18 President of India Office, Powers and Functions

Union Executive: Composition and Powers

Part V of the Indian Constitution, encompassing Articles 52 to 78, meticulously delineates the composition and powers of the Union Executive. This essential branch of government includes the President, the Vice-President, the Prime Minister, the Council of Ministers, and the Attorney General of India, each playing a distinct role in the nation's governance.

Foremost among them is the President, who holds the position of head of the Indian State. As the country's first citizen, the President serves as a powerful symbol of India's unity, integrity, and solidarity, representing the collective aspirations of its diverse people.

Election of the President

The President of India is not elected directly by the people but indirectly through an electoral college composed of elected members from Parliament and state legislative assemblies. Specifically, this includes the elected members of both Houses of Parliament, the elected members of state legislative assemblies, and the elected members of the legislative assemblies of the Union Territories of Delhi and Puducherry. Notably excluded are nominated members of either House of Parliament, nominated members of state legislative assemblies, all members (elected or nominated) of state legislative councils in bicameral states, and nominated members of the Delhi and Puducherry assemblies. If a state assembly dissolves before the presidential election—even if fresh elections have not yet occurred—its members lose their voting eligibility.

To ensure fairness, the Constitution mandates uniformity in representing different states and parity between the states collectively and the Union. Each elected member's vote value is calculated precisely. For an elected member of a state legislative assembly (MLA), the vote equals the quotient of the state's population divided by the total number of elected MLAs in that assembly, with the result divided by 1,000:

Value of an MLA's vote = (State population / Total elected MLAs in the state assembly) / 1,000.

For elected members of Parliament (MPs), the vote value is derived by dividing the total vote value of all state MLAs by the total number of elected MPs in both Houses:

Value of an MP's vote = (Total vote value of all state MLAs) / Total elected MPs.

This system balances regional and national influences.

The election employs proportional representation via the single transferable vote (STV) system, conducted by secret ballot. STV guarantees victory by an absolute majority. The winning quota is calculated as the total valid votes polled divided by the number of positions to fill (one for President) plus one, then adding one to that quotient:

Quota = (Total valid votes / 2) + 1.

Each elector receives a single ballot paper and ranks candidates by preference: 1, 2, 3, and so on, up to the number of candidates. First-preference votes are tallied initially. If no candidate reaches the quota, the ballots of the lowest-polling candidate are redistributed based on second preferences. This elimination and transfer process repeats until one candidate secures the quota.

Any disputes arising from the presidential election fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, whose decision is final. Critically, the election cannot be invalidated merely due to vacancies in the electoral college. Even if the Court declares the election void, the President's prior actions remain valid and in force.

This indirect method sparked debate in the Constituent Assembly. Critics deemed it undemocratic and advocated direct popular election, but the framers rejected this for two key reasons. First, it aligns with India's parliamentary system, where the President serves as a ceremonial head while real executive authority rests with the Council of Ministers led by the Prime Minister—direct election for a figurehead would create an imbalance. Second, direct polls across India's vast electorate would be prohibitively expensive and logistically demanding for a symbolic role.

Alternatives, such as election solely by Parliament, were also dismissed. A Parliament dominated by one party might favor its own, sidelining state interests and undermining the President's role as a unifying representative of both Union and states. The current design achieves that equilibrium.

Assembly members further noted technical quirks: "proportional representation" is imprecise for a single vacancy, resembling a preferential voting system more closely. Likewise, "single transferable vote" is misleading, as voters cast multiple preferences rather than a solitary vote. Despite these observations, the system endures as a thoughtful safeguard of federal harmony.

Eligibility and Nomination for President of India

To qualify for election as President of India, a candidate must meet stringent criteria designed to ensure maturity, integrity, and national representation. First, they must be a citizen of India. Second, they must have attained the age of 35 years. Third, they must possess the qualifications required for election as a member of the Lok Sabha. Finally, they must not hold any office of profit under the Union or a state government, any local authority, or any other public authority. Notably, certain high offices are exempt from this restriction: a sitting President or Vice-President, the Governor of any state, or a minister of the Union or a state is not deemed to hold an office of profit and thus remains eligible.

Beyond these personal qualifications, the nomination process imposes additional safeguards against frivolous candidacies. Each candidate's nomination paper must be subscribed by at least 50 electors as proposers and another 50 as seconders. Candidates must also deposit a security amount of ₹15,000 in the Reserve Bank of India, which stands forfeited if they fail to secure at least one-sixth of the total votes polled.

