One-Page Concept Snapshot (Last-Day Revision)

• The Prime Minister is the “real executive” in India’s parliamentary democracy — the President is the nominal head while PM exercises actual executive authority (Article 74 & 75).
• The PM is described as the “keystone of the cabinet arch” (Ivor Jennings) and “first among equals” (primus inter pares) — yet in practice often transcends this, especially with majority support.
• Council of Ministers (CoM) is the collective body; Cabinet is the inner ring of senior ministers who make key decisions; PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) is the support structure that has grown into a power centre itself.
• The UK has no written constitution — PM and Cabinet exist purely through conventions. India has a written Constitution (Articles 74–78) that codifies much of this, but still relies on UK-style conventions for day-to-day working.
• Collective responsibility (Art. 75(3)) means the entire CoM sinks or swims together — if the Lok Sabha passes a no-confidence motion, the entire Council resigns, not just the individual minister.
• In single-party majority, the PM is virtually supreme — cabinet is subordinate. In coalition governments, the PM must negotiate, accommodate allies, and balance competing agendas, significantly reducing prime-ministerial dominance.
• PM’s appointment is by the President (Art. 75(1)), but the President’s discretion is limited to situations of hung Parliament — otherwise convention dictates inviting the majority party/coalition leader.
• A minister who is not a member of either House of Parliament must get elected within 6 months, failing which they cease to be a minister (Art. 75).
• The 91st Constitutional Amendment (2003) caps the CoM at 15% of the total strength of Lok Sabha — directly addressing the problem of oversized, patronage-driven cabinets.
• The PM is the link between the President and CoM (Art. 78) — duty to communicate decisions, furnish information, and submit matters for Cabinet consideration if the President requests.
• Cabinet committees (e.g., Cabinet Committee on Security, Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs) are the actual decision-making engines — full cabinet ratifies rather than deliberates in most cases.
• The Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule, 52nd Amendment, strengthened by 91st Amendment) ensures stability but critics argue it converts MPs into “voting cattle” controlled by the party whip and PM.
• India’s PM has no fixed tenure — they serve at the pleasure of the Lok Sabha majority. Contrast with the US President who has a fixed 4-year term regardless of congressional confidence.
• Question Hour in Parliament is the primary tool for day-to-day accountability of ministers, borrowed from UK conventions; supplemented by Zero Hour (Indian innovation).
• The debate between “Cabinet government” vs “Prime Ministerial government” is a perennial UPSC theme — the answer depends on PM’s personality, party strength, and coalition constraints.

UPSC Trap Areas

• Trap 1: The Constitution does not explicitly say the PM must be from the Lok Sabha — convention dictates it, but technically a Rajya Sabha member can be PM (e.g., Indira Gandhi briefly in 1966, Manmohan Singh 2004–14).
• Trap 2: Article 74 was amended by the 42nd Amendment (1976) to make the President’s obligation to act on CoM advice binding, and the 44th Amendment (1978) added the right of the President to send advice back once — but must act on resubmitted advice.
• Trap 3: “Collective responsibility” under Art. 75(3) is to the Lok Sabha only, not to Rajya Sabha and not to Parliament as a whole. This is frequently tested.

Constitutional Philosophy: Why Prime Minister & Council of Ministers?

Parliamentary Model Rationale

India chose the parliamentary system over the presidential system primarily because of the principle of accountability. In a parliamentary system, the executive (CoM headed by the PM) is drawn from and accountable to the legislature. This creates a “fusion of powers” — the executive cannot act independently of the legislature’s confidence. The Constituent Assembly, led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, explicitly preferred this model as it provides daily and continuous accountability rather than periodic accountability through elections alone (as in the US presidential model).

Cabinet Government as Institutional Bridge

The Cabinet system serves as the institutional bridge between the legislature and the executive. Ministers are members of Parliament (or must become so within 6 months), ensuring that those who make policy are also those who face legislative scrutiny. This bridge prevents the disconnect between law-making and law-execution that can arise in presidential systems. The PM, as head of the Cabinet and leader of the House, is the linchpin of this bridge.

