Recently, the US government went into a shutdown as the ruling Republicans couldn't muster enough votes in the Senate. The reaction of many Indians to this news was how great the Indian system is, where such a thing is impossible. The US system is conceptualized on the idea of the Separation of Powers. The President is directly elected and heads the executive, and in that capacity, he has several powers independent of the Congress (the US legislature). However, the legislature also has its own set of powers independent of the President. One of the important powers is the control over the purse. The President, no matter how high he may think of himself, has to engage with the House of Representatives and the Senate for their support so as to enable his government to function effectively. This, even though his party may or may not have a majority in either or both of these Houses. This ensures that the President does not become despotic, and there are enough checks and balances within the system to ensure this. In fact, the control of the Senate on the purse is so strong that even a President whose party enjoys a majority in the House will still need to engage with his political rivals because the opposition may, despite being in the minority in the Senate, still stall the Bills using filibuster techniques. That will then require at least 60% of the votes to pass the Bill as per the Senate Rule XXII, which provides the cloture mechanism[1]. It is this provision that has compelled even the mercurial President Donald Trump to engage with his rivals and reassess his arbitrary policies. This is an example of how checks and balances should be designed to ensure that there is a rule of law and not a rule of men.
Contrast this with the Indian Parliamentary system, where if the Prime Minister enjoys even a simple majority in the Lower House, he can do almost everything. He can appoint anyone he pleases to important public offices like the Election Commissioners[2], Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)[3], etc., without much scrutiny. In the US system, each appointment to an important position can be made by the President only after the advice and approval of the Senate,[4] in which his Party may or may not have a majority.
Furthermore, when it comes to financial matters, the position of the Indian Upper House is just that of a rubber stamp. The Rajya Sabha can't even introduce a money Bill[5], and when sent to it by the Lok Sabha, it can only debate it and shall return within 14 days with or without non-binding recommendations[6]. Thus, the Indian system does not provide for enough checks and balances on the executive. This absence of checks is more pronounced in the policy and financial matters. This is because, generally, the Indian courts have distanced themselves from cases involving purely policy matters. Perhaps in this regard, the Indian system can learn a thing or two from the US system.
However, given that India has adopted the Parliamentary system, the executive means the Lok Sabha, and the Lok Sabha means the executive. There is no scope for disagreement between these two wings of the State, as any disagreement would result in either the Lok Sabha voting the government out of power or the government dissolving the Lok Sabha. Thus, there is practically no separation of powers between the executive and the legislature in the Indian setup, as is natural in a classic parliamentary form of government. However, by empowering the Rajya Sabha in matters such as finance, we can introduce an element of separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, because, unlike the Lok Sabha, there is no guarantee that the ruling party will always enjoy a majority in the Rajya Sabha as well. Granting the Rajya Sabha the same powers in respect to money Bills as it enjoys in other matters would be a good step forward in ensuring continuous accountability and preventing despotic tendencies. It will also foster better engagement and deliberations before important policy and financial decisions are taken by the government. This will lead to more democratic governance. Seen in this light, the current US shutdown can be called a sign of a healthy checks and balances system at work and a lesson for India.
Author is an Advocate, views are personal.
Rule XXII of the Rules of the Senate available at https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate ↑
Article 324(2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 7(1) of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of service and term of office) Act, 2023 (Act no. 49 of 2023) ↑
Article 148(1) of the Constitution of India ↑
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution ↑
Article 109(1) of the Constitution of India ↑
Article 109(2) of the Constitution of India ↑