These requirements were strengthened in 1997 to deter non-serious contenders. Prior to that year, only 10 proposers and 10 seconders were needed, along with a modest security deposit of ₹2,500.

Oath of the President of India

Before assuming office, the President of India must take and subscribe to a solemn oath or affirmation, a ritual that underscores the gravity of the role. In this pledge, the President vows three core commitments: to faithfully execute the duties of the office; to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and the laws of the land; and to devote time and energy to the service and well-being of India's people.

The Chief Justice of India administers this oath, stepping in personally to affirm the President's readiness. Should the Chief Justice be unavailable, the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court present takes on this responsibility. The same oath or affirmation applies to anyone else acting as President or temporarily discharging the President's functions, ensuring continuity and fidelity to these foundational principles.

Conditions of the President's Office

The Indian Constitution outlines specific conditions that govern the President's tenure, ensuring the office remains independent and dignified. Primarily, the President must not hold membership in either House of Parliament or any state legislature. If someone in such a position is elected President, they are deemed to have vacated their seat the moment they assume office. Additionally, the President cannot hold any other office of profit, safeguarding against conflicts of interest.

During their term, the President enjoys several entitlements designed to support the role's prestige. They have rent-free access to the official residence, the Rashtrapati Bhavan. Emoluments, allowances, and privileges are determined by Parliament, but crucially, these cannot be diminished while the President remains in office—a provision that protects financial stability amid potential political shifts.

Parliament has periodically enhanced these benefits to reflect contemporary standards. In 2018, it raised the President's salary from ₹71.50 lakh annually to ₹5 lakh per month. Earlier, in 2008, the pension for retired Presidents increased from ₹3 lakh per annum to 50% of the sitting President's monthly salary. Former Presidents also receive a furnished residence, telephone facilities, a car, medical treatment, travel allowances, secretarial staff, and office expenses up to ₹1,00,000 per annum. The spouse of a deceased President qualifies for a family pension equivalent to 50% of a retired President's pension, along with similar perks, including office expenses up to ₹20,000 per annum.

Beyond these, the President enjoys extensive privileges and immunities. They have personal immunity from legal proceedings for official acts. During their term, no criminal proceedings can be initiated against them—even for personal acts—and they cannot be arrested or imprisoned. Civil proceedings for personal acts are possible, but only after two months' prior notice. These protections underscore the Constitution's intent to insulate the head of state from undue interference.

Term of the President's Office

The President of India serves a term of five years, calculated from the date he assumes office. This tenure provides stability to the executive head while allowing for periodic democratic renewal. However, the President may step down earlier by submitting a resignation letter to the Vice-President at any time.

Alternatively, the President can be removed before completing the full term through the rigorous impeachment process, a safeguard against misconduct enshrined in the Constitution.

To ensure continuity in governance, the President continues in office beyond the five-year limit until the successor takes charge. Moreover, there is no bar on re-election; the President remains eligible for any number of terms. This contrasts sharply with the United States, where the Constitution limits a person to no more than two presidential terms.

Impeachment of the President

The President of India can be removed from office through a rigorous impeachment process, triggered solely for a violation of the Constitution. Notably, the Constitution leaves this phrase undefined, granting Parliament broad discretion in its interpretation.

The process begins when impeachment charges are initiated in either House of Parliament. These charges must be supported by the signatures of at least one-fourth of that House's total membership, and a 14-day notice must be served to the President. If the resolution passes in the originating House with a two-thirds majority of its total membership—accounting for vacancies—it moves to the other House for scrutiny. There, the charges undergo a detailed investigation, during which the President has the right to appear in person or through representatives to defend themselves. Should the second House also endorse the charges by a two-thirds majority of its total membership, the President stands removed from office effective immediately, from the date of that resolution's passage.

This impeachment mechanism functions as a quasi-judicial procedure within Parliament, blending legislative and judicial elements. Two key distinctions merit attention: first, nominated members of either House can vote on the impeachment, even though they play no role in electing the President; second, elected members of state legislative assemblies, as well as those from the Union Territories of Delhi and Puducherry, participate in the President's election but are excluded from the impeachment process.

To date, no Indian President has faced successful impeachment, underscoring the procedure's exceptional gravity and the political consensus it demands.

