The provisions from Article 52 to 62 of the Constitution are the provisions related to the President of

India. The Part V of the Constitution under Union has Chapter I which talks about the Executive has
listed out the qualification, election and impeachment of the President of India. The powers have been
defined in various different Articles of the Indian Constitution. The President of India is known to be
the head of state of the Republic of India and is also the formal head of the executive, legislature and
judiciary of India and is also the commander-in-chief of the Indian Armed Forces.

Introduction
Rajendra Prasad was the first President of independent India. Article 52 of the Indian Constitution
provides that there shall be a President of India. The Indian constitution accords with the president, the
responsibility and authority to defend and protect the Constitution of India and its rule of law. Without
any variation, if any action is taken by the executive or legislature organs of the constitution shall
become law only after the assent of the President and the President shall not accept any actions of the
executive or legislature which are unconstitutional.

The President is the foremost, most empowered and prompts defender of the Constitution, who has the
pre-emptive power for ensuring constitutionality in the actions of the executive or legislature and the
role of the judiciary in upholding the Constitution of India is the second line of defence in nullifying any
unconstitutional actions of the executive and legislative entities of the Indian Union.

Election and Required Qualification of the President of

According to the clause (2), a person is not eligible for the election of President if he already holds any
office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any of the State or under any local
or other authority which is subject to the control of any of the said Governments. For the purposes of
this article, a person shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit by reason only that he is the
President or Vice-President of the Union or the Governor of any State or is a Minister either for the
Union or for any State.

In the leading case of Peter Samuel Wallace v. Union Of India And Ors, it was held that the requirements not fulfilled
by the petitioner were alleged by him as unconstitutional and he could, therefore, still claim that he is a duly nominated
candidate though the Returning Officer may take the view that his nomination did not fulfil the requirements of the
law.

Article 54 of the Constitution of India, the President should be elected by the members of the Electoral
College which consists of the elected members of both the Houses of the Parliament and by the elected
members of the Legislative assemblies of the State. The explanation the “State” includes the National
Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union territory of Pondicherry.

Article 55 of the Constitution of India, defined the manner of election of the President. According
to clause (1), there needs to be uniformity in the scale of representation of the different States at the
election of the President.

The clause (2) of the Article provides that in order to secure this type of uniformity aiming the States
the number of votes which each elected member of the Parliament and of the Legislative Assembly of
each State is entitled to cast at such election needs to be determined in the manner such that every
elected member of the Legislative Assembly of a State shall have as many votes as there are multiples
of one thousand in the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the State by the total number of
the elected members of the Assembly;

if, after taking the said multiples of one thousand, the remainder is not less than five hundred, then the
vote of each member referred to in sub-clause (a) shall be further increased by one; each elected
member of either House of Parliament shall have such number of votes as may be obtained by dividing
the total number of votes assigned to the members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States under
sub-clauses (a) and (b) by the total number of the elected members of both Houses of Parliament,
fractions exceeding one-half being counted as one and other fractions being disregarded.

The clause (3) of the Article provides that the election of the President should be held in accordance
with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote and the voting
at such election shall be by secret ballot.

Article 71(1) provides that all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a
President or Vice President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision
shall be final. In Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. The Election Commission of India,[8] and in N.
P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency,[9] it was held by the Supreme Court that
the doubts and disputes in connection with an election cannot be raised by way of a writ petition before
the election is held even in the Supreme Court and it is only after the election is held and in an election
petition that the Supreme Court can resolve these doubts and disputes.

The locus standi for raising such doubts and disputes is possessed only by a candidate who alone can
file an election petition. He could have become a candidate. It is his own willful default which is
responsible for not becoming a candidate. In our view, therefore, he does not have any locus standi to
question the validity of the Presidential election scheduled to be held on August 17, 1974, irrespective
of the grounds which he may wish to urge to invalidate the said election. For, all such grounds could be
urged by him only in an election petition filed in the Supreme Court.

Tenure and Impeachment of the President of India

Article 56 of the Indian Constitution provides for the term of the President of India. According to the
clause (1) of the Article, the president can hold the office for five years from the date on which he has
entered upon his office, provided that the President resigns the office by providing the same in writing
to the Vice President, or has been removed from the office through the process of impeachment.
According to the clause (2) of the Article, any resignation which has been provided to the Vice President
should be communicated to the Speaker of the House of the People.

Article 61 of the Constitution provides the provision of procedure of impeachment of the President. The
clause (1) of the Article provides that when a President is to be impeached for violation of the
Constitution, these charges shall be preferred by either House of Parliament. The clause (2) of the
Article provides that no such charge shall be preferred unless:-

the proposal to prefer such charge is contained in a resolution which has been moved after at least
notice of fourteen days in writing signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of members of
the House has been given of their intention to move the resolution, and
such resolution has been passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of
the House.

