Council of Ministers | Polity for UPSC 2024 (Pre & Mains) PDF Download

 Page 1


Council of Ministers
Bidyut Chakravarty writes that the essence of the parliamentary form of government lies in having a 
collec9ve body of execu9ve in the form of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister and its 
collec9ve responsibility to the Parliament. In marked dis9nc9on from the presiden9al form of government 
in which the en9re execu9ve powers and func9ons are embodied in the singular personality of the 
President, the Council of Ministers re?ects the core of the parliamentary form of government in which it is 
the collec9ve, in contradis9nc9on with the individualis9c, nature of governance that permeates the top 
echelons of the government.  
 The Council of ministers headed by the prime minister is the real execu9ve authority is our poli9co- 
administra9ve system. The principles of parliamentary system of government are not detailed in the 
Cons9tu9on, but two Ar9cles (74 and 75) deal with them in a broad, sketchy and general manner. Ar9cle 74 
deals with the status of the council of ministers while Ar9cle 75 deals with the appointment, tenure, 
responsibility, quali?ca9on, oath and salaries and allowances of the ministers.  
Ar0cle 74 provides that 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 func9ons, act in accordance with such advice. 
However, the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice and the President 
shall act in accordance with the advice tendered aMer such reconsidera9on. The advice tendered by 
Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.  
Ar0cle 75 provides that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall 
be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The total number of ministers, including 
the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha. 
This provision was added by the 91st Amendment Act of2003. 
A member of either house of Parliament belonging to any poli9cal party who is disquali?ed on the ground of 
defec9on shall also be disquali?ed to be appointed as a minister. This provision was also added by the 91st 
Amendment Act of 2003. The ministers shall hold o?ce during the pleasure of the President. 
The council of ministers shall be collec9vely responsible to the Lok Sabha. The President shall administer 
the oaths of o?ce and secrecy to a minister. A minister who is not a member of the Parliament (either 
house) for any period of six  consecu9ve months shall cease to be a minister. The salaries and allowances of 
ministers shall be determined by the Parliament.  
The forma9on of the Council of Ministers is crucial to the successful func9oning of the parliamentary 
government because two fundamental principles governing its forma9on characterize the essen9als of the 
cabinet government.  
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
Page 2


Council of Ministers
Bidyut Chakravarty writes that the essence of the parliamentary form of government lies in having a 
collec9ve body of execu9ve in the form of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister and its 
collec9ve responsibility to the Parliament. In marked dis9nc9on from the presiden9al form of government 
in which the en9re execu9ve powers and func9ons are embodied in the singular personality of the 
President, the Council of Ministers re?ects the core of the parliamentary form of government in which it is 
the collec9ve, in contradis9nc9on with the individualis9c, nature of governance that permeates the top 
echelons of the government.  
 The Council of ministers headed by the prime minister is the real execu9ve authority is our poli9co- 
administra9ve system. The principles of parliamentary system of government are not detailed in the 
Cons9tu9on, but two Ar9cles (74 and 75) deal with them in a broad, sketchy and general manner. Ar9cle 74 
deals with the status of the council of ministers while Ar9cle 75 deals with the appointment, tenure, 
responsibility, quali?ca9on, oath and salaries and allowances of the ministers.  
Ar0cle 74 provides that 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 func9ons, act in accordance with such advice. 
However, the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice and the President 
shall act in accordance with the advice tendered aMer such reconsidera9on. The advice tendered by 
Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.  
Ar0cle 75 provides that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall 
be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The total number of ministers, including 
the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha. 
This provision was added by the 91st Amendment Act of2003. 
A member of either house of Parliament belonging to any poli9cal party who is disquali?ed on the ground of 
defec9on shall also be disquali?ed to be appointed as a minister. This provision was also added by the 91st 
Amendment Act of 2003. The ministers shall hold o?ce during the pleasure of the President. 
The council of ministers shall be collec9vely responsible to the Lok Sabha. The President shall administer 
the oaths of o?ce and secrecy to a minister. A minister who is not a member of the Parliament (either 
house) for any period of six  consecu9ve months shall cease to be a minister. The salaries and allowances of 
ministers shall be determined by the Parliament.  
The forma9on of the Council of Ministers is crucial to the successful func9oning of the parliamentary 
government because two fundamental principles governing its forma9on characterize the essen9als of the 
cabinet government.  
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
First, though the provision, as provided under Ar9cle 75(1) of the Cons9tu9on: ‘the Prime Minister shall be 
appointed by the President and other ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the 
Prime Minister’, outlines the theore9cal posi9on of the composi9on of the Council of Ministers, in prac9ce, 
the advice of the Prime Minister is guided by a number of factors, the most important of which appears to 
be his party’s posi9on in the Lok Sabha as well as his own posi9on in the party. For instance, the prime 
ministers like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and more recently Narendra Modi (party despite the NDA enjoys 
majority), whose party commanded absolute majority in the Lok Sabha and who were the unques9oned 
leaders of their party; the forma9on of the Council of Ministers was the maber of personal discre9on for 
them. But for prime ministers like Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, running coali9on 
governments, the composi9on of the Council of Ministers was well beyond their control and dictated by the 
par9cipa9ng par9es in the coali9on.  