Vacancy in the President’s Office

A vacancy in the office of the President of India arises through several defined circumstances: the natural expiry of the five-year term, resignation, removal via impeachment, death, or other reasons such as disqualification from holding office or the invalidation of the election.

When the vacancy stems from the expiration of the incumbent President's term, the Constitution mandates that an election to fill the position must occur before that term ends. Should any delay arise—due to unforeseen circumstances—the outgoing President continues in office beyond the five-year limit until the successor takes charge. This provision ensures there is no gap in leadership, or interregnum, and in such cases, the Vice-President does not step in to act as President.

In contrast, if the vacancy occurs due to resignation, removal, death, or any other cause, the election for a new President must be completed within six months of the vacancy. The newly elected President then serves a full five-year term starting from the date of assuming office.

Upon such a vacancy—whether from resignation, removal, death, or otherwise—the Vice-President immediately acts as President until the new incumbent is elected. Similarly, if the sitting President is temporarily unable to perform duties due to absence, illness, or any other reason, the Vice-President discharges those functions until the President resumes office.

Should the Vice-President's office also be vacant at that time, the Chief Justice of India steps in to act as President or discharge the President's functions. If the Chief Justice's position is likewise vacant, the seniormost available judge of the Supreme Court assumes this role.

Any individual serving in this acting capacity—be it the Vice-President, Chief Justice of India, or seniormost Supreme Court judge—exercises all the powers and immunities of the President. They are also entitled to emoluments, allowances, and privileges as determined by Parliament, ensuring seamless continuity in the nation's highest office.

Categories of Presidential Powers

The powers and functions exercised by the President of India lend themselves to a structured analysis under distinct categories: executive powers, legislative powers, financial powers, judicial powers, diplomatic powers, military powers, and emergency powers. This classification highlights the President's role as the constitutional head of state, encompassing a wide array of responsibilities that, while formal in nature, underpin the nation's governance framework.

Powers and Functions of the President of India

The President of India embodies the formal executive authority of the Union government, with all its executive actions taken in their name. This ceremonial yet pivotal role extends to promulgating rules that specify how orders and instruments executed in the President's name must be authenticated. Additionally, the President can issue rules to facilitate the efficient conduct of Union government business and to allocate responsibilities among ministers, ensuring smooth administrative operations.

Central to these powers is the President's authority over key appointments. They appoint the Prime Minister and other ministers, who serve at the President's pleasure. Similarly, the President appoints the Attorney General of India, setting their remuneration, with the office also held during the President's pleasure. High constitutional functionaries such as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, the Chairman and members of the Union Public Service Commission, Governors of states, and the Chairman and members of the Finance Commission are all appointed by the President. This underscores the President's role as the formal head in staffing India's executive and oversight machinery.

To maintain oversight, the President can request any information on Union administration or legislative proposals from the Prime Minister. They may also direct the Prime Minister to place before the Council of Ministers any matter decided unilaterally by a minister but not yet considered collectively by the Cabinet. Further, the President can constitute a commission to inquire into the conditions of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other backward classes, and establish an Inter-State Council to foster cooperation between the Centre and states, as well as among states.

In territorial administration, the President directly governs Union Territories through appointed administrators. They also hold powers to declare areas as Scheduled Areas and oversee the administration of Scheduled Areas and tribal regions, safeguarding these sensitive domains.

Legislative Powers of the President of India

The President of India serves as an integral part of Parliament, exercising a range of legislative powers that underscore the executive's role in the lawmaking process.

Foremost among these is the authority to summon or prorogue Parliament and to dissolve the Lok Sabha. The President also convenes joint sittings of both Houses, presided over by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Additionally, the President addresses Parliament at the start of its first session following each general election and the first session of every year. Messages can be sent to either House regarding pending bills or other matters, ensuring executive input into legislative proceedings.

In situations of leadership vacuums, the President appoints a member of the Lok Sabha to preside when both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker positions are vacant, and similarly for the Rajya Sabha when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman offices fall empty. The President further shapes Parliament's composition by nominating 12 members to the Rajya Sabha from individuals with special expertise in literature, science, art, or social service, and two members to the Lok Sabha from the Anglo-Indian community. On matters of member disqualifications, the President's decision prevails, taken in consultation with the Election Commission.

