Q.Dialogue: Amit (President is rubber stamp), Shama (President appoints PM so should remove too), Rajesh (don't need President, Parliament elects PM directly). Which argument do you agree with? Why?
None of the three positions is fully correct on its own, but Shama's position — that the President's power to appoint the Prime Minister should also mean a power to remove — is the weakest of the three, while a reasoned middle position, closest to the textbook's own explanation of why India retains a President, is the strongest.
Amit calls the President a mere 'rubber stamp.' This is true in the ordinary, day-to-day sense: on almost every matter, the President acts only on the binding advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74(1), and has no independent policy-making power of their own. But it isn't the whole truth, because the President does retain real, if limited, discretion — asking the Council to reconsider its advice, using the informal 'pocket veto' on a Bill, and, crucially, deciding whom to appoint as Prime Minister when no party or alliance has a clear majority in the Lok Sabha (as happened in 1998). So 'rubber stamp' understates the President's actual constitutional role.
Shama argues that since the President appoints the PM, the President should also be able to remove the PM. This does not follow from how the parliamentary system actually works. A Prime Minister's hold on office does not come from the President's goodwill — it comes from commanding the majority in the Lok Sabha. It is the legislature, through a vote of no-confidence, that removes a government, not the President acting on personal judgment. If the President could dismiss a PM at will, that would concentrate real power in an indirectly-elected, largely ceremonial office — precisely the 'personality cult' danger the Constitution-makers wanted to avoid by rejecting a presidential system.
Rajesh suggests we don't need a President at all — that Parliament could simply meet after an election and elect a PM directly. But this misses exactly the point the textbook makes about why a President is still necessary: the Council of Ministers depends on the confidence of the legislature and can lose that support and fall at any time — so a Council of Ministers can be removed or can resign between elections without a fresh general election happening. This means the country still needs a Head of State with a fixed term, who is not created or dissolved by every change of government, who can step in — using discretion — to appoint a new Prime Minister (especially when no single leader has a clear majority, as in 1998), and who symbolically represents the continuity of the nation regardless of which government is currently in office. Removing the President entirely would leave a real institutional gap exactly at the moments — hung Parliaments, coalition collapses — when a neutral arbiter is most needed.
Amit's and Shama's positions both overstate or misplace where power sits (dismissing the President as powerless, or wrongly linking appointment power to removal power); Rajesh's proposal to remove the President altogether ignores the real need for a fixed-term Head of State who can exercise discretion in appointing a Prime Minister, especially in hung-Parliament situations — which is why India retains the office of President even though it is not the 'real' executive.
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.