Moreover, such dictated Council of Ministers, quite oMen than not, becomes a non-homogeneous body, 
milita9ng against the doctrine of the homogeneity of the same, and does not accept the preeminent 
posi9on of the Prime Minister in the cabinet as the members of the cabinet do not owe their posi9on to the 
Prime Minister.  
Second, in Britain the conven9on has evolved which the Indian Cons9tu9on has adopted, providing that the 
ministers must be the member of the either House of Parliament, to ?rmly establish the trademark of the 
parliamentary government that the execu9ve is drawn from the legislature and is collec9vely responsible to 
it. Thus, while Ar9cle 75(2) lays down that the ministers shall hold o?ce during the pleasure of the 
President, Ar9cle 75(3) quali?es it by envisaging the collec9ve responsibility of the Council of Ministers to 
the Lok Sabha, which, in ?nal analysis, means that the ministers can hold o?ce during the pleasure of the 
Prime Minister who him- self remains in power as long as his majority remains intact in the Lok Sabha. The 
loss of majority in Lok Sabha was not an issue in Indian polity 9ll the onset of non-Congress ministries at the 
Centre and became endemic in the 9mes of coali9on and minority governments since 1989. 
The fundamental principle underlying the working of parliamentary system of government is the principle of 
collec9ve responsibility. Ar9cle 75 clearly states that the council of ministers is collec9vely responsible to 
the Lok Sabha. This means that all the ministers own joint responsibility to the Lok Sabha for all their acts of 
ommission and commission. They work as a team and swim or sink together. When the Lok Sabha passes a 
no-con?dence mo9on against the council of ministers, all the ministers have to resign including those 
ministers who are from the Rajya Sabha.  
Further, Ar9cle 75 also contains the principle of individual responsibility. It states that the ministers hold 
o?ce during the pleasure of the president, which means that the President can remove a minister even at a 
9me when the council of ministers enjoys the con?dence of the Lok Sabha. However, the President 
removes a minister only on the advice of the Prime Minister. In case of a di?erence of opinion or 
dissa9sfac9on with the performance of a minister, the Prime Minister can ask him to resign or advice the 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
Page 3


Council of Ministers
Bidyut Chakravarty writes that the essence of the parliamentary form of government lies in having a 
collec9ve body of execu9ve in the form of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister and its 
collec9ve responsibility to the Parliament. In marked dis9nc9on from the presiden9al form of government 
in which the en9re execu9ve powers and func9ons are embodied in the singular personality of the 
President, the Council of Ministers re?ects the core of the parliamentary form of government in which it is 
the collec9ve, in contradis9nc9on with the individualis9c, nature of governance that permeates the top 
echelons of the government.  
 The Council of ministers headed by the prime minister is the real execu9ve authority is our poli9co- 
administra9ve system. The principles of parliamentary system of government are not detailed in the 
Cons9tu9on, but two Ar9cles (74 and 75) deal with them in a broad, sketchy and general manner. Ar9cle 74 
deals with the status of the council of ministers while Ar9cle 75 deals with the appointment, tenure, 
responsibility, quali?ca9on, oath and salaries and allowances of the ministers.  
Ar0cle 74 provides that 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 func9ons, act in accordance with such advice. 
However, the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice and the President 
shall act in accordance with the advice tendered aMer such reconsidera9on. The advice tendered by 
Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.  
Ar0cle 75 provides that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall 
be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The total number of ministers, including 
the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha. 
This provision was added by the 91st Amendment Act of2003. 
A member of either house of Parliament belonging to any poli9cal party who is disquali?ed on the ground of 
defec9on shall also be disquali?ed to be appointed as a minister. This provision was also added by the 91st 
Amendment Act of 2003. The ministers shall hold o?ce during the pleasure of the President. 
The council of ministers shall be collec9vely responsible to the Lok Sabha. The President shall administer 
the oaths of o?ce and secrecy to a minister. A minister who is not a member of the Parliament (either 
house) for any period of six  consecu9ve months shall cease to be a minister. The salaries and allowances of 
ministers shall be determined by the Parliament.  
The forma9on of the Council of Ministers is crucial to the successful func9oning of the parliamentary 
government because two fundamental principles governing its forma9on characterize the essen9als of the 
cabinet government.  
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
First, though the provision, as provided under Ar9cle 75(1) of the Cons9tu9on: ‘the Prime Minister shall be 
appointed by the President and other ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the 
Prime Minister’, outlines the theore9cal posi9on of the composi9on of the Council of Ministers, in prac9ce, 
the advice of the Prime Minister is guided by a number of factors, the most important of which appears to 
be his party’s posi9on in the Lok Sabha as well as his own posi9on in the party. For instance, the prime 
ministers like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and more recently Narendra Modi (party despite the NDA enjoys 
majority), whose party commanded absolute majority in the Lok Sabha and who were the unques9oned 
leaders of their party; the forma9on of the Council of Ministers was the maber of personal discre9on for 
them. But for prime ministers like Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, running coali9on 
governments, the composi9on of the Council of Ministers was well beyond their control and dictated by the 
par9cipa9ng par9es in the coali9on.  