Political Executive vs. Permanent Executive

The Constitution distinguishes between the political executive (PM and CoM — elected, temporary, policy-setting) and the permanent executive (civil services — appointed, continuing, implementation-focused). The PM and ministers provide democratic direction to the permanent bureaucracy, ensuring that governance reflects the people’s mandate rather than bureaucratic inertia.

Responsible Government + Democratic Legitimacy

The PM and CoM derive their legitimacy from the elected Lok Sabha. Collective responsibility ensures that governance remains responsive to the people’s representatives. The system is designed so that a government that loses public confidence (reflected through the Lok Sabha) must resign — making the executive perpetually accountable in a way that fixed-term presidencies cannot achieve.

Written Constitution + UK Conventions: India’s Blend

India’s unique contribution is codifying the essentials of parliamentary government in a written constitution (Articles 74, 75, 77, 78) while still relying on unwritten UK-origin conventions for day-to-day functioning — such as the PM controlling the cabinet agenda, the convention of collective cabinet secrecy, and the practice of the leader of the majority party being invited to form government. This blend provides both legal certainty and functional flexibility.

Origins & Borrowings (Comparative Lens)

What India Borrowed from the UK

The core architecture of India’s executive is modelled on the Westminster parliamentary system. From the UK, India borrowed the Cabinet system where the PM leads a team of ministers drawn from Parliament; the principle of collective responsibility where the entire Cabinet stands or falls together; Question Hour as a mechanism for parliamentary accountability; the convention that the PM is the leader of the majority party; and the concept of the PM as “first among equals” within the Cabinet. Even the terms “Prime Minister” and “Cabinet” are British inheritances.

What India Modified

India did not import the UK model wholesale. Key modifications include: (a) a written Constitution codifying what exists only as convention in the UK (Art. 74, 75); (b) judicial review of executive actions (absent in the UK’s parliamentary sovereignty model); (c) the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule) to prevent floor-crossing, unknown to British law; (d) federal constraints — India’s PM must navigate Centre-State relations, unlike the UK’s unitary system; and (e) the 91st Amendment capping CoM size, responding to Indian political realities of patronage-driven cabinet expansion.

Contrast with USA (Presidential System)

The US President is both head of state and head of government — combining what in India is split between the President and PM. US Cabinet members (“Secretaries”) are appointed by the President, are not members of Congress, and are not accountable to the legislature. There is no collective responsibility — each Secretary is individually responsible to the President. There is no mechanism of no-confidence motion. The US system prioritizes separation of powers over fusion of powers.

Contrast with France (Semi-Presidential)

France operates a dual executive — the President (directly elected, strong in foreign policy/defence) and the PM (appointed by the President but accountable to the National Assembly). “Cohabitation” occurs when the President and PM belong to different parties — creating a divided executive unknown in India or the UK. The French PM can be dismissed by the National Assembly, making the system partly parliamentary, but the President retains significant independent executive authority.

Constitutional Provisions (Articles Explained)

Appointment & Formation of Government

Who Appoints the PM?

The President appoints the PM under Article 75(1). However, this is not a discretionary power in normal circumstances. The President is bound by convention to invite the leader of the majority party (or coalition) in the Lok Sabha to form the government. The President’s discretion becomes real only in situations of a hung Parliament — when no single party or pre-election coalition has a clear majority.

Single Party Majority

When one party wins an absolute majority (272+ seats in Lok Sabha), the choice is straightforward — the President invites that party’s leader. The PM in this scenario has maximum authority: they control the party, the legislature, and the cabinet.

Coalition Government

When no single party has a majority, the President invites the leader of the largest party or the leader of the coalition most likely to command majority support. The President may ask for a letter of support from coalition partners. In this scenario, the PM’s authority is constrained — cabinet formation, policy, and even survival depend on coalition partners’ cooperation.

Hung Parliament & Floor Test

In genuinely hung situations, the President exercises real constitutional discretion. The general principle (established through the S.R. Bommai line of cases, though that dealt with states) is that the question of majority must be tested on the floor of the House, not in the President’s drawing room. The President may set a deadline for the new PM to prove majority through a floor test. If the PM fails the floor test, they must resign.

