Partial preview of the text
Download Constitution election rule of law judicial review and more Summaries International Law in PDF only on Docsity!
184 Central Executive [Chapter jy, able to the President under Art, 361 of the Constitution cannot be extended to the Orth Passed in the name of the President under Art. 77(1) or Art. 77(2) of the Constitution”, To smoothen the running of the administration, Art. 77(3) makes two crucial provisions ; (i) to authorise the President to make Rules for the more convenient transaction Of the government business; (ii) to allocate the said business among the Ministers. The Rules made under (i) are known as the Rules of Business. These Rules are made by the By. ecutive in the name of the President. These rules authorise officials in the department to take vari. ous decisions. Thus, most of the decisions within a Ministry are taken by the officials authorised jy the Rules of Business. The Minister exercises over-all control over the working of his dep . he can call for any file, pass an order or issue directions, but actual decisions in a large number of cases are taken by officials authorised by the Rules of Business on behalf of the government. ‘When a minister puts his signature with the endorsement file returned, such signature meant his approval.’ When a decision is taken by such an authorised officer, it becomes the decision of the oven. ment. The validity of any such decision taken cannot be challenged on the ground that it is Ot the decision of the Minister. As the Supreme Court has emphasized in Sanjeevi: * “When those offi. cials discharge the functions allotted to them, they are doing so as limbs of the Government and nor as persons to whom the power of the Government had been delegated”. Similarly, in Samsher, ” the Court has stated that the decision of any Minister or officer under the rules of business tade under An 77(3) is the decision of the President for these rules do not provide for any delegation. These rules have statutory force and are binding. Therefore, sanction for prosecution of anem. ployee of the Central Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act was held not Yalid whey it was granted by a Ministry other than the one authorised to do so under the Rules of Business; Under the Rules of Business of the Maharashtra Government, both the Home Secretary and the Home Minister can deal with a matter of preventive detention. The order of detention was Made by the Secretary, but the representation of the detenu was considered and ejected by the Home Minis- ter. There was nothing wrong in this as both the Secretary and the Minister could act on behalf of the State Government.”’ The Supreme Court has ruled in State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa”? that the Business Rules cannot override a provision made by an Act or by any statutory rule. F, INDIAN V. U.S. FORMS OF GOVERNMENT The functionary at the head of the Indian Union, like that of the U.S.A., is called the President, but India’s form of government is very different from that of the U.S.A. India has parliamentary, and not presidential, form of government. India’s form of government differs substantially from that of America. Beyond the identity of names between the Indian and the American Presidents, there is not much in common between them. The position of the President of India is more akin to the British monarch rather than the Ameri- can President. He is the head of the state and only a formal, not an effective, head of the Executive. The effective repository of the executive power is the Council of Ministers. On the other hand, the U.S. President is both the head of the state as well as the effective head of the Executive. The sys 17. Tafcon Projects (1) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 13 SCC 788 : AIR 2004 SC 949. 18. Sanjeevi, supra, foomote 14, at 1107. 19. Samsher v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2194, 2198, 2202 : (1974) 2 SCC 831. 20. State of Rajasthan v. A.K. Datta, ATR 1981 SC 20, 21. Raverdy Mare Germain Jules v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 311 : (1982) 3 SCC 135. Also, Smi. Masuma v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1753 : (1981) 3 SCC 566; Kavita v, Stale of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1641 : (1981) 3 SCC 558; Sanwal Ram v. Addl. District Magistrate, AR 1982 Raj 139 : (1987) 2 SCC 602; R.J. Singh v. Dethi, AIR 1971 SC 1552 : (1970) 3 SCC 451; infta, Chs. VII and XXVIL. > 22. AIR 1987 SC 1201 : (1987) 2 SCC 602. See also Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, 2004 (2) SCC 510 : AIR 2004 SC 1559. 23. For further discussion on the Rules of Business, see, infra, Ch. VII, Sec. B. 