Moreover, such dictated Council of Ministers, quite oMen than not, becomes a non-homogeneous body, 
milita9ng against the doctrine of the homogeneity of the same, and does not accept the preeminent 
posi9on of the Prime Minister in the cabinet as the members of the cabinet do not owe their posi9on to the 
Prime Minister.  
Second, in Britain the conven9on has evolved which the Indian Cons9tu9on has adopted, providing that the 
ministers must be the member of the either House of Parliament, to ?rmly establish the trademark of the 
parliamentary government that the execu9ve is drawn from the legislature and is collec9vely responsible to 
it. Thus, while Ar9cle 75(2) lays down that the ministers shall hold o?ce during the pleasure of the 
President, Ar9cle 75(3) quali?es it by envisaging the collec9ve responsibility of the Council of Ministers to 
the Lok Sabha, which, in ?nal analysis, means that the ministers can hold o?ce during the pleasure of the 
Prime Minister who him- self remains in power as long as his majority remains intact in the Lok Sabha. The 
loss of majority in Lok Sabha was not an issue in Indian polity 9ll the onset of non-Congress ministries at the 
Centre and became endemic in the 9mes of coali9on and minority governments since 1989. 
The fundamental principle underlying the working of parliamentary system of government is the principle of 
collec9ve responsibility. Ar9cle 75 clearly states that the council of ministers is collec9vely responsible to 
the Lok Sabha. This means that all the ministers own joint responsibility to the Lok Sabha for all their acts of 
ommission and commission. They work as a team and swim or sink together. When the Lok Sabha passes a 
no-con?dence mo9on against the council of ministers, all the ministers have to resign including those 
ministers who are from the Rajya Sabha.  
Further, Ar9cle 75 also contains the principle of individual responsibility. It states that the ministers hold 
o?ce during the pleasure of the president, which means that the President can remove a minister even at a 
9me when the council of ministers enjoys the con?dence of the Lok Sabha. However, the President 
removes a minister only on the advice of the Prime Minister. In case of a di?erence of opinion or 
dissa9sfac9on with the performance of a minister, the Prime Minister can ask him to resign or advice the 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
President to dismiss him. By exercising this power, the Prime Minister can ensure the realisa9on of the rule 
of collec9ve responsibility.  
Unlike the Westminster model, the Council in India does not bear any legal responsibility. In Britain, every 
order of the King for any public act is countersigned by a minister. If the order is in viola9on of any law, the 
minister would be held responsible and would be liable in the court. The legally accepted phrase in Britain is, 
“The king can do no wrong.” Hence, he cannot be sued in any court. 
In India, on the other hand, there is no provision in the Cons9tu9on for the system of legal responsibility of 
a minister. It is not required that an order of the President for a public act should be countersigned by a 
minister. Moreover, the courts are barred from enquiring into the nature of advice rendered by the ministers 
to the president.  
Composi0on of Council of Ministers: 
Another characteris9c of the system of Council of Ministers seems to be the trend of crea9on of smaller 
bodies to handle the complicated responsibili9es of the government in an e?cient and quick  manner. In 
fact, owing to its unwieldy size and di?used nature of composi9on, the Council of Ministers has over the 
years given way to the evolu9on of, what is known as the cabinet, in order to give speed and exper9se in 
the performance of the governmental func9ons.  
It is a cons9tu9onal body, dealt in detail by the Ar9cles 74 and 75 of the Cons9tu9on. Its size and 
classi?ca9on are, however, not men9oned in the Cons9tu9on. Its size is determined by the prime minister 
according to the exigencies of the 9me and requirements of the situa9on. Its classi?ca9on into a three-9er 
body is based on the conven9ons of parliamentary government as developed in Britain. It has, however, got 
a legisla9ve sanc9on. Thus, the Salaries and Allowances Act of 1952 de?nes a ‘minister’ as a ‘member of the 
council of ministers, by whatever name called, and includes a deputy minister’. 
The council of ministers consists of three categories of ministers, namely, cabinet ministers, ministers of 
state, and deputy ministers. The di?erence between them lies in their respec9ve ranks, emoluments, and 
poli9cal importance. The cabinet ministers head the important ministries of the Central government like 
home, defence, ?nance, external a?airs and so forth. They are members of the cabinet, abend its mee9ngs 
and play an important role in deciding policies. Thus, their responsibili9es extend over the en9re gamut of 
Central government. 
The ministers of state can either be given independent charge of ministries/departments or can be abached 
to cabinet ministers. In case of abachment, they may either be given the charge of departments of the 
ministries headed by the cabinet ministers or allobed speci?c items of work related to the ministries headed 
by cabinet ministers. In both the cases, they work under the supervision and guidance as well as under the 
overall charge and responsibility of the cabinet ministers. In case of independent charge, they perform the 
same func9ons and exercise the same powers in rela9on to their ministries/departments as cabinet 
ministers do. However, they are not members of the cabinet and do not abend the cabinet mee9ngs unless 
specially invited when something related to their ministries/departments are considered by the cabinet. 
Next in rank are the deputy ministers. They are not given independent charge of ministries/departments. 
