Class 11 Political Science Chapter 4 Executive NCERT Solutions

Q. A parliamentary executive means:
(a) Executive where there is a parliament
(b) Executive elected by the parliament
(c) Where the parliament functions as the Executive
(d) Executive that is dependent on support of the majority in the parliament

Answer: (d). The defining feature of a parliamentary system is that the executive (the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers) stays in office only as long as it has the support of the majority in the legislature (the Lok Sabha). The legislature does not become the executive, and the executive’s dependence on majority support is what makes the system “parliamentary”.

Q. Read this dialogue. Which argument do you agree with? Why?
Amit: Looking at the constitutional provisions, it seems that the President is only a rubber stamp.
Shama: The President appoints the Prime Minister. So, he must have the powers to remove the Prime Minister as well.
Rajesh: We don’t need a President. After the election, the Parliament can meet and elect a leader to be the Prime Minister.

Answer:
1. Amit’s view is only partly right. In day-to-day matters the President does act on the Council of Ministers’ binding advice, in that sense the President is mostly a formal head. But this is not the whole picture, the President retains real discretionary powers, asking for reconsideration of advice, the veto and pocket veto, and discretion in appointing the Prime Minister, which matter a great deal whenever there is no clear majority.
2. Shama’s view is incorrect. The power to appoint and the power to remove are not symmetrical. The Prime Minister stays in office only as long as the Lok Sabha’s majority supports them, the President cannot dismiss the Prime Minister at will, that would undermine the accountability the parliamentary system is built on.
3. Rajesh’s view is also weak. The President is not there merely to appoint a Prime Minister, the President is a stable, constitutionally created head who continues even when a government falls, symbolises the nation in foreign affairs and emergencies, and exercises real discretion in choosing the Prime Minister when there is no clear majority.

Q. Match the following:
(i) Works within the particular State in which recruited : (b) State Civil Services
(ii) Works in any central government office located either at the national capital or elsewhere in the country : (d) Central Services
(iii) Works in a particular State to which allotted, can also be sent on deputation to the centre : (c) All India Services
(iv) Works in Indian missions abroad : (a) Indian Foreign Service

Answer: (i)-(b), (ii)-(d), (iii)-(c), (iv)-(a). State Civil Services stay within their recruiting State; Central Services work directly in central government offices; All India Services (IAS, IPS) can be posted to any State and also sent to the centre on deputation; the Indian Foreign Service represents India abroad.

Q. Identify the ministry which may have released the following news items. Would this be a ministry of the central government or the State government? Why?
(a) An official release said that in 2004-05 the Tamil Nadu Textbooks Corporation would release new versions for standards VII, X and XI.
(b) A new railway loop line bypassing the crowded Tiruvallur-Chennai section to help iron ore exporters.
(c) The three-member sub-divisional committee formed to verify suicide by farmers in Ramayampet mandal found economic problems due to failure of crops.

Answer:
(a) State government’s education ministry. Textbooks and school education are a State (or concurrent) subject, and the Tamil Nadu Textbooks Corporation is the State’s own body.
(b) Central government’s railway ministry. Railways is a Union List subject, decisions about new lines and their construction fall under the central Railway Ministry.
(c) State government’s agriculture ministry (or revenue department). Farming, crop failure and farmer welfare are mainly State subjects, and the district/mandal-level committee works under the State government.

Q. While appointing the Prime Minister, the President selects:
(a) Leader of the largest party in the Lok Sabha
(b) Leader of the largest party in the alliance which secures a majority in the Lok Sabha
(c) The leader of the largest party in the Rajya Sabha
(d) Leader of the alliance or party that has the support of the majority in Lok Sabha

Answer: (d). The real criterion is majority support in the Lok Sabha, not just being the single largest party. Often the largest party does not have a majority on its own, in that case the President appoints the leader of whichever party or alliance can command the Lok Sabha’s majority support.

