structure.50

ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY FORM’S APPLICABILITY IN INDIA:

After establishing the main features and aspects relating to both the forms of government, it’s
now time to analyze the conditions relevant in India since independence, tracing the past
records and comparing it with that of Presidential system, hypothetically. India celebrated its
65th Republic day this year and it also amounted to more than 60 years or six decades of
parliamentary democracy in our country. Time and again, there have been certain issues
which have distorted the image of the current polity like that of corruption, scams, party-
politics, economic slugger, denial of welfare at the altar of self-interest of the legislature and
so on.

This has led to a major doubt among the masses that whether the democracy really is “of the
people, for the people and by the people”. 51
Analyzing the conditions that have existed and
what would have been the conditions had there been the presidential system, by comparing it

49
Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com
50
Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution ; Corner-Stone of a Nation (London : Oxford University Press,
1966)
51
Surya Prakash, A. (1995): What Ails Indian Parliament ? An Exhaustive Diagnosis, Indus, New Delhi
21
with that of other country, like that of France and analysis shall be made in its case which
opted from the prior Parliamentary system to the present semi-presidential system.

According to Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of Indian

Constitution too favored the Presidential form of government as he believed that “A
Democratic Executive must be stable and responsible…”

However, the fulfillment of both the conditions is not possible since in the case of America
and Switzerland, the government is more stable than responsible, while in Indian and British
systems, the government is more responsible and less stable. Over the past post-Independence
years, there has been a change in the political parties both in terms of quality and quantity.

1951-5252 saw the first general elections in our country under the new constitution with the
British Parliamentary system as its model. The Indian Congress won the elections absolutely
with only about 15% total voting. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru became the first Prime Minister of
our country. Looking at the economic aspect of our nation, since 1951, the emphasis was laid
down on heavy industries in order to make the manufacturing sector the backbone of the
Indian economy. The agricultural sector comprised 60% and service sector a mere 30% in the
50s. India was then at the beginning stage to emerge as a planned economy and it had started
its journey afresh in those days. There were a lot of hindrances to the development of the
economy including the political obstacles towards opening up to the world through
international trade. Main focus was laid down on the domestic industries and products in an
effort to pace the economic growth.

In 197153, the Congress government came back to power with majority having Mrs. Indira
Gandhi as the PM. Her regime turned out to be more of a dictatorial one than a democratic
system. She was found guilty of misusing her powers in the election process by the Allahabad
High Court. Our then President, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declared the Emergency under
Article 352 of the Indian Constitution. This proclamation gave the powers to the Union
Government to maintain and defend the law and order in the nation. Mrs. Indira Gandhi
postponed the national and state elections and suspended many of the civil liberties on the
grounds of threat to national security and crush of law and order in the country. 54

52
Amid Dhandha, N S Bindra's Interpretaion of Statutes 2 (5th Ed. 2010)
53
Dua, B.D. et al. (ed.) Indian Judiciary and Politics, Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 2007, p.
19
54
Ibid
22
The situation was criminalized and became serious in those days. Protests, strikes,
imprisonment, postponements, arbitrary decisions and abuse of power characterized that era.
However, many socialist economic policies were introduced enhancing the industrial and
agricultural productivity and employment generation. Mrs. Gandhi called for elections in the
year 1977, and was defeated by the Janata Party. “People wondered how Indian democracy
could survive, but it has strengthened”55

1980s saw the death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Congress Government coming back to power
and Rajiv Gandhi, being the youngest PM of India which brought a youthful insight in the
country as well as in the polity. The government attained an absolute majority of over 415
seats out of 545 in the Indian Parliament. Under his leadership, there was a relaxation of the
economic policies and encouraged foreign investments through abolishment of license raj
system, restrictions on imports and foreign currency.

In 1991, there was an introduction of LPG (Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization)

policy of the government. Thus, 1990s saw the opening up of the Indian economy to the
global trade and investment and the rise of many regional based small parties. There were
short term governments in the Centre lasting for about less than a year or so. There were all
efforts made by the political parties to remain in the House in the form of coalitions.
Therefore, there were not much development in the late 1990s except for the commencement
of the bus service between India and Pakistan. However, there were certain political and
social indifferences between the two nationals owing to the increased infiltrations and
terrorist activities in both the countries.56

The era of 2000s, saw an increase of the conflicts within the nation with a blend of politics
involved like that of Gujarat Godhra Riots. There were coalition governments formed under
the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and then Dr. Manmohan Singh,57 the present PM of
India. There is a continuing process of economic liberalization in India and improvement of
friendly relations with other nations. There have been summits like G20 and Rio+20, of
which India has been a signatory, thereby achieving the objective of developing relations
with other countries and participation in the issues prevailing in the world.