They are abached to the cabinet ministers or ministers of state and assist them in their administra9ve, 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
Page 4


Council of Ministers
Bidyut Chakravarty writes that the essence of the parliamentary form of government lies in having a 
collec9ve body of execu9ve in the form of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister and its 
collec9ve responsibility to the Parliament. In marked dis9nc9on from the presiden9al form of government 
in which the en9re execu9ve powers and func9ons are embodied in the singular personality of the 
President, the Council of Ministers re?ects the core of the parliamentary form of government in which it is 
the collec9ve, in contradis9nc9on with the individualis9c, nature of governance that permeates the top 
echelons of the government.  
 The Council of ministers headed by the prime minister is the real execu9ve authority is our poli9co- 
administra9ve system. The principles of parliamentary system of government are not detailed in the 
Cons9tu9on, but two Ar9cles (74 and 75) deal with them in a broad, sketchy and general manner. Ar9cle 74 
deals with the status of the council of ministers while Ar9cle 75 deals with the appointment, tenure, 
responsibility, quali?ca9on, oath and salaries and allowances of the ministers.  
Ar0cle 74 provides that 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 func9ons, act in accordance with such advice. 
However, the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice and the President 
shall act in accordance with the advice tendered aMer such reconsidera9on. The advice tendered by 
Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.  
Ar0cle 75 provides that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall 
be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The total number of ministers, including 
the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha. 
This provision was added by the 91st Amendment Act of2003. 
A member of either house of Parliament belonging to any poli9cal party who is disquali?ed on the ground of 
defec9on shall also be disquali?ed to be appointed as a minister. This provision was also added by the 91st 
Amendment Act of 2003. The ministers shall hold o?ce during the pleasure of the President. 
The council of ministers shall be collec9vely responsible to the Lok Sabha. The President shall administer 
the oaths of o?ce and secrecy to a minister. A minister who is not a member of the Parliament (either 
house) for any period of six  consecu9ve months shall cease to be a minister. The salaries and allowances of 
ministers shall be determined by the Parliament.  
The forma9on of the Council of Ministers is crucial to the successful func9oning of the parliamentary 
government because two fundamental principles governing its forma9on characterize the essen9als of the 
cabinet government.  
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
First, though the provision, as provided under Ar9cle 75(1) of the Cons9tu9on: ‘the Prime Minister shall be 
appointed by the President and other ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the 
Prime Minister’, outlines the theore9cal posi9on of the composi9on of the Council of Ministers, in prac9ce, 
the advice of the Prime Minister is guided by a number of factors, the most important of which appears to 
be his party’s posi9on in the Lok Sabha as well as his own posi9on in the party. For instance, the prime 
ministers like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and more recently Narendra Modi (party despite the NDA enjoys 
majority), whose party commanded absolute majority in the Lok Sabha and who were the unques9oned 
leaders of their party; the forma9on of the Council of Ministers was the maber of personal discre9on for 
them. But for prime ministers like Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, running coali9on 
governments, the composi9on of the Council of Ministers was well beyond their control and dictated by the 
par9cipa9ng par9es in the coali9on.  
Moreover, such dictated Council of Ministers, quite oMen than not, becomes a non-homogeneous body, 
milita9ng against the doctrine of the homogeneity of the same, and does not accept the preeminent 
posi9on of the Prime Minister in the cabinet as the members of the cabinet do not owe their posi9on to the 
Prime Minister.  
Second, in Britain the conven9on has evolved which the Indian Cons9tu9on has adopted, providing that the 
ministers must be the member of the either House of Parliament, to ?rmly establish the trademark of the 
parliamentary government that the execu9ve is drawn from the legislature and is collec9vely responsible to 
it. Thus, while Ar9cle 75(2) lays down that the ministers shall hold o?ce during the pleasure of the 
President, Ar9cle 75(3) quali?es it by envisaging the collec9ve responsibility of the Council of Ministers to 
the Lok Sabha, which, in ?nal analysis, means that the ministers can hold o?ce during the pleasure of the 
Prime Minister who him- self remains in power as long as his majority remains intact in the Lok Sabha. The 
loss of majority in Lok Sabha was not an issue in Indian polity 9ll the onset of non-Congress ministries at the 
Centre and became endemic in the 9mes of coali9on and minority governments since 1989. 
The fundamental principle underlying the working of parliamentary system of government is the principle of 
collec9ve responsibility. Ar9cle 75 clearly states that the council of ministers is collec9vely responsible to 
the Lok Sabha. This means that all the ministers own joint responsibility to the Lok Sabha for all their acts of 
ommission and commission. They work as a team and swim or sink together. When the Lok Sabha passes a 
no-con?dence mo9on against the council of ministers, all the ministers have to resign including those 
ministers who are from the Rajya Sabha.  
Further, Ar9cle 75 also contains the principle of individual responsibility. It states that the ministers hold 
o?ce during the pleasure of the president, which means that the President can remove a minister even at a 
9me when the council of ministers enjoys the con?dence of the Lok Sabha. However, the President 
removes a minister only on the advice of the Prime Minister. In case of a di?erence of opinion or 
dissa9sfac9on with the performance of a minister, the Prime Minister can ask him to resign or advice the 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
President to dismiss him. By exercising this power, the Prime Minister can ensure the realisa9on of the rule 
of collec9ve responsibility.  
