Executive — NCERT Solutions

The statement that applies most to India is Bobby's. In India, the Prime Minister is not a king, and not merely first among equals. The Prime Minister has a greater say in policy-making, selects ministers, and plays the leading role, but still has to consider the support of the party/coalition and the Lok Sabha majority.

The advice of the Council of Ministers is binding on the President because India follows a parliamentary system. The President is the formal head of state, while the real executive power is exercised by the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. The Constitution, through Article 74, says the President shall act according to this advice. This ensures that the executive remains accountable to the elected representatives of the people and prevents arbitrary rule by one person.

It is necessary to control the executive because it has very wide powers and can become unresponsive, arbitrary, or authoritarian if left unchecked. In a democracy, the executive must remain accountable to the people through their representatives in the legislature. Regular control by Parliament helps ensure that government policies follow the will of the people, prevents misuse of power, and keeps a check on personality cult and excessive concentration of power. This is why the parliamentary system gives the legislature strong powers over the executive.

More autonomous agencies may reduce direct political interference, but they will not automatically make administration fully people-friendly or efficient. Some political control is necessary because the administration must remain accountable to elected representatives. If agencies become too independent, they may become unresponsive to the public. On the other hand, too much ministerial interference can also harm efficiency. So, democracy does not mean full control of elected representatives over every administrative action; it means a balance—political accountability with professional neutrality and efficiency. Autonomous agencies can help in some areas, but they must still remain answerable through proper democratic and legal checks.

An elected administration sounds attractive because it may seem more democratic: the people would directly choose those who administer them. Supporters may argue that elected officers would be more accountable, more responsive, and less likely to be arbitrary. They might understand local needs better and work with greater public support.

However, there are serious problems. Administration requires expertise, continuity, and neutrality. Elections can turn administration into a contest of popularity rather than merit. Officials may spend time pleasing voters instead of following laws and policies fairly. An appointed civil service, selected on merit, is better suited for technical, permanent, and impartial work. It also ensures that the government can function even when political parties change.

Therefore, instead of replacing appointed administration completely, a better idea is to make it more accountable, transparent, and citizen-friendly. The bureaucracy should remain professionally selected, but it must be under democratic control and protected from arbitrary political interference.