55
Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution ; Corner-Stone of a Nation (London : Oxford University Press,
1966)
56
M.P. Singh, V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India (11th ed. 2008)
57
Ibid
23
In the recent years of 2010s, there has been a distorted image of Indian politics carved by the
ruling party, Indian National Congress. The years began with a number of scams and
scandals, namely, the Commonwealth Games scam, the 2G spectrum scam, the Coal-gate
scam and so on. Even the PM of India, including eminent leaders of the party came under the
scrutiny of the public. There have been recent campaigns launched by Anna Hazare, a social
activist as well as an introduction of a new party at the centre by Arvind Kejriwal, namely the
Aam Aadmi party (AAP) in November, 2012. Economically, India is still able to maintain its
strong position against recession. 58

There are still further developments going on. There are consultations for passing the Food
Security Bill, the FDI is still pending for debate in the House, the Jan Lokpal Bill has been
passed by the Houses, Corporate Social Responsibility made compulsory and many more.
These developments are very much needed and desired for the country, irrespective of the
political scenario prevalent.

The conditions since independence have not been so good. Even today, one-third of world’s
poor are found in India. Although the life expectancy has increased to 62 years from 32 years
since independence, the infant-mortality rate which is 50 deaths per 1000 births holds the
highest rate in the world.

As per Pramod Paliwal,59 the secretary of the Jaipur-based Indian Institute of Rural
Development, a non-profit focusing on rural healthcare, “Lack of government spending is
largely to blame for our ailing healthcare system,” said. According to a Paris-based
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, India spends only 1% of its GDP
in the healthcare sector. Because of lack of modernization of the Indian economy, more than
half of our population is still employed in the agricultural sector, making it overburdened and
less productive. India ranked 132 out of 187 countries on the UNDP’s gender inequality
index in 201360. Literacy levels have increased from 16% in 1951 to about 74% in 2011 as
per the statistics.

Summarizing the said developments, we see that while there was an absolute majority in the
legislature, there was stability and favorable political atmosphere for economic growth and
development of the country.

58
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (1997): Guidelines for the Training of Parliamentary Staff, CPA,
London
59
Ibid
60
Amid Dhandha, N S Bindra's Interpretaion of Statutes 2 (5th Ed. 2010)
24
 CONCLUSION

A Parliamentary democracy is where the democratic governance of a state features an

executive branch (the part of government with the authority and responsibility for the daily
administration of the state) derives legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature
(Parliament, with the power to enact, amend and repeal laws).

In this system of government, the Head of state is normally a different person from the head
of government. In the UK, which is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen is the ceremonial
head of state whilst the Prime Minister is the head of Government. In some other countries,
such as Israel, the Head of State is the (mostly ceremonial) President, but the Head of
Government is the Prime Minister.

Britain’s system of Parliamentary democracy, along with most other Western Governments,is
also commonly called a ‘Liberal Democracy’, in which Government gets its legitimacy from
the people through regular elections, in which most adults can vote, with good choice of
candidates and a secret ballot. That government should be accountable to the people for what
it does, with Parliament holding it accountable.There should be a free press, free speech and
in most countries a written Bill of rights that prioritises the rights of the individual. A central
aim of liberal democracy as a system is that it tries to limit the power of the main branches of
government over the individual.

India’s tryst with democracy began with its efforts to overcome the colonial legacy marked
by underdevelopment, poverty, illiteracy and social and economic inequalities. Democracy
was construed as a flexible system wherein every citizen makes his/her contribution to the
society.

However, the past few decades since independence have clearly demonstrated that in India,
democracy has failed to deliver its purpose, both theoretically and practically. In the present
context of rapid degradation of democratic norms, criminalization of politics, corruption in
the legal, executive and political sects of the government meant for facilitating and catering
to people’s needs and open violation of electoral reforms, alternative forms of democracy
have become increasingly needed in India. The alternative form of democracy that could be
made applicable in India is that of Participatory Democracy.

1. In the Parliamentary form of government, there are two heads. One is a nominal head
while another is the real head. For example, in India, the President is the nominal head while
25
the Prime Minister is the real head. The President of India is the head of state while the Prime
Minister is the head of government. But in the Presidential form of government, there is only
one head. The President of America is the head of state as well as the head of government.

2. In the Parliamentary system, the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister is
responsible to the legislature. But in the Presidential type, the President and his ministers are
not responsible to the legislature.

3. In the Parliamentary type, the Council of Ministers will lose office if it loses the vote of
confidence / no confidence. But in the Presidential type, the President cannot be ousted from
power by a vote of no-confidence. He can be removed from office though impeachment
which is much more difficult than the vote of confidence/no confidence.