Unlike the Westminster model, the Council in India does not bear any legal responsibility. In Britain, every 
order of the King for any public act is countersigned by a minister. If the order is in viola9on of any law, the 
minister would be held responsible and would be liable in the court. The legally accepted phrase in Britain is, 
“The king can do no wrong.” Hence, he cannot be sued in any court. 
In India, on the other hand, there is no provision in the Cons9tu9on for the system of legal responsibility of 
a minister. It is not required that an order of the President for a public act should be countersigned by a 
minister. Moreover, the courts are barred from enquiring into the nature of advice rendered by the ministers 
to the president.  
Composi0on of Council of Ministers: 
Another characteris9c of the system of Council of Ministers seems to be the trend of crea9on of smaller 
bodies to handle the complicated responsibili9es of the government in an e?cient and quick  manner. In 
fact, owing to its unwieldy size and di?used nature of composi9on, the Council of Ministers has over the 
years given way to the evolu9on of, what is known as the cabinet, in order to give speed and exper9se in 
the performance of the governmental func9ons.  
It is a cons9tu9onal body, dealt in detail by the Ar9cles 74 and 75 of the Cons9tu9on. Its size and 
classi?ca9on are, however, not men9oned in the Cons9tu9on. Its size is determined by the prime minister 
according to the exigencies of the 9me and requirements of the situa9on. Its classi?ca9on into a three-9er 
body is based on the conven9ons of parliamentary government as developed in Britain. It has, however, got 
a legisla9ve sanc9on. Thus, the Salaries and Allowances Act of 1952 de?nes a ‘minister’ as a ‘member of the 
council of ministers, by whatever name called, and includes a deputy minister’. 
The council of ministers consists of three categories of ministers, namely, cabinet ministers, ministers of 
state, and deputy ministers. The di?erence between them lies in their respec9ve ranks, emoluments, and 
poli9cal importance. The cabinet ministers head the important ministries of the Central government like 
home, defence, ?nance, external a?airs and so forth. They are members of the cabinet, abend its mee9ngs 
and play an important role in deciding policies. Thus, their responsibili9es extend over the en9re gamut of 
Central government. 
The ministers of state can either be given independent charge of ministries/departments or can be abached 
to cabinet ministers. In case of abachment, they may either be given the charge of departments of the 
ministries headed by the cabinet ministers or allobed speci?c items of work related to the ministries headed 
by cabinet ministers. In both the cases, they work under the supervision and guidance as well as under the 
overall charge and responsibility of the cabinet ministers. In case of independent charge, they perform the 
same func9ons and exercise the same powers in rela9on to their ministries/departments as cabinet 
ministers do. However, they are not members of the cabinet and do not abend the cabinet mee9ngs unless 
specially invited when something related to their ministries/departments are considered by the cabinet. 
Next in rank are the deputy ministers. They are not given independent charge of ministries/departments. 
They are abached to the cabinet ministers or ministers of state and assist them in their administra9ve, 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
poli9cal, and parliamentary du9es. They are not members of the cabinet and do not abend cabinet 
mee9ngs.  
Lastly, there is one more category of ministers, called parliamentary secretaries. They are the members of 
the last category of the council of ministers (which is also known as the ‘ministry’). They have no 
department under their control. They are abached to the senior ministers and assist them in the discharge 
of their parliamentary du9es. In recent 9mes, ques9ons have been raised regarding the o?ce of 
Parliamentary secretaries.  
A Parliament Secretary oMen holds the rank of Minister of State and has the same en9tlements and is 
assigned to a government department.  Manipur, HP, Mizoram, Assam, Rajasthan, Punjab, Goa are some of 
the states where MLAs have been appointed Parliament Secretaries by the Government. Interes9ngly, the 
appointment of legislators as parliamentary secretaries, in spite of the o?ce being exempted from purview 
of the o?ce of pro?t law, has been struck down by courts in several states. 
PILs ?led in various High Courts on the maber have argued that the appointment of Parliament Secretaries 
is ultra vires the 91st Amendment of the Indian Cons9tu9on which introduced Ar9cle 164 (1A) to the 
Cons9tu9on.  Ar9cle 164 (1A) provides for limi9ng the number of ministers in the state cabinets.  The 
Bombay High Court in its 2009 judgment held that appoin9ng Parliamentary Secretaries of the rank and 
status of a Cabinet Minister is in viola9on to Ar9cle 164 (1A) of the Cons9tu9on. The same was reasserted 
by a judgment by Calcuba High Court in 2015.  
In 2005, Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the appointment of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and 
Parliament Secretaries.  It held that ‘(Parliamentary Secretaries) are usurpers of public o?ce since their 
appointments did not owe their origin to any cons9tu9onal or legal provision, they having been appointed 
by person(s) not vested with the power of appointment’.  
