(In continuation to Part 1)

The above argument was supported by one of the members of the drafting committee, Shri Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer. He contended that an infant democracy cannot afford the risk of a perpetual rift between the legislature and the executive.

He remarked,

“There are obvious problems in the way of working the Presidential system. Unless there is some kind of close union between the legislature and the Executive, it is sure to result in a spoiled system. Who is to sanction the budget? Who is to sanction particular policies? The Parliament may adopt one line of action and the Executive may take another line of action and an infant democracy cannot afford, to take the risk of a perpetual feud & conflict between the Legislature and the Executive. The motive of the present constitutional structure is to prevent a conflict between the Legislature and the Executive and to promote harmony between the different parts of the Governmental system. That is the main purpose of a Constitution.” [CAD, 10 Dec, 1948]


When Dr Ambedkar’s turn came to speak, he merely said that I agree with what Mr Krishnaswamy has said and cannot add anything further and the amendment of KT Shah was turned down.

Ambedkar also, had in his earlier speeches explained to the house about the ills of the Presidential system.

The Constituent Assembly seemed to have chosen stability of governance over more accountability & conflict was a possibility with the presidential system.

After all's said and done, the principal reasons for adopting the Parliamentary system of govt in India were:

—Leaders then had become familiar with the working of this system under British colonial rule via GOI Act,1935

— Parliamentary system was seen as “more efficient and better suited” to the Indian setting than the US Model of govt.


—Given the diverse population of the country, it was thought that an intimate relationship and coordination between the members of Parliament and the government would be better for giving the diverse groups a say in government.

—The Parliamentary system came with enough checks and balances to guard against the government exceeding its limits.

(Concluded)