4. In the Parliamentary system, the government does not enjoy a fixed tenure.”For example,
in India the government can stay in power for five years. But any time during this period, the
government can be removed from power through a vote of no-confidence. In the Presidential
system, the President has generally a fixed tenure because it is not easy to impeach him.

5. There is not strict separation of powers in the Parliamentary type. The ministers are also
members of the legislature. But, in the Presidential type, the principle of separation of powers
is strictly followed. In the US, the President and his Ministers (Secretaries) are not members
of the Congress.

6. In the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is not fully free to choose his ministers.
He has to choose them from among the members of Parliament. But in the Presidential
system, the President enjoys much more freedom in selecting his ministers. He selects them
from a much wider field taking into account their experience and expertise.

7. At the time of crisis the Presidential executive is more successful in taking prompt and
bold decisions than the Parliamentary government.

8. The Presidential system of government provides more political stability than the
Parliamentary form of government.

9. As the government in the parliamentary system is responsible to the Parliament, it is more

democratic and respectful of public opinion than the Presidential executive which is not
responsible to the legislature.

26
 SUGGESTIONS:

Participatory democracy is seen as a form of social action and political practice expanding the
arena of politics beyond the representational institutions of elections, political parties and the
bureaucracy.

The Participatory democracy is inclusive of deliberative, consensus, anticipatory and semi-

direct democracy. However, the researcher recommends the Semi-direct Democracy or Semi-
Presidential system of democracy in India like it has been adopted in France. In such a
system, the balance of power shifts decisively from the politicians to the citizens where it
truly belongs.

This form of system is effective and desirable since it is not a fully Presidential form of
democracy, nor it is as similar to the present Parliamentary system. This will increase the role
of common man in the matters of public concern and importance. The President shall be
made more powerful and responsible. People will be able to elect their head of the executive
as well as the State.

The active role of the president will ensure smooth functioning of the three organs of the
government. This idea of participatory democracy was central to Gandhiji’s political thinking
and practice. It features public participation, Rule of law, transparency, responsiveness,
consensus of the public and the three organs, efficiency and accountability. Thus, this form of
democracy will be a key to effectuate good governance and participatory citizenship in India
because of the following reasons:

 The demand for greater transparency in government decision making processes in

order to assure public scrutiny and participation in governance. The RTI (Right to
Information) is an example for such a demand.
 The demand for accountability of people in power through decentralization of the
decision making power to the lowest levels for direct people’s participation in the
process.
 The demand for competition in government monopolized areas by encouraging the
participation of private individuals in those areas which will lead to better delivery of
services.

27
Such an adoption will require the amendment of the Constitution. Since the constitution has
already been amended multiple times by the legislature, another amendment for the benefit
and in the interest of the public would not be objectionable.

Also, to implement the idea of participatory democracy, technological resources can be used
to enhance the role of people in the election and decision making processes and look into
their interest and political and social destiny. Internet has a great role and ease to deliver in
such a case.

An online voting mechanism can be introduced for the purpose of people’s will and views in
major areas. Today, internet has reached almost every district of India and its usability and
connectivity would be effective in this regard. People would be able to vote and participate
without any harassment. This will entail a fairer and a more appropriate approach to the
prevailing demands and needs. Therefore, semi-direct democracy type of participatory
democracy along with technology would be in the interest of the nation.

28
 REFERENCE

 Amid Dhandha, N S Bindra's Interpretaion of Statutes 2 (5th Ed. 2010)

 Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution ; Corner-Stone of a Nation (London :
Oxford University Press, 1966).
 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (1997): Guidelines for the Training of
Parliamentary Staff, CPA, London
 Dr. Avatar Singh, Parliamentary form of governance, 5th Edn., Central Law
Publications, (2015)
 Dua, B.D. et al. (ed.) Indian Judiciary and Politics, Manohar Publishers &
Distributors, New Delhi, 2007, p. 19
 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (8th ed. 2007).
 Gupta, Ram Kishore (ed.) (1993): Parliamentary Companion - A Work for Reference
and Record, Shikha Publication, New Delhi
 Kashyap, Subhash C. (2003): Parliamentary Procedure - The Law, Privileges, Practice
and Precedents (Two Volumes), Universal Law Publishing Company, New Delhi.
 Lok Sabha Secretariat : Information Folder-Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and
Training
 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (2003)
 M.P. Singh, V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India (11th ed. 2008).
 Surya Prakash, A. (1995): What Ails Indian Parliament ? An Exhaustive Diagnosis,
Indus, New Delhi.

WEBSITES

 Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.

 Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.
 Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
 SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.
 Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.
 https://www.lawctopus.com
 https://indiankanoon.org.
 Legal Service India (legalserviceindia.com)
 Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)

29