Council of Ministers v/s Cabinet: 
The words ‘council of ministers’ and ‘cabinet’ are oMen used interchangeably though there is a de?nite 
dis9nc9on between them. They di?er from each other in respects of composi9on, func9ons, and role. The 
term ‘cabinet’ was inserted in Ar9cle 352 of the Cons9tu9on in 1978 by the 44th Cons9tu9onal 
Amendment Act. Thus, it did not ?nd a place in the original text of the Cons9tu9on. Now also, Ar9cle 352 
only de?nes the cabinet saying that it is ‘the council consis9ng of the prime minister and other ministers of 
cabinet rank appointed under Ar9cle 75’ and does not describe its powers and func9ons. In other words, its 
role in our poli9co-administra9ve system is based on the conven9ons of parliamentary government as 
developed in Britain.  
•It is a smaller body consis9ng of 15 to 20 ministers of Cabinet level.  
•It is the highest decision-making authority in our poli9co-administra9ve system.  
•It is the chief policy formula9ng body of the Central government. 
•It is the supreme execu9ve authority of the Central government. 
•It is chief coordinator of Central administra9on. 
•It is an advisory body to the president and its advice is binding on him. 
•It is the chief crisis manager and thus deals with all emergency situa9ons. 
•It deals with all major legisla9ve and ?nancial mabers. 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
Page 5


Council of Ministers
Bidyut Chakravarty writes that the essence of the parliamentary form of government lies in having a 
collec9ve body of execu9ve in the form of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister and its 
collec9ve responsibility to the Parliament. In marked dis9nc9on from the presiden9al form of government 
in which the en9re execu9ve powers and func9ons are embodied in the singular personality of the 
President, the Council of Ministers re?ects the core of the parliamentary form of government in which it is 
the collec9ve, in contradis9nc9on with the individualis9c, nature of governance that permeates the top 
echelons of the government.  
 The Council of ministers headed by the prime minister is the real execu9ve authority is our poli9co- 
administra9ve system. The principles of parliamentary system of government are not detailed in the 
Cons9tu9on, but two Ar9cles (74 and 75) deal with them in a broad, sketchy and general manner. Ar9cle 74 
deals with the status of the council of ministers while Ar9cle 75 deals with the appointment, tenure, 
responsibility, quali?ca9on, oath and salaries and allowances of the ministers.  
Ar0cle 74 provides that 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 func9ons, act in accordance with such advice. 
However, the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice and the President 
shall act in accordance with the advice tendered aMer such reconsidera9on. The advice tendered by 
Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.  
Ar0cle 75 provides that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall 
be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The total number of ministers, including 
the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha. 
This provision was added by the 91st Amendment Act of2003. 
A member of either house of Parliament belonging to any poli9cal party who is disquali?ed on the ground of 
defec9on shall also be disquali?ed to be appointed as a minister. This provision was also added by the 91st 
Amendment Act of 2003. The ministers shall hold o?ce during the pleasure of the President. 
The council of ministers shall be collec9vely responsible to the Lok Sabha. The President shall administer 
the oaths of o?ce and secrecy to a minister. A minister who is not a member of the Parliament (either 
house) for any period of six  consecu9ve months shall cease to be a minister. The salaries and allowances of 
ministers shall be determined by the Parliament.  
The forma9on of the Council of Ministers is crucial to the successful func9oning of the parliamentary 
government because two fundamental principles governing its forma9on characterize the essen9als of the 
cabinet government.  
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
First, though the provision, as provided under Ar9cle 75(1) of the Cons9tu9on: ‘the Prime Minister shall be 
appointed by the President and other ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the 
Prime Minister’, outlines the theore9cal posi9on of the composi9on of the Council of Ministers, in prac9ce, 
the advice of the Prime Minister is guided by a number of factors, the most important of which appears to 
be his party’s posi9on in the Lok Sabha as well as his own posi9on in the party. For instance, the prime 
ministers like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and more recently Narendra Modi (party despite the NDA enjoys 
majority), whose party commanded absolute majority in the Lok Sabha and who were the unques9oned 
leaders of their party; the forma9on of the Council of Ministers was the maber of personal discre9on for 
them. But for prime ministers like Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, running coali9on 
governments, the composi9on of the Council of Ministers was well beyond their control and dictated by the 
par9cipa9ng par9es in the coali9on.  
Moreover, such dictated Council of Ministers, quite oMen than not, becomes a non-homogeneous body, 
milita9ng against the doctrine of the homogeneity of the same, and does not accept the preeminent 
posi9on of the Prime Minister in the cabinet as the members of the cabinet do not owe their posi9on to the 
Prime Minister.  
Second, in Britain the conven9on has evolved which the Indian Cons9tu9on has adopted, providing that the 
ministers must be the member of the either House of Parliament, to ?rmly establish the trademark of the 
parliamentary government that the execu9ve is drawn from the legislature and is collec9vely responsible to 
it. Thus, while Ar9cle 75(2) lays down that the ministers shall hold o?ce during the pleasure of the 
President, Ar9cle 75(3) quali?es it by envisaging the collec9ve responsibility of the Council of Ministers to 
the Lok Sabha, which, in ?nal analysis, means that the ministers can hold o?ce during the pleasure of the 
Prime Minister who him- self remains in power as long as his majority remains intact in the Lok Sabha. The 
loss of majority in Lok Sabha was not an issue in Indian polity 9ll the onset of non-Congress ministries at the 
Centre and became endemic in the 9mes of coali9on and minority governments since 1989. 