The clause (3) of the Article provides that when a charge has been so preferred by either House of
Parliament, the other House shall investigate the charge or cause the charge to be investigated and the
President shall have the right to appear and to be represented at such investigation.

The clause (4) of the Article provides that if as a result of the investigation a resolution is passed by a
majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House by which the charge was
investigated or caused to be investigated, declaring that the charge preferred against the President has
been sustained, such resolution will be having the effect of removing the President from his office as
from the date on which the resolution is so passed.

Powers and Privileges of the President of India

The President of India has been vested with enumerable powers, functions and privileges.

1. Executive Power

Article 53 of the Constitution provides for the executive power of the President under which he has the
supreme command on the Defense Forces and the President can regulate any or every law regarding
the same. Under this power, the President has the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed
forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and
pardons, and receive ambassadors.

In Amritlal v. F.N. Rana, it cannot, however, be assumed that the legislative functions are exclusively
performed by the legislature, executive functions by the executive and judicial functions by the judiciary
alone. The constitution has not made absolute or rigid divisions of function between the three agencies
of the State.

2. Legislative Power

The President along with the council of ministers is both members of the parliament and participates
intimately in the legislative making process. The President has the power to convene and prorogue to
dissolve Lok Sabha. The President has the power to pass a bill and his assent is required for the
transforming a bill passed by the two houses into an act.

The President has ordinance making power which empowers the President to promulgate ordinance as
the circumstances which appear to require When both houses of the parliament are not in session; he
is satisfied that the circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action.

In B.K. Sardarilal v.Union Of India, it was held that argument can be of any use to the petitioner. The
constitutional prohibition contained in clause (2) of Article 77 is absolute and, therefore, cannot be
given a go-by by an admission that the respondents may choose to make. Conferment of jurisdiction
and power on courts is regulated by provisions of law and not by the admissions made by the parties.

3. Judicial Powers

The President has the power to appoint the Chief Justice of Supreme of Court of India and other judges
on the advice of the Chief Justice. The President can dismiss the judges if and only if the two Houses of
the Parliament decides to pass resolutions to that effect that too by a two-thirds majority of the
members present.

The President also has the right to grant pardon. The president enjoys the judicial immunity and also
no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the president during the term in office of the president
is not answerable for the exercise of his/her duties.

4. Emergency Powers

The President has Emergency powers according to Article 352, 356 and 360. President may proclaim a
state of emergency in the whole or part of India if he feels that a grave situation has arisen in which the
security of India on part of its territory might get threatened by war or external aggression or rebellion.
During the financial emergency, the President gets the financial powers as well.

Conclusion

It has been observed that although the President of India has enormous powers he can only exercise
them with the advice of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers as provided under Article 73 and 74 of
the Constitution. It is important to note that the President is the first citizen of India who is the protector
of the entire nation per se.
Introduction

Constitutional provisions related to the Governor are provided from Article 152 to Article 237. While
the President is elected by the representatives of the people, namely, the Members of Parliament and
the Members of the State Legislatures, the Governor is merely appointed by the President which really
means, by the Union Council of Ministers. Inasmuch as the Governor holds office during the pleasure of
the President, there is no security of his tenure. He can be removed by the President at any time.

As it said that “as the President acts on the advice of his Ministry, it may be contended that if the
Governor takes action contrary to the policy of the Union Ministry, he would risk being removed from
his post as Governor and therefore he is likely to follow the advice of the Union Ministry.

The removal of the Governor under such circumstances would otherwise mean that the Union executive
would effectively control the State executive, which is opposed to the basic scheme of our federal
Constitution. Article 356(1) was designed to secure that if the Governor was pursuing policies which
were detrimental to the State or to India, the President would remove the Governor from his office and
appoint another Governor, hence, power takes the place of an impeachment which clearly is a power to
be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances”.

Qualification and Appointment of Governor

Article 153 of the Indian Constitution provides that there shall be a Governor for each State however;
nothing shall prevent the appointment of the same person as Governor for two or more States. Article
155 of the Constitution provides that the Governor of the State shall be appointed by the President by
warrant under his hand and seal which means that the President has the right and power to appoint the
governor of the State with the consultation and advice of the Council of Ministers.

Article 157 of the Constitution provides the qualification of the person for being eligible to be
appointed as the Governor of a particular state that no person shall be eligible for appointment as
Governor unless he is a citizen of India and has completed the age of thirty-five years.

In Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, it was held by the court that Article 155 of the Constitution,
in my view, only provides for the appointments to a Constitutional office and it cannot be held that the
Governor of a State holds employment under the Government of India merely because he holds an office
or is appointed thereto. It is difficult to conceive that there are a master and servant or an employer and
an employee relationship between the Government of a State & the Government of India.

