The position of the President, prior and after the 42nd Amendment Act 1976 and after 44th Amendment Act, 1978 is given below:

Prior to the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976:

According to Article 53 (1), the executive power of the Union is vested in the President, who may wield it himself or through officers subordinate to him in conformity with the Constitution. Originally, Article 74 said that there would be a Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, to assist and advise the President in the performance of his duties. Article 74 (2) states that ministers' advice to the President shall not be investigated in any court. According to Article 75, the Prime Minister is appointed by the President, while the other ministers are nominated by the President on the Prime Minister's advice.

A juridical interpretation of these provisions gives the idea that the President, if he so wishes, could become a dictator. Article 53 (1) clearly allows the President, if he so desires, to become a real ruler rather than merely the nominal head of the Union. There was no clear provision in the Constitution prior to the 42nd Amendment that the President was bound by ministerial advice.

Constitution expert Allan Gladhill believes that the Constitution has the potential to make the President a dictator in certain circumstances. He can simply grab all executive powers by dissolving Parliament and proclaiming a state of emergency, effectively suspending Fundamental Rights. As Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, he has the authority to employ military action to repress civil forces. An ambitious President can become India's true ruler even if he does not violate the Constitution.

This interpretation is, however, not in tune with the spirit of the Constitution. No President would like to be so ambitious as depicted by Gladhill.

The President cannot use his powers without the assistance and advice of a Ministerial Council. Even after the Lok Sabha is dissolved, the Council of Ministers continues to serve to assist and advise the President. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the President and Governors' positions under the Indian Constitution are analogous to the Crown's status under the British parliamentary system.

Because the framers of the Indian Constitution relied more on constitutional traditions formed in England, they did not include any explicit provision requiring the President to follow the recommendations of the Council of Ministers. However, the Constitution includes essential safeguards that reinforce the argument that the President was never intended to be a dictator or an autocrat. These are their names:

• The Council of Ministers is reponsible to the LokSabha. If the President ignores the advice of the Council of Ministers enjoying the confidence of the Parliament, it may resign and create a constitutional crisis. It is obligatory on the President to have a Council of Ministers. If the same person again gains majority and forms a ministry it would be difficult for the President to work with the ministry.
• If he dismisses any ministry having support of Lok Sabha, they may bring impeachment proceeding against the President. This power of impeachment of the Parliament serves as prevention against the President assuming real power.
• The power of taxation, legislation and appropriation of funds from consolidated funds can be made only by Parliament's authorisation.
• The working of the Constitution since 1950 has established that President is a nominal head of the country and real executive power vests in the Council of Ministers.