The fundamental principle underlying the working of parliamentary system of government is the principle of 
collec9ve responsibility. Ar9cle 75 clearly states that the council of ministers is collec9vely responsible to 
the Lok Sabha. This means that all the ministers own joint responsibility to the Lok Sabha for all their acts of 
ommission and commission. They work as a team and swim or sink together. When the Lok Sabha passes a 
no-con?dence mo9on against the council of ministers, all the ministers have to resign including those 
ministers who are from the Rajya Sabha.  
Further, Ar9cle 75 also contains the principle of individual responsibility. It states that the ministers hold 
o?ce during the pleasure of the president, which means that the President can remove a minister even at a 
9me when the council of ministers enjoys the con?dence of the Lok Sabha. However, the President 
removes a minister only on the advice of the Prime Minister. In case of a di?erence of opinion or 
dissa9sfac9on with the performance of a minister, the Prime Minister can ask him to resign or advice the 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
President to dismiss him. By exercising this power, the Prime Minister can ensure the realisa9on of the rule 
of collec9ve responsibility.  
Unlike the Westminster model, the Council in India does not bear any legal responsibility. In Britain, every 
order of the King for any public act is countersigned by a minister. If the order is in viola9on of any law, the 
minister would be held responsible and would be liable in the court. The legally accepted phrase in Britain is, 
“The king can do no wrong.” Hence, he cannot be sued in any court. 
In India, on the other hand, there is no provision in the Cons9tu9on for the system of legal responsibility of 
a minister. It is not required that an order of the President for a public act should be countersigned by a 
minister. Moreover, the courts are barred from enquiring into the nature of advice rendered by the ministers 
to the president.  
Composi0on of Council of Ministers: 
Another characteris9c of the system of Council of Ministers seems to be the trend of crea9on of smaller 
bodies to handle the complicated responsibili9es of the government in an e?cient and quick  manner. In 
fact, owing to its unwieldy size and di?used nature of composi9on, the Council of Ministers has over the 
years given way to the evolu9on of, what is known as the cabinet, in order to give speed and exper9se in 
the performance of the governmental func9ons.  
It is a cons9tu9onal body, dealt in detail by the Ar9cles 74 and 75 of the Cons9tu9on. Its size and 
classi?ca9on are, however, not men9oned in the Cons9tu9on. Its size is determined by the prime minister 
according to the exigencies of the 9me and requirements of the situa9on. Its classi?ca9on into a three-9er 
body is based on the conven9ons of parliamentary government as developed in Britain. It has, however, got 
a legisla9ve sanc9on. Thus, the Salaries and Allowances Act of 1952 de?nes a ‘minister’ as a ‘member of the 
council of ministers, by whatever name called, and includes a deputy minister’. 
The council of ministers consists of three categories of ministers, namely, cabinet ministers, ministers of 
state, and deputy ministers. The di?erence between them lies in their respec9ve ranks, emoluments, and 
poli9cal importance. The cabinet ministers head the important ministries of the Central government like 
home, defence, ?nance, external a?airs and so forth. They are members of the cabinet, abend its mee9ngs 
and play an important role in deciding policies. Thus, their responsibili9es extend over the en9re gamut of 
Central government. 
The ministers of state can either be given independent charge of ministries/departments or can be abached 
to cabinet ministers. In case of abachment, they may either be given the charge of departments of the 
ministries headed by the cabinet ministers or allobed speci?c items of work related to the ministries headed 
by cabinet ministers. In both the cases, they work under the supervision and guidance as well as under the 
overall charge and responsibility of the cabinet ministers. In case of independent charge, they perform the 
same func9ons and exercise the same powers in rela9on to their ministries/departments as cabinet 
ministers do. However, they are not members of the cabinet and do not abend the cabinet mee9ngs unless 
specially invited when something related to their ministries/departments are considered by the cabinet. 
Next in rank are the deputy ministers. They are not given independent charge of ministries/departments. 
They are abached to the cabinet ministers or ministers of state and assist them in their administra9ve, 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
poli9cal, and parliamentary du9es. They are not members of the cabinet and do not abend cabinet 
mee9ngs.  
Lastly, there is one more category of ministers, called parliamentary secretaries. They are the members of 
the last category of the council of ministers (which is also known as the ‘ministry’). They have no 
department under their control. They are abached to the senior ministers and assist them in the discharge 
of their parliamentary du9es. In recent 9mes, ques9ons have been raised regarding the o?ce of 
Parliamentary secretaries.  
A Parliament Secretary oMen holds the rank of Minister of State and has the same en9tlements and is 
assigned to a government department.  Manipur, HP, Mizoram, Assam, Rajasthan, Punjab, Goa are some of 
the states where MLAs have been appointed Parliament Secretaries by the Government. Interes9ngly, the 
appointment of legislators as parliamentary secretaries, in spite of the o?ce being exempted from purview 
of the o?ce of pro?t law, has been struck down by courts in several states. 
