Comparison of Indian & American President
Apparently there seems to be much in common between the Presidents of India and USA. Both are elected heads of their respective. States Both have been vested with a formidable list of powers. Both of them have the power to appoint their Ministers and all other important officers of the Government. Both can be impeached for violation of the constitution.
But all this is on paper. Infact, there is nothing in common between the two except their names. The real position of the Indian Presidents and American President is quite different. First of all, they are presidential election are different in many ways. The American President is elected by the people while the, Indian President is elected by the elected members of the Parliament. This fact enhances the position of the American President, for he is chosen by a popular vote. Further, the Constitution of India has not separated legislative and executive powers as the American Constitution has vested all executive powers in the President. Instead, the Indian Constitution has set up Parliamentary system in which all executive powers are to be exercised by a Council of Ministers, which is responsible "to Parliament. The American President chooses his own Ministers. They are his nominees and are responsible to him alone. The Indian President appoints his ministers on the` advice of his Prime Minister and they are responsible not to him but to Parliament. The same is true about all other important appointments made by him. Moreover the American President is not responsible to the Congress for whatever he does. He cannot be removed till the end of his team of office. He has vast powers, which he exercises independently of the legislature and the people during his term of office. Thus it is said that the American President exercises" The largest amount of authority ever wielded by any man in a democracy". The Indian President has no such plenitude (abundance) of powers in actual fact. As one of the makers of Indian Constitution