Appointment of Ministers

Other ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the PM (Art. 75(1)). In practice, the PM has near-total discretion in selecting ministers in a single-party government, but in a coalition, alliance partners have significant influence over portfolio allocation. The PM allocates portfolios through the Allocation of Business Rules under Article 77.

6-Month Rule for Non-MP Ministers

Under Article 75(5), a minister who is not a member of either House of Parliament for six consecutive months ceases to be a minister. This provision ensures that the principle of parliamentary accountability is not circumvented by appointing outsiders indefinitely. The 6-month window allows a newly-appointed non-MP minister time to get elected to either House.

Council of Ministers: Types, Hierarchy & Working

A. Council of Ministers vs Cabinet vs Kitchen Cabinet

The Council of Ministers (CoM) is the entire body of ministers of all ranks — it is the constitutional entity collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha under Art. 75(3). The CoM rarely meets as a whole body.

The Cabinet is the inner ring of senior ministers (Cabinet-rank Ministers) who actually make key policy decisions. The Cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution — it is a product of convention and the Rules of Business. Article 352 (Emergency) is the only article that mentions the word “Cabinet” (after the 44th Amendment), defining it as the CoM consisting of PM and Cabinet-rank Ministers.

The “Kitchen Cabinet” is an informal, extra-constitutional term for the PM’s trusted inner circle of advisors — which may include non-ministers, bureaucrats, and personal advisors. It has no constitutional status but has historically been very influential.

B. Cabinet Committees

Cabinet Committees are sub-groups of the Cabinet constituted under the Rules of Business to handle specific policy domains. They are the real engines of decision-making. Key examples include:

• Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) — chaired by PM; handles defence, internal security, and strategic matters.
• Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) — chaired by PM; handles economic policy, industrial licensing, etc.
• Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA) — chaired by PM; handles political issues and coordination.
• Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs — chaired by a senior minister; coordinates legislative business.
• Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) — PM + relevant minister; makes senior bureaucratic appointments.

Decisions of Cabinet Committees are treated as decisions of the full Cabinet unless the full Cabinet specifically reviews them. The PM, being the chairman of the most important committees, controls the decision-making process.

C. Categories of Ministers

D. Collective Responsibility vs Individual Responsibility

Collective Responsibility (Art. 75(3)): The CoM is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This means: (a) all ministers publicly support and defend Cabinet decisions, even if they privately disagreed; (b) a no-confidence motion against the CoM brings down the entire government; (c) cabinet secrecy protects internal deliberations. This is the bedrock principle of parliamentary government.

Individual Responsibility (Art. 75(2), convention): Each minister is individually responsible for the administration of their ministry. The PM can ask a minister to resign for policy failure, misconduct, or loss of confidence. The President formally dismisses on PM’s advice. A minister can also be censured by Parliament (through a censure motion specific to them), though they are not constitutionally obligated to resign on censure.

E. No-Confidence, Confidence, and Censure Motions

Powers & Functions of the Prime Minister

A. As Head of Government

The PM is the chief policy-maker and coordinator of the Government of India. They set the national agenda, determine policy priorities, resolve inter-ministerial disputes, and coordinate between various ministries and agencies. In matters of national security, foreign affairs, and major economic decisions, the PM typically takes the lead, often through the Cabinet Committee on Security and Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs which they chair.

B. As Leader of Parliament (Lok Sabha)

The PM is the leader of the Lok Sabha (or leader of the House if a Rajya Sabha member). They control the legislative agenda through the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs, direct the party whip to ensure voting discipline, lead government responses to no-confidence motions, and steer major legislation through the House. The PM’s performance in Parliament significantly shapes public confidence and political narrative.

C. As Link Between President and CoM (Article 78)

The PM has three constitutional duties under Article 78: (a) to communicate to the President all decisions of the CoM; (b) to furnish information on administration and legislation as the President calls for; and (c) to submit for CoM consideration any matter decided by an individual minister if the President so requires. This makes the PM the sole constitutional channel between the head of state and the government.