Certain bills require the President's prior recommendation before introduction in Parliament, such as those involving expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India or alterations to state boundaries. Once a bill passes Parliament, the President may assent to it, withhold assent, or—if it is not a Money Bill—return it for reconsideration. Should Parliament repass the bill, with or without amendments, the President must grant assent.

For bills reserved by a state governor for the President's consideration, similar options apply: assent, withholding assent, or directing return for reconsideration (again, excluding Money Bills). Unlike with Parliament, however, the President is not bound to assent even if the state legislature repasses the bill.

When Parliament is not in session, the President can promulgate ordinances, which carry the force of law but must receive parliamentary approval within six weeks of reassembly; the President may also withdraw them at any time. The President lays key reports before Parliament, including those from the Comptroller and Auditor General, Union Public Service Commission, and Finance Commission.

Finally, the President holds legislative authority over certain Union Territories, promulgating regulations for the peace, progress, and good governance of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Ladakh. For Puducherry, such regulations apply only when its assembly is suspended or dissolved.

Financial Powers of the President

The President of India holds significant authority over the nation's finances, ensuring parliamentary oversight while facilitating smooth fiscal operations. Money Bills, which deal exclusively with taxation and expenditure, can only be introduced in Parliament with the President's prior recommendation, underscoring his gatekeeping role in financial legislation.

Once prepared by the government, the President formally lays the Union Budget—the annual financial statement—before both Houses of Parliament, marking the commencement of the budgetary process. Similarly, no demand for grants from public funds can proceed without his explicit recommendation, reinforcing executive accountability to the legislature.

In times of urgency, the President can authorize advances from the Consolidated Fund of India (often referred to as the Contingency Fund) to cover unforeseen expenditures, with subsequent parliamentary approval required to regularize these advances. Additionally, every five years, he constitutes the Finance Commission, an independent body tasked with recommending a fair distribution of revenues between the Centre and the states, thereby balancing federal fiscal relations. These powers collectively position the President as a pivotal figure in India's financial governance.

Judicial Powers of the President

The President of India exercises limited but significant judicial powers, primarily in the realms of judicial appointments, seeking legal advice, and granting mercy to convicts. These functions underscore the President's role as a constitutional head, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers or relevant authorities.

One key power is the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. The President directly appoints the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as well as other judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This authority ensures the independence and continuity of the judiciary at its apex levels.

Additionally, under Article 143 of the Constitution, the President may refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. This mechanism allows the executive to clarify complex legal matters. However, unlike regular court judgments, the Supreme Court's advice in such cases is not binding on the President, preserving executive discretion.

The President's most distinctive judicial function lies in the power of pardon, outlined in Article 72. This extends to granting pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, as well as suspending, remitting, or commuting sentences for convicted persons—but only in specific categories. These include all cases involving court-martial punishments; offences against any Union law; and sentences of death. This mercy jurisdiction serves as a vital safeguard, enabling humanitarian interventions or corrections in the face of judicial outcomes, while being confined to matters of national or federal significance.

Diplomatic Powers

The President of India exercises key diplomatic functions as the ceremonial head of state. International treaties and agreements are negotiated and concluded on his behalf by the executive, but they require Parliament's approval to acquire legal force. Beyond this, the President represents India at global forums and conferences, while also accrediting Indian envoys—such as ambassadors and high commissioners—and receiving their foreign counterparts, thereby symbolizing the nation's sovereignty in international relations.

Military Powers

The President of India holds the esteemed position of Supreme Commander of the nation's defense forces, a role enshrined in the Constitution that underscores ceremonial leadership over the Army, Navy, and Air Force. In this capacity, the President appoints the respective Chiefs of these branches, ensuring continuity at the highest levels of military command. Beyond appointments, the President also wields the authority to declare war or conclude peace—powers exercised only with the explicit approval of Parliament, reflecting the democratic check on such grave decisions.

Emergency Powers

Beyond the President's routine constitutional authority, the Indian Constitution grants extraordinary powers to address grave national crises. These are invoked through three distinct types of emergencies, each designed to safeguard the nation's stability in exceptional circumstances.

The first is the National Emergency under Article 352, which allows the Centre to assume sweeping control during war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. The second, known as President's Rule (or state emergency) under Articles 356 and 365, enables the imposition of central rule in a state where constitutional machinery has failed. Finally, the Financial Emergency under Article 360 empowers the President to tackle severe threats to India's financial stability, such as a looming economic collapse.

