Article 74 of the Constitution of India

Last updated February 12, 2024

Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of India provides for a Council of Ministers which shall aid the President in the exercise of the President's functions.

Text

Article 74

(1) There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advices. (The bolded text was added in by the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India and came into effect on 3 January 1977.^[1])

Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advices tendered after such reconsideration. (This para is added by the Forty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India in the year 1978)

(2) The question if any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.

Amendments

Before the 42nd amendment, Article 74(1) stated that, "there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions". However, there was a slight ambiguity whether the advice of the Council of Ministers is binding on the President. The 42nd Amendment (1976) made it explicit that the President shall, "act in accordance with such advice". The amendment went into effect from 3 January 1977.^[2]^[1]

The 44th Amendment (1978) however added that the President can send the advice back for reconsideration once. But if the Council of Ministers sends the same advice again to the President then the President must accept it. The amendment went into effect from 20 June 1979.^[1]

Court Cases

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

In this case Supreme Court made some very important pronouncements regarding scope and effect of Clause (2) of Article 74. Article 74(2) barred courts from inquiring into the advice given by Council of Ministers to the president. In a way the advice of Council of Ministers was kept out of Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review by this article. In this regard, Supreme Court held that although Article 74(2) bars judicial review so far as the advice given by the Ministers is concerned, it does not bar scrutiny of the material on the basis of which the advice is given. It also said that the material on the basis of which advice was tendered does not become part of the advice and courts are justified in probing as to whether there was any material on the basis of which the advice was given, and whether it was relevant for such advice and the President could have acted on it.

The court also said that, when it undertakes an inquiry into the existence of such material, the prohibition contained in Article 74(2) does not negate their right to know about the factual existence of any such material.

The court also made clear, through para 83 of the judgement, that Article 74(2) gives freedom to the President by making his order unquestionable on the ground that it was either contrary to the advice tendered by the ministers or was issued without obtaining any advice from the ministers. The object of Article 74(2) was only to make the question whether the President had followed the advice of the Ministers or acted contrary thereto, non-justiciable.^[3] When the union cabinet is unhappy with the unconstitutional functioning of the President, impeachment by the Parliament is the only recourse since the legal action by the courts is not possible per Article 74 (2) and Article 361.

The impeachment action by parliament is valid only when the charges of violating the constitution by the president are proven by a court or tribunal which is designated by either house of Parliament with a two-thirds majority of its total membership per Article 61. President, need not step down or can approach the Supreme Court for restoring his post as long as he has not violated the constitution (i.e. not obliging the unconstitutional advice of the ministers even after sending back for reconsideration).

Article 163(3)

Article 163(3) is applicable to the Governors of states exactly similar to Article 74(2). When cabinet ministers / meeting minutes are not supporting the advice given to the Governor, he can act in his discretion without violating the constitution.

Related Research Articles

The president of India is the head of state of the Republic of India. The president is the nominal head of the executive, the first citizen of the country, as well as the supreme commander of the Indian Armed Forces. Droupadi Murmu is the 15th and current president, having taken office from 25 July 2022.

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India. The document lays down the framework that demarcates fundamental political code, structure, procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens, based on the proposal suggested by M. N. Roy. It is the longest written national constitution in the world.

The president of Pakistan is the head of state of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The president is the nominal head of the executive and the supreme commander of the Pakistan Armed Forces. Presidency is a ceremonial position in Pakistan. President is bound to act on advice of Prime Minister and cabinet. Arif Alvi is the 13th current president, in office since 9 September 2018.

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which came into force in 1957 as the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya and was amended in 1963 to form the Constitution of Malaysia, is the supreme law of Malaysia and contains a total of 183 articles. It is a written legal document influenced by two previous documents, the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 and the Independence Constitution of 1957. The Federation was initially called the Federation of Malaya and it adopted its present name, Malaysia, when the states of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore became part of the Federation. The Constitution establishes the Federation as a constitutional monarchy, having the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of State with largely ceremonial roles. It provides for the establishment and organisation of three main branches of the government: the bicameral legislative branch called the Parliament, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate ; the executive branch led by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers and the judicial branch headed by the Federal Court.

The Union Council of Ministers is the principal executive organ of the Government of India, which functions as the senior decision-making body of the executive branch. It is chaired by the prime minister and consists of the heads of each of the executive government ministries. Currently, the council is headed by prime minister Narendra Modi and consists of 29 members, including the prime minister. The council is subject to the Parliament of India.