D. As Head of the Cabinet System

The PM forms the Cabinet — selecting ministers, allocating portfolios, reshuffling when needed, and dropping ministers who lose confidence. The PM enforces collective responsibility — a minister who publicly dissents must resign or be dismissed. The PM sets the Cabinet agenda, decides what goes to full Cabinet vs Cabinet Committees, and controls the pace and direction of government decision-making.

E. PMO and “Prime Ministerialisation”

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has evolved from a secretariat into a powerful command centre. Staffed by senior bureaucrats and political advisors, the PMO monitors ministry performance, coordinates inter-ministerial issues, handles sensitive matters directly, and often bypasses the normal cabinet process. This has led to the debate on “Prime Ministerialisation” — the trend where power concentrates in the PM and PMO at the expense of the Cabinet and individual ministers.

Powers & Functions of the Council of Ministers

Policy Formulation & Execution

The CoM, led by the PM, is the chief policy-making body of the Union government. All major domestic and foreign policies originate from or are approved by the Cabinet. Once policy is decided, the permanent executive (civil services) implements it under the political direction of the concerned minister.

Ordinance Advice & Budget Responsibility

The President promulgates ordinances under Article 123 only on the advice of the CoM (per Art. 74). The annual budget (now called Annual Financial Statement) is prepared by the Ministry of Finance under the FM but approved by the Cabinet before being presented to Parliament. The CoM is collectively responsible for the fiscal direction of the country.

Cabinet Decision-Making Process

Most decisions are taken in Cabinet Committees and ratified by the full Cabinet. For matters of exceptional importance, the full Cabinet deliberates. Decisions are recorded by the Cabinet Secretary — the senior-most civil servant who serves as the administrative head of the Cabinet Secretariat. Cabinet meetings are confidential (oath of secrecy under Schedule III).

Collective Responsibility to Lok Sabha

Under Art. 75(3), the CoM functions as a single unit vis-à-vis the Lok Sabha. They collectively defend government policy, share credit and blame, and if the Lok Sabha passes a no-confidence motion, the entire CoM resigns. No minister can publicly distance themselves from a Cabinet decision. This ensures the government speaks with one voice.

Crisis Management & Emergency Roles

During national security crises, natural disasters, or constitutional emergencies, the Cabinet (especially the CCS) becomes the nerve centre of decision-making. The advice to the President to proclaim Emergency (Art. 352) must come from the Cabinet in writing (after the 44th Amendment).

Relation with Civil Services

Ministers exercise political control over the permanent bureaucracy. Each minister heads their ministry, sets policy direction, and is answerable to Parliament for their ministry’s functioning. The civil servants implement policy and provide technical expertise but are subordinate to the political executive. The balance between political direction and bureaucratic independence is a perennial governance challenge.

Checks & Accountability Mechanisms

Parliamentary Accountability

Parliament holds the CoM accountable through multiple mechanisms: Question Hour (starred, unstarred, short-notice questions); debates (adjournment motion, calling attention, short-duration); Parliamentary Committees (Public Accounts Committee, Estimates Committee, Committee on Public Undertakings, Departmental Standing Committees); no-confidence motions; and scrutiny of CAG reports (the constitutional auditor whose reports are examined by PAC).

Zero Hour is an Indian innovation — not in rules of procedure but in practice — allowing MPs to raise urgent matters immediately after Question Hour.

Judicial Accountability

While courts cannot inquire into the advice tendered to the President (Art. 74(2)), they can review the actions taken by the government — laws passed, executive orders issued, policies implemented. Judicial review under Articles 13, 14, 19, 21, and 226/32 ensures executive actions comply with fundamental rights and constitutional norms. Courts have struck down executive actions, reviewed ordinance-making frequency, and examined the reasonableness of government policies.

Media & Public Accountability

A free press, RTI (Right to Information Act, 2005), and active civil society function as informal but powerful checks on the executive. Investigative journalism has historically exposed ministerial misconduct, policy failures, and corruption, compelling parliamentary action or judicial intervention.

