Chapter 4
Interactive Edition 2025
In a democracy, rulers cannot act on their own; they must follow rules, procedures, and work through proper institutions. This chapter explains how important decisions are made, implemented, and resolved in India through three key institutions – the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. It explores what each institution does, how they are connected, and how their functioning reflects democracy. The aim is to understand how these institutions together ensure the smooth working of the government.
Democracy is not just about people electing their rulers. In a democracy the rulers have to follow some rules and procedures. They have to work with and within institutions. This chapter is about the working of such institutions in a democracy. We try to understand this by looking at the manner in which major decisions are taken and implemented in our country. We also look at how disputes regarding these decisions are resolved. In this process we come across three institutions that play a key role in major decisions – legislature, executive and judiciary. You have already read something about these institutions in earlier classes. Here we shall quickly summarise those and move on to asking larger questions. In the case of each institution we ask: What does this institution do? How is this institution connected to other institutions? What makes its functioning more or less democratic? The basic objective here is to understand how all these institutions together carry on the work of government. Sometimes we compare these with similar institutions in other democracies. In this chapter we take our examples from the working of the national level government called Central Government, Union Government, or just Government of India. While reading this chapter, you can think of and discuss examples from the working of the government in your state.
In the example of the Office Memorandum, do you remember the role of Parliament? Perhaps not. Since this decision was not taken by Parliament, you might think that Parliament had no role in it. But let us go back to the story and see whether Parliament figures in it. Let us recall the points made earlier by completing the following sentences: The Report of the Mandal Commission was discussed … The President of India mentioned this in his … The Prime Minister made a … The decision was not directly taken in Parliament. But Parliamentary discussions on the Report influenced and shaped the decision of the government. They brought pressure on the government to act on the Mandal recommendation. If Parliament was not in favour of this decision, the Government could not have gone ahead with it. Can you guess why? Recall what you read about Parliament in the earlier class and try to imagine what Parliament could have done if it did not approve of the Cabinet's decision.
7 December 2004 was an ordinary day in the life of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha. Let us take a look at what happened in the course of that day. Identify the role and powers of the parliament on the basis of the proceedings for the day as given below. You can also enact this day in your classroom.
Various ministries gave written answers to about 250 questions that were asked by members. These included:
What is the government's policy on talking to militant groups in Kashmir?
What are the figures of atrocities against Scheduled Tribes, including those inflicted by the police?
What is the government doing about overpricing of medicines by big companies?
A large number of official documents were presented and were available for discussion. These included:
Recruitment rules for the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force
Annual Report of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Report and accounts of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam
The Minister of Development of North Eastern Region made a statement regarding Revitalisation of the North Eastern Council.
The Minister of State for Railways presented a statement showing the grant needed by the Railways in addition to that sanctioned in the Railway Budget.
The Minister of Human Resource Development introduced the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Bill, 2004. He also gave a statement explaining why the government had to bring an ordinance for this.
Several members highlighted some issues, including:
The vindictiveness of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in registering cases against some leaders in the Tehelka case.
Need to include Rajasthani as an official language in the Constitution.
Need to renew the insurance policies of farmers and agricultural workers of Andhra Pradesh.
Two bills proposed by the government were considered and passed. These were:
The Securities Laws (Amendment) Bill
The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Bill
Finally, there was a long discussion regarding the foreign policy of the government and the need to continue an independent foreign policy in the context of the situation in Iraq.
Discussion concluded. House adjourned for next day.
Do you remember the story of the Office Memorandum with which we started this chapter? We found out that the person who signed the document did not take this decision. He was only executing the policy decision taken by someone else. We noted the role of the Prime Minister in taking that decision. But we also know that he could not have taken that decision if he did not have support from the Lok Sabha. In that sense he was only executing the wishes of the Parliament. Thus, at different levels of any government we find functionaries who take day-to-day decisions but do not exercise supreme power on behalf of the people. All those functionaries are collectively known as the executive. They are called executive because they are in charge of the 'execution' of the policies of the government. Thus, when we talk about 'the government' we usually mean the executive.
