Parliamentary and presidential systems compared

The first principle

Every democracy must decide how the people who make laws relate to the people who carry them out. A parliamentary system fuses the two: the executive sits in and answers to the legislature, and survives only while it keeps its confidence. A presidential system separates them: the President and the legislature are elected apart, serve fixed terms and check each other. India chose the British fusion but wrote it into a supreme, federal Constitution guarded by courts, which is why comparisons with the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK) and France each show a different side of the Indian design.

The core

Basic tenets: India and the US

• Executive and legislature. India's Prime Minister and ministers must be, or within six months become, members of Parliament, and are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Article 75(3)), so a government falls when it loses a vote of confidence. The US President is elected for four years, limited to two terms by the Twenty second Amendment (1951), and cannot be removed for losing votes in Congress, only by impeachment; members of the cabinet cannot sit in Congress.
• Federalism. The United States grew from a compact of states: it has dual citizenship, separate state constitutions, equal representation of states in the Senate and residuary power with the states (Tenth Amendment). India is a union with a strong Centre: single citizenship, one Constitution for the Union and the states, Rajya Sabha seats in proportion to population, residuary power with the Union (Article 248), and Parliament's power to reshape states under Article 3.
• Rights and review. The US Bill of Rights (1791) is written in absolute terms, and courts have created limits; Part III of India's Constitution writes the reasonable restrictions into the text. Judicial review in the US was established by Marbury v Madison (1803), while in India it is express in Articles 13, 32 and 226.
• Courts and amendment. The US has parallel federal and state courts; India has one integrated judiciary under the Supreme Court. An amendment to the US Constitution needs two thirds of each House of Congress and ratification by three fourths of the states, so there have been only 27; India's Article 368 is far easier, and the Constitution has been amended more than a hundred times, subject to the basic structure.

Separation of powers: functional in India, rigid in the US

• The US model. Each branch has its own source of authority, and each holds a check on the others: the President vetoes Bills, Congress can override by two thirds and controls the budget, the Senate confirms appointments and ratifies treaties by two thirds, and the courts review both.
• The Indian model. In Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab (1955) the Supreme Court held that India has not adopted a rigid separation of powers; it has a separation of functions, with the executive drawn from and answerable to the legislature. The executive legislates through ordinances (Article 123) and delegated legislation, and Parliament exercises judicial power in privilege and impeachment matters. Separation of powers is still part of the basic structure, so no organ may take over the core function of another.

Dimensions

Who has more real power: the Prime Minister or the President?

• Sources of the Prime Minister's strength. With a majority, the Prime Minister controls both the executive and the legislative agenda, because the government's Bills pass through party discipline, reinforced by the anti defection law. The Prime Minister advises the President on appointments, can seek early dissolution of the Lok Sabha, and acts through ordinances when Parliament is not in session.
• Limits on the Prime Minister. Power depends on keeping a majority every day; coalition governments from 1989 to 2014 showed how allies can veto policy. The Rajya Sabha, the courts and the states add further checks.
• Sources of the President's strength. The US President is head of state and government, commander in chief, can veto legislation and issue executive orders, and cannot be removed by a political vote.
• Limits on the President. The President cannot introduce a Bill or vote in Congress, depends on Congress for money, needs the Senate to confirm senior appointments and treaties, and often faces divided government, when the opposing party controls one or both Houses. Courts can strike down executive orders.

The power to pardon

• India, Article 72. The President can grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions, or suspend, remit or commute sentences, for offences against Union law, sentences by court martial, and all death sentences. In Maru Ram v Union of India (1980) the Court held that the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Kehar Singh v Union of India (1989) held that there is no right to an oral hearing, and Epuru Sudhakar (2006) allowed judicial review on limited grounds such as mala fides, non application of mind and irrelevant considerations. Article 72 speaks of the sentence of a person convicted of an offence, so in India the power is used only after conviction.
• United States, Article II, Section 2. The President may grant pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment, so only federal offences are covered and state crimes are not. It is a personal power, used without advice, and in Ex parte Garland (1866) the Supreme Court held that it may be exercised at any time after the offence, before, during or after legal proceedings.
• Preemptive pardons. A preemptive pardon is one granted before any charge or conviction, covering offences a person may have committed. President Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon in September 1974 is the classic case, and in January 2025 President Biden issued preemptive pardons to several public figures and family members to shield them from possible prosecution.

