The countdown to the quinquennial presidential elections in India has finally begun. The highest office of the world's largest democracy has a unique history of its own and it is time for us to revisit how a newly independent India, through its Constituent Assembly, adopted a parliamentary system of government instead of a Presidential one, and in this journey, we will also recount the elections and tenure of the fourteen Presidents that India has seen since independence.

We have a popular belief in India, that the parliamentary form of government was the unanimous choice of the Constituent Assembly, but facts prove otherwise: our founding fathers Pt. Nehru, B.R. Ambedkar , Sardar Patel weren't on the same page on this issue, among the many opposing voices on the adoption of the Westminster model.

Constituent Assembly & Presidential System:

Sh. K.T Shah moved an amendment [No. 1036] to the Article dealing with the President. It read, “The Chief Executive and Head of the State in the Union of India shall be called the President of India.” [Constituent Assembly Debates, 10 Dec 1948]

This spurred a debate on the presidential system vis-à-vis the parliamentary system. KT Shah argued that for a new nation like India, a complete separation of powers would be desirable to ensure a measure of independence. He further contended that in a parliamentary system, elected representatives encompassing the legislature were bound to be influenced by their political party rather than by reasons of principle. [CAD,10 December 1948].

Shri K Santhanam reacted to this argument by highlighting that even the USA does not have a complete separation of powers, as the President tries to capitalize on the judiciary by appointing Judges amenable to his views. His central argument was that in a presidential system the executive and legislature are often at loggerheads on key issues. He illustrated the example of the USA where the loggerhead at times had continued for 3-4 years until either the legislature was renewed or a new President was sworn in. According to him, India could not afford to lose such a period in conflicts when it was already running against time.

To be continued...