Let us return, one final time, to the story of Office Memorandum that we started with. This time let us not recall the story, but imagine how different the story could have been. Remember, the story came to a satisfactory end because the Supreme Court gave a verdict that was accepted by everyone. Imagine what would have happened in the following situations: If there was nothing like a Supreme Court in the country. Even if there was a Supreme Court, if it had no power to judge actions of the government. Even if it had the power, if no one trusted the Supreme Court to give a fair verdict. Even if it gave a fair judgement, if those who appealed against the Government Order did not accept the judgement. This is why an independent and powerful judiciary is considered essential for democracies. All the courts at different levels in a country put together are called the judiciary. The Indian judiciary consists of a Supreme Court for the entire nation, High Courts in the states, District Courts and the courts at local level. India has an integrated judiciary. It means the Supreme Court controls the judicial administration in the country. Its decisions are binding on all other courts of the country. It can take up any dispute Between citizens of the country; Between citizens and government; Between two or more state governments; and Between governments at the union and state level. It is the highest court of appeal in civil and criminal cases. It can hear appeals against the decisions of the High Courts. Independence of the judiciary means that it is not under the control of the legislature or the executive. The judges do not act on the direction of the government or according to the wishes of the party in power. That is why all modern democracies have courts that are independent of the legislature and the executive. India has achieved this. The judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister and in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In practice it now means that the senior judges of the Supreme Court select the new judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. There is very little scope for interference by the political executive. The senior most judge of the Supreme Court is usually appointed the Chief Justice. Once a person is appointed as judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court it is nearly impossible to remove him or her from that position. It is as difficult as removing the President of India. A judge can be removed only by an impeachment motion passed separately by two-thirds members of the two Houses of the Parliament. It has never happened in the history of Indian democracy. The judiciary in India is also one of the most powerful in the world. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to interpret the Constitution of the country. They can declare invalid any law of the legislature or the actions of the executive, whether at the Union level or at the state level, if they find such a law or action is against the Constitution. Thus they can determine the Constitutional validity of any legislation or action of the executive in the country, when it is challenged before them. This is known as the judicial review. The Supreme Court of India has also ruled that the core or basic principles of the Constitution cannot be changed by the Parliament. The powers and the independence of the Indian judiciary allow it to act as the guardian of the Fundamental Rights. We shall see in the next chapter that the citizens have a right to approach the courts to seek remedy in case of any violation of their rights. In recent years the Courts have given several judgments and directives to protect public interest and human rights. Any one can approach the courts if public interest is hurt by the actions of government. This is called public interest litigation. The courts intervene to prevent the misuse of the government's power to make decisions. They check malpractices on the part of public officials. That is why the judiciary enjoys a high level of confidence among the people.
Here are some important terms related to the working of institutions in a democracy:
A government formed by an alliance of two or more political parties, usually when no single party enjoys majority support of the members in a legislature.
A body of persons having authority to initiate major policies, make decisions and implement them on the basis of the Constitution and laws of the country.
A set of institutions that have the power to make, implement and interpret laws so as to ensure an orderly life. In its broad sense, government administers and supervises over citizens and resources of a country.
An institution empowered to administer justice and provide a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes. All the courts in the country are collectively referred to as judiciary.
An assembly of people's representatives with the power to enact laws for a country. In addition to enacting laws, legislatures have authority to raise taxes and adopt the budget and other money bills.
A communication issued by an appropriate authority stating the policy or decision of the government.
A set of procedures for regulating the conduct of government and political life in the country.
A policy that declares some positions in government employment and educational institutions 'reserved' for people and communities who have been discriminated against, are disadvantaged and backward.
Political association occupying a definite territory, having an organised government and possessing power to make domestic and foreign policies. Governments may change, but the state continues. In common speech, the terms country, nation and state are used as synonyms.
Answer the following questions to test your understanding of working of institutions:
Match the situations with the ministry that may have released the news:
a) Decision on allocation of money for developing infrastructure like roads, irrigation etc. and different welfare activities for the citizens
b) Considers the recommendation of a Committee on a law to regulate the stock exchange
c) Decides on a legal dispute between two state governments
d) Implements the decision to provide relief for the victims of an earthquake.