Veto Power of the President

In India's parliamentary democracy, a bill passed by Parliament transforms into law only upon receiving the President's assent. Article 111 of the Constitution outlines the President's three formal options when such a bill reaches his desk: he may grant assent, withhold it entirely, or—in the case of non-Money Bills—return it to Parliament for reconsideration. Should Parliament pass the bill again, with or without amendments, the President is constitutionally bound to assent.

This authority to withhold assent embodies the President's veto power over ordinary legislation. Far from being a mere formality, it serves two critical purposes: forestalling hasty or poorly drafted laws that might escape parliamentary scrutiny, and blocking measures that could violate the Constitution's foundational principles.

Across modern democracies, executive veto powers fall into four distinct categories. An absolute veto allows the executive simply to refuse assent, with no legislative override possible. A qualified veto can be overridden by the legislature through a supermajority vote. A suspensive veto delays legislation but yields to an ordinary majority on reconsideration. Finally, a pocket veto occurs when the executive takes no action at all, effectively killing the bill through inaction.

The President of India possesses three of these: the absolute veto, suspensive veto, and pocket veto. Notably absent is the qualified veto, which is a hallmark of the U.S. President's powers. Each of India's presidential vetos merits closer examination for its practical implications.

Absolute Veto

The absolute veto empowers the President of India to withhold assent to a bill passed by Parliament, effectively killing the legislation and preventing it from becoming law. Unlike other veto powers, this one offers no opportunity for the bill's revival, marking a decisive end to the legislative process. Though rarely invoked, the President typically exercises this authority in two specific scenarios.

First, it applies to private members' bills—those introduced by non-minister Members of Parliament rather than by the government. These bills often lack executive backing, making presidential veto a straightforward tool to block them. Second, the veto may target government bills in exceptional circumstances: if the Cabinet resigns after Parliament's passage but before the President's assent, and the incoming Cabinet advises against approval, the President can decline to sign.

Historical instances underscore this power's selective use. In 1954, President Dr. Rajendra Prasad withheld assent to the PEPSU Appropriation Bill, which Parliament had passed during President's Rule in the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU). By the time the bill reached the President, however, President's Rule had been revoked, rendering further action unnecessary.

Similarly, in 1991, President R. Venkataraman rejected the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament (Amendment) Bill. Passed by Parliament on the final day before the Lok Sabha's dissolution, the bill violated procedural norms by proceeding without the President's prior recommendation, prompting the veto. These cases highlight the President's role as a constitutional safeguard in rare, procedural lapses.

Suspensive Veto

The President's suspensive veto serves as a temporary check on legislation, allowing him to return a non-money bill to Parliament for reconsideration. This power underscores the executive's role in prompting legislative reflection without permanently blocking a bill. If Parliament reconsiders the bill—passing it again either in its original form or with amendments—and presents it once more to the President, he is constitutionally bound to grant his assent. In essence, this veto can be easily overridden by a simple majority in Parliament, unlike in the United States, where a higher threshold is required to overcome a presidential veto.

This veto power does not extend to money bills, reflecting the unique procedural safeguards around fiscal legislation. For such bills, the President may either assent or withhold assent outright but cannot send them back for reconsideration. In practice, he routinely provides assent, as money bills are introduced only after securing his prior recommendation, ensuring alignment from the outset.

Pocket Veto

The pocket veto represents a subtle yet powerful prerogative of the Indian President. When presented with a bill, the President may choose neither to assent nor to reject it outright, nor even to return it for reconsideration. Instead, the President can simply hold the bill indefinitely, effectively stalling it without formal action. This inaction—whether positive or negative—stems directly from the Constitution's silence on any mandatory timeline for the President's decision, allowing the bill to languish in limbo.

This contrasts sharply with the United States, where the President must act within 10 days or return the bill for reconsideration, preventing such prolonged delays. As a result, observers often quip that the Indian President's "pocket" is considerably larger than its American counterpart.

A notable instance occurred in 1986, when President Giani Zail Singh exercised the pocket veto on the Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill, passed by the Rajiv Gandhi government. The bill drew widespread condemnation for curbing press freedom through new restrictions on mail scrutiny. It remained pending for three years until President R. Venkataraman, in 1989, finally returned it to Parliament. By then, the incoming National Front government opted to abandon the legislation altogether.