The Parliament of Pakistan is the supreme legislative body of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is a bicameral federal legislature, composed of the President of Pakistan and two houses: the Senate and the National Assembly. The president, as head of the legislature, has the power to summon or prorogue either house of the Parliament. The president can dissolve the National Assembly, only on the Prime Minister's advice.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore. A written constitution, the text which took effect on 9 August 1965 is derived from the Constitution of the State of Singapore 1963, provisions of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia made applicable to Singapore by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965, and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act itself. The text of the Constitution is one of the legally binding sources of constitutional law in Singapore, the others being judicial interpretations of the Constitution, and certain other statutes. Non-binding sources are influences on constitutional law such as soft law, constitutional conventions, and public international law.

This is a brief description of the lawmaking procedure in India.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1971, curtailed the fundamental right to property, and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by the Parliament and not the courts. The amendment also exempted any law giving effect to the article 39(b) and (c) of Directive Principles of State Policy from judicial review, even if it violated the Fundamental Rights.

Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament of India.

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, where the Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and related issues. This case had huge impact on Centre-State Relations. The judgement attempted to curb blatant misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which allowed President's rule to be imposed over state governments. S. R. Bommai, former Chief Minister of Karnataka, is widely remembered as the champion for this landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, considered one of the most quoted verdicts in the country's political history.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal is a tribunal established in 1994 pursuant to Article 100 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Article 100 provides a mechanism for the President of Singapore, acting on the advice of the Singapore Cabinet, to refer to the Tribunal for its opinion any question as to the effect of any provision of the Constitution which has arisen or appears to likely to arise. Questions referred to the Tribunal may concern the validity of enacted laws or of bills that have not yet been passed by Parliament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President of Azad Kashmir</span> Constitutional and ceremonial head of state of Azad Kashmir

The president of Azad Kashmir, Officially the president of the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is the constitutional and ceremonial head of state of Azad Kashmir.

<i>Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs</i>

Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 1989 and the 1990 judgment in the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal. The cases were concerned with the constitutionality of amendments made to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Internal Security Act ("ISA") in 1989. The latter statute authorizes detention without trial on security grounds. These amendments had the effect of changing the law on judicial review of executive discretion under the ISA by re-establishing the subjective test enunciated in the 1971 High Court decision Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs which had been overruled in 1988 by Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs, and limiting the right of judicial review to ensuring compliance with procedures specified in the ISA. In other words, the amendments were intended to render the exercise of power by the President and the Minister for Home Affairs under the ISA to detain persons without trial not justiciable by the courts. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that these amendments were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review. Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review.

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1956, brought taxes on inter-State sales and purchases of goods other than newspapers within the exclusive legislative and executive power of the Union, and levied taxes on inter-State sales and purchase of goods other than newspapers. Although these taxes would be levied and collected in accordance with an Act of Parliament, they would not form part of the Consolidated Fund of India, but would accrue to the States themselves in accordance with such principles of distribution as may be formulated by Parliament by law.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1962, incorporated Pondicherry as the ninth Union territory of India, and also gave Parliament the authority to create by law, Legislatures and Councils of Ministers for the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu and Puducherry.

The Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1966, inserted a new article 233A inter alia validating the appointments, postings, promotions, and transfers of and judgements, delivered before the commencement of the present Act, by district judges who were appointed, posted, promoted or transferred as a district judge in any State otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of article 233 or article 235 of the Constitution.

The Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1969, inserted new article 244A in the Constitution to empower Parliament to enact a law for constituting an autonomous State within the State of Assam and also to provide the autonomous State with Legislature or a Council of Ministers or both with such powers and functions as may be defined by that law.

The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1971, enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution. It also amended article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution. The amendment further made it obligatory for the President to give his assent, when a Constitution Amendment Bill was presented to him.

The Ninety-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 2014, formed a National Judicial Appointments Commission. 16 State assemblies out of 29 States including Goa, Rajasthan, Tripura, Gujarat and Telangana ratified the Central Legislation, enabling the President of India to give assent to the bill. The amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court on 16 October 2015.

References

1 2 3 Constitution of India (As modified up to 1st December, 2007 (PDF). Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. p. 35. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 September 2014. Retrieved 17 February 2010.
↑ Deogaonkar, Shashishekhar Gopal. Parliamentary system in India. Concept Publishing Company. p. 32. ISBN 81-7022-651-1.
↑ "S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994" . Retrieved 3 May 2016.