Federal Constraints

India’s federal structure creates natural checks on the PM and CoM. State governments controlled by opposition parties, the Rajya Sabha (where state-level political dynamics play out), Inter-State Council, GST Council, and NITI Aayog all require the central government to negotiate, persuade, and accommodate rather than dictate.

Anti-Defection Law: Stability vs Debate

The Tenth Schedule ensures government stability by preventing floor-crossing. However, critics argue it converts MPs into “voting cattle” — bound by the party whip, unable to exercise independent judgment or vote against their party even on matters of conscience. This effectively strengthens the PM’s control over the legislative party at the cost of backbench dissent and quality of parliamentary debate.

UK Comparison (Deep Dive)

UK PM: Convention vs Statute

The UK PM exists entirely through convention — there is no written constitutional article creating the office. The PM is the leader of the party that commands a majority in the House of Commons, appointed by the monarch. In contrast, India’s PM is established under Articles 74 and 75 — a written constitutional base supplemented by conventions. This means the UK PM’s powers are more flexible and evolving, while India’s are somewhat anchored in constitutional text.

Cabinet Government: Collective Responsibility

In the UK, collective responsibility is a strict convention: ministers who cannot support a Cabinet decision must resign (the convention was temporarily suspended during the 2016 Brexit referendum). In India, it is a constitutional mandate (Art. 75(3)). The practical functioning is similar, but India’s codification means courts can potentially enforce it, while in the UK it remains entirely a matter of political practice.

Monarch vs Indian President

The UK monarch and the Indian President are both nominal heads of state who act on ministerial advice. Key differences: the monarch’s role is hereditary and essentially irremovable; the Indian President is elected and can be impeached. The monarch has residual “reserve powers” (e.g., dissolving Parliament, though this is now governed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act’s successor) that are debated; the Indian President’s discretionary powers are more clearly defined by constitutional text and judicial interpretation.

Shadow Cabinet & PMQs vs India

The UK’s Shadow Cabinet is a highly institutionalized opposition structure — the opposition party forms a parallel cabinet with shadow ministers tracking each government department. India has no formal shadow cabinet system. Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the UK is a weekly, highly combative session where the PM faces direct opposition questioning — India’s Question Hour serves a similar function but the PM is not specifically required to answer and the intensity of direct PM questioning is lower.

UK Cabinet Committees & “Number 10” vs PMO

The UK PM’s office at 10 Downing Street functions similarly to India’s PMO — coordinating government business, managing communications, and serving as the PM’s command centre. UK Cabinet Committees are also similar in structure and function to India’s. The key difference is scale: India’s PMO has grown significantly larger and more powerful relative to its UK equivalent, partly due to India’s size and complexity.

Coalition Conventions

The UK developed formal coalition conventions during the 2010–15 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition — including a coalition agreement and a “confidence and supply” arrangement (where a smaller party agrees to support the government on confidence votes and budgets without joining the Cabinet). India’s coalition conventions are less formalized — typically based on pre/post-election alliances, Common Minimum Programmes, and informal understandings, often without written coalition agreements.

“First Among Equals” vs “Presidential PM” Debate

The debate exists in both countries. UK PMs like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair were criticized for “presidential” styles — centralizing power, sidelining the Cabinet, and making personal decisions on major issues (e.g., Iraq War). Similarly, Indian PMs with large majorities have been accused of the same. The debate reflects a universal tension in Westminster systems between collective cabinet government and the concentration of power in the PM.

India vs UK: Comprehensive Comparison

Contemporary Issues / Debates

PM-Centric Governance: Pros & Cons

The trend towards PM-centric governance — where major decisions flow through the PMO rather than the Cabinet — has both defenders and critics. Proponents argue it ensures policy coherence, rapid decision-making, and clear accountability. Critics argue it undermines collective responsibility, marginalizes cabinet ministers, weakens parliamentary oversight, and risks authoritarian concentration of power. The truth lies in the balance — strong PM leadership is not inherently anti-democratic, but it must operate within the framework of cabinet deliberation and parliamentary accountability.