In practice

Parliamentary sovereignty: Britain and India

• The British doctrine. As A. V. Dicey stated it, Parliament can make or unmake any law, and no court can set aside an Act of Parliament. With no written constitution, no Parliament can bind its successor.
• British nuances. Under the European Communities Act 1972, courts could disapply an Act that conflicted with European law, which they did in Factortame (1990). The Human Rights Act 1998 lets courts issue a declaration of incompatibility but leaves the Act in force for Parliament to amend. In Miller (2017) the Supreme Court held that the government could not begin withdrawal from the European Union without an Act of Parliament, and in Miller (2019) it held a prorogation of Parliament unlawful. Both cases protected Parliament's sovereignty against the executive, not against the courts.
• The Indian position. Parliament is a creature of a written Constitution: its laws are void if they breach Fundamental Rights (Article 13) or the federal division of powers, and even its amendments must respect the basic structure. India combines British style parliamentary government with American style judicial review, taking neither parliamentary sovereignty nor judicial supremacy whole.

Judicial systems in India and the UK

• Convergence. Both follow common law and binding precedent, use adversarial procedure, and review executive action on similar grounds such as illegality, irrationality and proportionality. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 moved the UK closer to India by creating a Supreme Court separate from the House of Lords (working since October 2009) and a Judicial Appointments Commission.
• Divergence. UK courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament, while Indian courts can strike down laws and even amendments. India's Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and relaxed standing have no real UK counterpart, and appointments in India rest with a collegium of judges rather than an independent commission. India has one integrated judiciary across a federation, while the UK has separate legal systems for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Electing the President: India and France

• India. The President is elected indirectly by an electoral college of the elected members of both Houses of Parliament and of the Legislative Assemblies of the states, Delhi and Puducherry (Article 54). Votes are weighted by population on the 1971 Census so that states and the Union carry equal weight (Article 55), and voting is by proportional representation through a single transferable vote in a secret ballot. A candidate needs fifty proposers and fifty seconders, and disputes go only to the Supreme Court (Article 71).
• France. Since 1962 the President of the Fifth Republic has been elected directly by universal suffrage, in two rounds: a candidate needs an absolute majority, failing which the top two face a run off. The term was cut from seven to five years in 2000, and the 2008 revision limited a President to two consecutive terms. A candidate needs 500 sponsorships from elected officials spread over at least 30 departments, and the Constitutional Council supervises the election and proclaims the result.

• Critique. India's indirect method suits a head of state who acts on ministerial advice, but it lets the party with a majority of the electoral college decide the result, and the vote weights rest on an old Census. France's direct vote gives a strong mandate to a President with real powers, but the sponsorship rule can keep out candidates with wide popular support, and the run off can turn into a vote against a candidate rather than for one.
• Semi presidential France. The President appoints the Prime Minister, can dissolve the National Assembly and holds emergency powers, but the government is responsible to the Assembly, which can produce cohabitation between a President and a Prime Minister of rival parties.

Issues and way forward

• Executive dominance in India. A large majority, frequent ordinances and limited committee scrutiny weaken Parliament's control over the executive. Wider referral of Bills to committees and restraint in the use of ordinances would restore the balance the parliamentary model depends on.
• Gridlock in the US. Divided government produces shutdowns and rule by executive order, so presidential government is no simple remedy for India.
• Pardons. Recorded reasons and time limits for mercy petitions in India would reduce the delays that the courts have had to remedy.

Common confusions

• Separation of powers and checks and balances. Separation divides functions among organs; checks and balances give each organ means to restrain the others. The US has both in strong form; India has functional separation with parliamentary checks.
• Parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy. Britain's Parliament is legally sovereign; India's Parliament is supreme only within the Constitution.
• Pardon and commutation. A pardon wipes out the punishment and its consequences; commutation substitutes a lighter sentence.

For the exam

• Keyword bank: fusion of powers, separation of powers, checks and balances, collective responsibility, divided government, executive orders, Article 72, preemptive pardon, Ex parte Garland, Dicey, declaration of incompatibility, Miller cases, Constitutional Reform Act 2005, single transferable vote, cohabitation.
• Practise the previous year questions on this topic →
• Use in an answer:
  • Introduction with data: "The US Constitution has been amended only 27 times since 1789, while India's has been amended more than a hundred times since 1950, a contrast that shows how differently the two systems balance stability and change."
  • Introduction with a judgement: "In Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955) the Supreme Court held that India has not adopted a rigid separation of powers, only a separation of functions between organs."
  • Conclusion: "India borrowed the British fusion of powers and the American guard of judicial review, creating a system that is neither sovereign in Parliament nor supreme in the courts."
  • Conclusion: "Each model trades one risk for another: the parliamentary system risks executive dominance, the presidential system risks deadlock, and constitutional design must guard against whichever it chooses."