Q. Read this discussion and say which of these statements applies most to India.
Alok: Prime Minister is like a king, he decides everything in our country.
Shekhar: Prime Minister is only ‘first among equals’, he does not have any special powers. All ministers and the PM have similar powers.
Bobby: Prime Minister has to consider the expectations of the party members and other supporters of the government. But after all, the Prime Minister has a greater say in policy making and in choosing the ministers.

Answer: Bobby’s statement applies most to India. Alok’s statement is wrong, the Prime Minister is not an unaccountable king, the PM remains answerable to the Council of Ministers and to the majority in the Lok Sabha. Shekhar’s statement is also incomplete, in practice the Prime Minister is far more powerful than an ordinary minister, presides over Cabinet meetings, allocates portfolios and sets the direction of policy. Bobby strikes the right balance, the Prime Minister must carry the party and coalition partners along, but ultimately has the greatest say in policymaking and in choosing ministers.

Q. Why do you think is the advice of the Council of Ministers binding on the President? Give your answer in not more than 100 words.

Answer: Almost always, yes. Under Article 74(1), the Council of Ministers advises the President, and the President must act in accordance with that advice. The President may return the advice once for reconsideration, but once the same advice is sent back, accepting it is constitutionally compulsory. There are two practical exceptions in effect: first, since no time limit is fixed for the President’s decision on a Bill, an indefinite delay can act as an informal “pocket veto”, as happened with the 1986 Postal Bill. Second, when no party has a clear Lok Sabha majority, the President must use discretion in appointing the Prime Minister, since no settled Council of Ministers exists yet to give advice.

Q. The parliamentary system of executive vests many powers in the legislature for controlling the executive. Why, do you think, is it so necessary to control the executive?

Answer:
1. The executive commands the most powerful instruments of the state, administration, bureaucracy, police and security forces, and unchecked, these could be misused against citizens’ liberty.
2. Elected representatives are directly accountable to the people, legislative control ensures the executive cannot act against the people’s wishes at will.
3. Tools like no-confidence motions, question hour and parliamentary committees keep the executive continuously accountable, maintaining transparency and balance in policymaking.
4. Without control, the executive, especially the permanent bureaucracy, could over time grow powerful enough to become insensitive to the public, which is why this control is essential to a healthy democracy.

Q. It is said that there is too much political interference in the working of the administrative machinery. It is suggested that there should be more and more autonomous agencies which do not have to answer to the ministers.
(a) Do you think this will make administration more people-friendly?
(b) Do you think this will make administration more efficient?
(c) Does democracy mean full control of elected representatives over the administration?

Answer:
(a) Not necessarily. Autonomous agencies may escape political pressure, but they are also not directly accountable to the people, that lack of accountability can itself make them arbitrary rather than people-friendly.
(b) To some extent, yes. In specialised, technical areas (such as a central bank or a regulatory body), decisions free of political interference can be faster and better, but this cannot be extended to every area of administration.
(c) No. Democracy does not require elected representatives to control every small administrative detail, its real meaning lies in accountability and transparency, built through both elected oversight and public scrutiny. What is needed is balance, not placing every agency directly under ministers, nor leaving every agency fully independent.

Q. Write an essay of two hundred words on the proposal to have an elected administration instead of an appointed administration.

Answer: The proposal is appealing at first glance, but is full of practical problems.
In favour: Elected officials would be directly accountable to the people, having to face the electorate repeatedly would reduce the scope for arbitrariness. The idea seems to align with democracy’s core principle of direct public participation.
Against: 1. Administration needs technical competence, expertise and experience, which competitive examinations ensure through merit-based selection, elections offer no such guarantee. 2. Elected officials, constantly preoccupied with re-election, would avoid long-term but necessary and unpopular policy decisions. 3. Continuity would suffer, every election would mean a loss of administrative experience and institutional memory. 4. Elected officials might come under pressure to show political loyalty, which could undermine neutrality.
Conclusion: The better path is to keep a merit-based, appointed permanent bureaucracy in place, while making it more transparent and accountable through elected representatives and tools like the Right to Information, rather than making administration entirely elections-based, which is not workable.