Coalition Era vs Majority Era

India’s experience with coalition governments (1989–2014) demonstrated both the strengths and weaknesses of collective decision-making. Coalition PMs had to negotiate extensively, give partners significant policy influence, and tolerate dissent — producing a more consultative but often slower style of governance. The return to single-party majority brought faster decision-making but also concerns about reduced internal deliberation and executive dominance.

Cabinet Secrecy vs Transparency

The oath of secrecy (Schedule III) underpins cabinet confidentiality — the principle that internal cabinet deliberations must remain private to enable free and frank discussion. However, the Right to Information Act (2005) creates a competing demand for transparency. The tension between these two principles is ongoing: how much of the government’s decision-making process should be open to public scrutiny? Courts have generally upheld cabinet secrecy for deliberative matters but required disclosure of final decisions.

Ordinance Route & Executive Dominance

The ordinance power (Art. 123) was designed for genuine emergencies when Parliament is not in session. However, successive governments have used ordinances routinely — sometimes re-promulgating the same ordinance multiple times to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. The Supreme Court has criticized this practice, holding that repeated re-promulgation amounts to a fraud on the Constitution. This remains a key area where executive convenience clashes with parliamentary supremacy.

PM & Cooperative Federalism

The PM’s role in cooperative federalism has expanded through institutions like the GST Council (constitutional body for indirect tax coordination), NITI Aayog (replacement for Planning Commission, chaired by PM), and various Inter-State Council meetings. These platforms require the PM to engage with state CMs as partners rather than subordinates — introducing a federal check on centralized PM authority.

Ethics Dimension

Questions of ministerial accountability, dissent within the cabinet, the tension between collective responsibility and individual conscience, and the ethics of the anti-defection law’s impact on free parliamentary debate are all live issues for UPSC. The ideal is a system where collective responsibility coexists with healthy internal deliberation — where ministers can dissent privately but solidarity publicly does not become mere silence.

List-Based Prelims Content

• PM eligibility: Not explicitly stated in the Constitution. By convention: citizen of India, member of either House (preferably Lok Sabha), above 25 (Lok Sabha) or 30 (Rajya Sabha), majority support in Lok Sabha.
• Oath: Ministers take TWO oaths — (1) oath of office and (2) oath of secrecy — both before the President (Schedule III).
• 6-month rule (Art. 75(5)): A minister not a member of either House for 6 consecutive months ceases to be a minister.
• 91st Amendment (2003): CoM size capped at 15% of Lok Sabha strength. Defectors disqualified from ministerial appointment.
• Collective responsibility (Art. 75(3)): CoM is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha — not Rajya Sabha, not Parliament as a whole.
• Cabinet decision vs Minister decision: Cabinet decisions bind all ministers (collective responsibility). Individual minister decisions bind only their ministry but can be referred to Cabinet by the President under Art. 78(c).
• Art. 74 — President bound by advice: Must act on CoM advice. Can return advice once (44th Amendment), but must act on resubmitted advice.
• Art. 77 — Rules of Business: President makes rules for allocation of work among ministers. PM controls this process.
• Art. 88 — Minister can speak in either House: But can vote only in the House of which they are a member.
• “Cabinet” mentioned in Constitution: Only in Art. 352 (after 44th Amendment) — defined as CoM consisting of PM and Cabinet-rank Ministers.

UPSC PYQ Mapping & Heat Map

A. PYQ Heat Map

B. What UPSC Usually Tests

• Conventions vs Constitution: Where does the Constitution end and convention begin? (PM from Lok Sabha, collective responsibility mechanics)
• Responsibility mechanisms: Collective vs individual; no-confidence vs censure; Art. 75(3) scope
• PMO/Cabinet dynamics: Cabinet government vs PM government; who really decides?
• Coalition impact: How coalitions alter the PM’s power, cabinet functioning, and decision-making
• India-UK comparison: Written vs unwritten; judicial review vs parliamentary sovereignty; shadow cabinet; PMQs

UPSC GS-II Mains Questions

Answer Writing Frameworks

Prelims MCQs (with Explanations)

Frequently Asked Questions