Importantly, this veto power does not extend to constitutional amendment bills. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 explicitly mandates the President's assent in such cases, stripping away any discretion to withhold or delay approval.

Presidential Veto over State Legislation

In India's federal structure, the President holds veto power not only over central legislation but also over certain state bills, acting as a constitutional safeguard. A bill passed by a state legislature becomes law only upon receiving the Governor's assent—or, if the Governor reserves it for the President's consideration, the President's assent. This mechanism underscores the Centre's oversight in matters of national importance.

Under Article 200 of the Constitution, when a state bill reaches the Governor, four options emerge. The Governor may grant assent, transforming it into law; withhold assent outright; return it (if not a money bill) for the state legislature's reconsideration; or reserve it for the President's review. Reservation typically occurs for bills that might conflict with central laws, raise constitutional questions, or affect India's international obligations.

Once reserved, Article 201 empowers the President with three choices. The President can assent to the bill; withhold assent, effectively vetoing it; or direct the Governor to return it (again, if not a money bill) to the state legislature for fresh deliberation. Even if the legislature repasses the bill—with or without amendments—and resubmits it, the President remains unbound to assent. This grants the President an absolute veto, which the state legislature cannot override.

Notably, the Constitution imposes no time limit on the President's decision for reserved bills, allowing the exercise of a pocket veto—simply letting the bill lapse through inaction. This provision applies equally to state legislation, reinforcing the President's discretionary authority in federal dynamics. For a comparative overview of the President's veto powers over both central and state laws, refer to Table 17.2.

Ordinance-Making Power of the President

Article 123 of the Indian Constitution grants the President a unique legislative authority: the power to promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session. These ordinances carry the same legal force as acts passed by Parliament, functioning as temporary laws to address pressing needs. This is the President's most significant legislative tool, designed to tackle unforeseen or urgent situations that cannot wait for Parliament's convening.

However, this power is tightly circumscribed by four key limitations. First, the President can issue an ordinance only when both Houses of Parliament—or at least one—are not in session. This reflects the bicameral nature of Parliament: laws require approval from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, so an ordinance issued while both Houses are active would be void. It is not a parallel legislative mechanism but a stopgap measure.

Second, the President must be satisfied that immediate action is necessary due to exceptional circumstances. While this "satisfaction" was once shielded from judicial review by the 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 removed that protection. As ruled in RC Cooper's case (1970), courts can scrutinize it for malafide intent—for instance, if the President prorogues Houses deliberately to sidestep parliamentary debate on controversial issues.

Third, the scope of an ordinance mirrors Parliament's law-making powers in all respects except duration. It can cover only subjects within Parliament's legislative domain and must respect the same constitutional restraints, including fundamental rights, which it cannot abridge.

Fourth, every ordinance must be laid before both Houses upon Parliament's reassembly. If approved by both, it ripens into an act. Without action, it lapses after six weeks from reassembly—or sooner if disapproved by resolutions. In cases where Houses reconvene on different dates, the six-week clock starts from the later date. Given the typical six-month gap between sessions, an ordinance's maximum lifespan is thus around six months and six weeks if unapproved. Even if it lapses without tabling, actions completed under it remain valid. The President may withdraw an ordinance anytime, but this power is not discretionary; it requires the Council of Ministers' advice, headed by the Prime Minister.

Ordinances offer flexibility beyond ordinary legislation: they can operate retrospectively, amend or repeal existing acts (including prior ordinances or tax laws), but they cannot alter the Constitution itself.

This mechanism sets India's Constitution apart from most democracies, including those of the US and UK, which lack such executive ordinance powers. Defending it in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized its role in enabling the executive to respond swiftly to sudden crises when Parliament is prorogued—unrelated to emergencies under Article 352. Lok Sabha rules reinforce accountability: any bill replacing an ordinance must include a statement justifying the urgency.

While no Supreme Court case has directly challenged a President's ordinance, the landmark DC Wadhwa case (1987) offers critical guidance. There, the Court condemned Bihar's Governor for reissuing 256 ordinances between 1967 and 1981—some for up to 14 years—without legislative ratification. Such repetitive promulgation, the Court held, subverts the Constitution, treating ordinances as a substitute for legislative processes. It amounts to constitutional violation, rendering the repromulgated ordinances void. This underscores that ordinance power is exceptional, not routine.