PILs ?led in various High Courts on the maber have argued that the appointment of Parliament Secretaries 
is ultra vires the 91st Amendment of the Indian Cons9tu9on which introduced Ar9cle 164 (1A) to the 
Cons9tu9on.  Ar9cle 164 (1A) provides for limi9ng the number of ministers in the state cabinets.  The 
Bombay High Court in its 2009 judgment held that appoin9ng Parliamentary Secretaries of the rank and 
status of a Cabinet Minister is in viola9on to Ar9cle 164 (1A) of the Cons9tu9on. The same was reasserted 
by a judgment by Calcuba High Court in 2015.  
In 2005, Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the appointment of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and 
Parliament Secretaries.  It held that ‘(Parliamentary Secretaries) are usurpers of public o?ce since their 
appointments did not owe their origin to any cons9tu9onal or legal provision, they having been appointed 
by person(s) not vested with the power of appointment’.  
Council of Ministers v/s Cabinet: 
The words ‘council of ministers’ and ‘cabinet’ are oMen used interchangeably though there is a de?nite 
dis9nc9on between them. They di?er from each other in respects of composi9on, func9ons, and role. The 
term ‘cabinet’ was inserted in Ar9cle 352 of the Cons9tu9on in 1978 by the 44th Cons9tu9onal 
Amendment Act. Thus, it did not ?nd a place in the original text of the Cons9tu9on. Now also, Ar9cle 352 
only de?nes the cabinet saying that it is ‘the council consis9ng of the prime minister and other ministers of 
cabinet rank appointed under Ar9cle 75’ and does not describe its powers and func9ons. In other words, its 
role in our poli9co-administra9ve system is based on the conven9ons of parliamentary government as 
developed in Britain.  
•It is a smaller body consis9ng of 15 to 20 ministers of Cabinet level.  
•It is the highest decision-making authority in our poli9co-administra9ve system.  
•It is the chief policy formula9ng body of the Central government. 
•It is the supreme execu9ve authority of the Central government. 
•It is chief coordinator of Central administra9on. 
•It is an advisory body to the president and its advice is binding on him. 
•It is the chief crisis manager and thus deals with all emergency situa9ons. 
•It deals with all major legisla9ve and ?nancial mabers. 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com 
•It exercises control over higher appointments like cons9tu9onal authori9es and senior secretariat 
administrators. 
•It deals with all foreign policies and foreign a?airs.  
Being the primary task of the Cabinet, determina9on of policy served two useful purposes in the nascent 
parliamentary democracies like India. First, reaching at a deci- sion aMer due delibera9ons in the cabinet 
ensures that the policy becomes the policy of the government rather than the policy of a minister with 
which all other ministers agree, facilita9ng a smooth implementa9on of the policy. Second, the submission 
of the ?nal policy to the Parliament for its approval by the cabinet binds the en- 9re cabinet by the doctrine 
of collec9ve responsibility so that the adequacy of the parliamentary control over the cabinet could not be 
diluted in the name of the responsibility of an individual minister.  
An opera9onal func9on of the cabinet relates to the con9nuous coordina9on of various ministries and 
departments of the government, engaged in the task of similar nature. Even if the issue of di?erence of 
opinion between or among two or more departments is set aside, the coordina9on assumes greater 
signi?cance in view of economy and e?ciency in implementa9on of the policies, for which a coordina9on 
cell is established in the Cabinet Secretariat, in addi9on to the Commibee of the Secretaries of the 
concerned ministries under the Cabinet Secretary to advise the cabinet on the problems of inter-ministerial 
consulta9on and coordina9on.  
Kitchen Cabinet: 
The cabinet, a small body consis9ng of the prime minister as its head and some 15 to 20 most important 
ministers, is the highest decision-making body in the formal sense. However, a s9ll smaller body called the 
‘Inner Cabinet’ or ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ has become the real centre of power. This informal body consists of the 
Prime Minister and two to four in?uen9al colleagues in whom he has faith and with whom he can discuss 
every problem. It advises the prime minister on important poli9cal and administra9ve issues and assists him 
in making crucial decisions. It is composed of not only cabinet ministers but also outsiders like friends and 
family members of the prime minister. Every prime minister in India has had his ‘Inner Cabinet’—a circle 
within a circle. During the era of Indira Gandhi, the ‘Inner Cabinet’ which came to be called the ‘Kitchen 
Cabinet’ was par9cularly powerful.  
Func0oning of Council of Ministers: 
The ac9on part of the Council of Ministers over the years in India has been marked by two discernible 
features, rooted in the personality of the prime ministers and the poli9cal circumstances accompanying 
them. First, despite being the fundamental unit signifying the idea of government, the Council of Ministers, 
experiencing a role reversal, has increasingly become a re?ec9on of the Prime Minister rather than the 
other way round.  
Second, the Prime Minister’s own equa9ons of in?uence with the Council of Ministers have been varying on 
account of the circumstan9al poli9cal strengths and weaknesses of the person as a result of which at 9mes, 
the Council of Ministers was reduced to a posi9on of insigni?cance in the face of the Prime Minister’s clout 
over it whereas at other 9mes the laber stood in a state of helplessness in front of the former.  
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
www.SleepyClasses.com