Conditions and Tenure of Office of the Governor

Article 156 provides for the tenure of the governor of the States in which he has been prescribed that
he shall hold the office during the pleasure of the present. The clause (2) of the Article provides that the
Governor shall provide the resignation in writing to the President. The clause (3) of the Article provides
that the governor holds the office for the term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his
office, provided, that a Governor continues to hold office until his successor enters upon his of his term.
There are certain conditions as well according to which the Governor holds the office which is being
described in Article 158. The clause (1) of the Article states that the Governor should neither be a
member of House of parliament nor of a House of Legislature of any of the State which have been
specified in the first schedule. Also, it has been provided that if any member who has been the member
of House of People r of the State Legislature has been appointed as the Governor, he will be deemed to
have vacated the seat that he held earlier in the House on the date on which he enters upon his office.

The clause (2) prohibits the Governor to hold any office of profit. According to the clause (3) of the
Article, the Governor is entitled to use the official residences without the payment of rent for the same
and is entitled to such emoluments, allowances and privileges which has been determined by law or by
Parliament until the contrary has been made. The clause (4) states that the emoluments and allowances
of the Governor shall not be diminished during his term of office.

Powers, Functions and Privileges of Governor

The Governor is vested with numerous powers and is responsible to perform certain functions. The
Governor is being provided with certain privileges as well.

Executive Power

Article 154 states that the Governor is vested with the executive power of the State which are being
exercised by him either directly or through the subordinate officers in accordance with this
Constitution. The clause (2) of the Article states that nothing in this article shall be deemed to transfer
to the Governor any functions conferred by any existing law on any other authority; or shall prevent
Parliament or the Legislature of the State from conferring by law functions on any authority subordinate
to the Governor.

Article 162 states that there is a certain extent of exercise of the executive power by the Governor.
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters
with respect to which the Legislature of the State has the power to make laws; provided that in any
matter with respect to which the Legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the
executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred
by this Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof.

In State of Orissa and another v. Pradipta Kumar Behera, it was held that the scope of Articles 162 and
309 of the Constitution of India is that any rule enshrined under Article 309 of the Constitution of India
cannot be supplemented by executive instruction framed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.

Linchpin in Centre and State Relations

The term linchpin refers to the connection between the two parties. Jawaharlal Nehru, in his famous
speech, once referred to the Governor as being the “linchpin of constitutional apparatus of State”. On
the one hand, he is the Constitutional Head of the State and is a part of the State apparatus. On the other
hand, he is the representative of the Central Government in the State and thus provides a link with
Centre. In the exercise of his legislative powers, the governor has the power to reserve some of the bills
for the president and also when the State legislature is not in session and the governor considers it
necessary to have a law, then the governor can promulgate ordinances.

These ordinances are required to be submitted to the state legislature in its next session. According to
the Report of the Administrative Reforms Commission,

“the Governor functions, for most purposes, as a part of the State apparatus; but he is meant, at the same
time, to be a linked with the Centre and this link and his responsibility to the Centre flow out of the
Constitution mainly because of the provision that he is appointed and can be dismissed by the President,
hence, The Constitution specifically provides for a departure from the strict federal principles and it is
relevant to observe that this departure is not fortuitous or casual”.

However, the office of the Governor is often misused than being used for productive purposes. In State
of Rajasthan v. Union of India, Justice Bhagwati has also conceded that the inclusion of the word
‘otherwise’ in Article 356 gave the President very drastic Powers which, if misused or abused can
destroy the Constitutional equilibrium between the Union and the States.

Discretionary Powers

According to Article 161 of the Indian Constitution, the Governor of a State has enormous power to
grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the
sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the
executive power of the State extends. Hence the Governor can order life imprisonment but cannot order
a death sentence.

In Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab,it was held by the court that where a convict under the NDPS Act
was seeking benefit of the Circular issued by the State Government under Article 161 of the Constitution
on the occasion of Independence Day, whereby, all prisoners who had been convicted in the State of
Punjab and confined to jails as on August 15, 2003 were given one-year special remission.

The Court relying upon the decision of Ekka Ram’s case held that the embargo under Section 32-A of
the NDPS Act was applicable only to executive decisions under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, but did not apply for the purpose of imposing any restriction on the powers of the Governor
under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and has held that the convicts are also entitled to the
benefit of aforesaid Circular.
In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, while following the decision in Ekka Ram’s case, the court held that
the convicts under the NDPS Act are entitled to special remissions granted by the State under Article
161 of the Constitution of India.

In Charanjit Singh v. The State of Punjab, the court again considered the aforesaid question with
regard to the eligibility of grant of special remissions to the convicts undergoing imprisonment. The
Court by following the decision of Ekka Ram’s case allowed the benefit of remissions under the Circulars
issued by the State Government under Article 161 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion

The Governor is the Constitutional Head of a State and hence, is dignified part of the Government as he
is highly respected and is supposed to be a non-partisan functionary.