Pardoning Power of the President

Article 72 of the Indian Constitution vests the President with a vital executive authority: the power to grant pardons to individuals convicted of offenses under specific circumstances. This includes punishments for violations of Union laws, sentences handed down by court martials (military courts), and death sentences. Importantly, this power operates independently of the judiciary. The President does not act as an appellate court but exercises discretion to correct potential judicial errors or to mitigate sentences deemed excessively severe.

The scope of this pardoning authority is broad and multifaceted. A pardon fully exonerates the convict, erasing both the conviction and the sentence along with any associated disqualifications. Commutation involves substituting a harsher punishment with a milder one—for instance, converting a death sentence to life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment. Remission shortens the duration of the sentence without altering its nature, such as reducing a two-year term of rigorous imprisonment to one year. Respite awards a lesser sentence in light of special circumstances, like a convict's physical disability or a pregnant offender's condition. Finally, reprieve temporarily halts the execution of a sentence—particularly a death sentence—to allow time for further appeals, such as seeking a pardon or commutation.

Complementing the President's authority, Article 161 grants state governors similar pardoning powers, but limited to offenses against state laws. Governors can issue pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions, and suspend, remit, or commute sentences. However, key distinctions set the President's power apart: only the President can pardon court martial sentences or grant clemency for death sentences, even if prescribed by state law. Governors may suspend, remit, or commute death sentences, creating concurrent jurisdiction with the President in those specific actions.

The Supreme Court has shaped the contours of this power through landmark rulings, establishing clear principles. Petitioners have no right to an oral hearing before the President, who acts on the binding advice of the Union Cabinet and need not disclose reasons for decisions. The President may re-examine evidence and diverge from judicial findings, offering relief not just for unduly harsh sentences but also evident errors. While the power enjoys wide latitude—free from rigid guidelines and generally immune to judicial review—it remains subject to scrutiny if exercised arbitrarily, irrationally, mala fide, or discriminatorily. Moreover, a rejected mercy petition cannot be revived through a fresh filing to secure a stay. These safeguards ensure the pardoning power serves justice without undermining the rule of law.

Constitutional Position of the President

India's Constitution establishes a parliamentary form of government, positioning the President as a nominal executive. Real executive authority rests with the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister. Thus, the President exercises all powers and functions on the aid and advice of this Council.

This distinction was eloquently captured by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly debates. He noted that while the title "President" evokes the powerful U.S. executive, India's system is fundamentally different. America follows a presidential model where the President holds direct control over administration. In contrast, India's parliamentary framework mirrors the British monarchy: the President is the ceremonial head of state, not the executive. He symbolizes the nation, authenticates its decisions like a seal, and remains bound by ministerial advice—unable to act against or without it. Unlike his American counterpart, who can dismiss secretaries at will, India's President lacks such power as long as the Council commands a Lok Sabha majority.

The President's role is anchored in key constitutional provisions: Article 53 vests the Union's executive power in the President, to be exercised either directly or through subordinates in line with the Constitution; Article 74 mandates a Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, to aid and advise the President, who shall follow such advice in exercising functions; and Article 75 ensures the Council's collective responsibility to the Lok Sabha, forming the bedrock of parliamentary accountability.

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, under Indira Gandhi's government, explicitly bound the President to the Council's advice. This was moderated by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978, enacted by the Janata Party government led by Morarji Desai. It empowered the President to seek reconsideration of advice—once, either generally or specifically—but required him to act on the reconsidered recommendation, making it binding.

Real-world instances highlight this nuance. In October 1997, President K.R. Narayanan returned the cabinet's recommendation to impose President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh under Article 356. The cabinet reconsidered and withdrew it, averting the fall of the BJP-led Kalyan Singh government. Similarly, in September 1998, he returned a proposal for President's Rule in Bihar. After reconsideration a few months later, the cabinet reaffirmed it, leading to imposition in February 1999.

While the President enjoys no general constitutional discretion, certain situational discretions allow independent action, unbound by ministerial advice. These arise in crises such as appointing a Prime Minister when no party holds a clear Lok Sabha majority or when the incumbent dies without an obvious successor; dismissing the Council if it fails to prove Lok Sabha confidence; or dissolving the Lok Sabha after the Council loses its majority.