Though President of India is the constitutional head of the state, he is only a nominal executive and not a real executive. Comment.

Indian constitution envisages 'Parliament-ary form of Government' wherein two sets of executives exist while one enjoys nominal and mere de-facto powers.

Indian President as constitutional head:

However, in order,

=> Head of State ≠ Head of Govt

President Prime Minister

(Article 74)

President as nominal executive:

In India, Prime Minister heads the real executive powers via Council of Ministers, as seen in nominal powers of President:

Delimitation exercise is based on principles of true representation so as to enshrine and ideals of true democracy prevail.

Delimitation Commissions (Size and expenditure = 4):

Then, constituencies form until 2026 census.

Significance of Delimitation:

1. Ensures similar % of population represented on MP/MLA across India/state respectively

2. Adequate representation to SC/STs via protected law in 'Reserved State'

3. Give parliamentary seat to new districts or states (intra-intime)

4. Will be essential for operationalization of 'New Delhi (initially 2023)'

Challenges in delimitation exercise:

1. Gerrymandering: shifting constituency boundaries to suit political interest

2. Revaluation of low population states especially between India ≠ lowered share in MP state

3. Other in gauging migration patterns to ensure true equal representation

However, concepts like 'One Nation One Election' and inter-checks and balances in Delimitation Committee (Judicial, executive and election commission) ensure unbiased exercise.

Article 123 of constitution endows 'Ordinance-making powers' on President which roots its roots to Government of India Act 1935, with its own challenges & promises.

Constitutional to Accountability and democratic consensus:

1. Bypassing of normal deliberative legislative process:

a) No scope of public consultation

b) can have high risks of legislative import

Eg. huge uproar against the state farm laws in 2020.

2. No limit on re-promulgation of expiring ordinance, as seen in case of Bihari assembly in early 90s.

3. Desperate access of legislature and adopt ordinance write to pass controversial legislations:

No scope from opposition views and debates.

Need of such powers:

1. Wadiya Case (Bihar) - Limit on deliberate re-promulgation of ordinance to evade debate.

2. Proper 'legislative impact assessment' of ordinance.

3. Prompt approval by league within 6 weeks of reassembly.

20, ordinance powers being open to amplified use should so guided by democratic consensus (for a true democratic!).