The PM is the head of the secretariat but administrative head is cabinet secretary who is also chairman of the civil service board. The cabinet secretariat functions directly under the PM.
Cabinet secretary is the head of the civil service.
Civil Service day is celebrated on 21st April Because it was on this day that Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, addressed the first batch of civil servants in Independent India at the Metcalf House
Nearly every provision of the Original Constitution has acquired a gloss either from formal amendment or from judicial interpretation, and an account of the working of the Constitution, over and above this, would in itself be a formidable one.
In the American Constitution, the process of formal amendment prescribed by the Constitution to changes in social conditions has fallen into the hands of the Judiciary even though It ostensibly exercises the function only of Interpreting the Constitution.
Instead of leaving the matter to the slow machinery of judicial Interpretation, our Constitution has vested the power in the people's representatives and, though the final power of interpretation of the Constitution as it stands at any moment belongs to the Courts
The power of changing the instrument itself has been given to Parliament (with or without ratification by the State Legislatures) and, if Parliament, acting as the constituent body, considers that the interests of the country so require, it can amend the Constitution as often as it likes.
The ease with which these Amendments have been enacted demonstrates that our Constitution contains the potentiality of peacefully adopting changes some of which would be considered as revolutionary in other countries.
The real question Involved in this context is whether it is the Judiciary or a constituent body which should be entrusted with this task of introducing changes in order to keep pace with the exigencies of national and social progress.
For reasons good or bad, the framers of our Constitution preferred the Legislature as the machinery for introducing changes Into the Constitution
But the need for change is acknowledged even in countries like the U.S.A. where the task has been assumed by the Judiciary
Taking advantage of the fact that the amending machinery provided in the Constitution was too heavy and unwieldy for practical purposes.
At the same time, one cannot help observing that so frequent and multifarious amendments of the Indian Constitution, some of which might have been avoided or consolidated, have undermined the sanctity of the Constitution as an organic instrument.
But in view of the mutilation of the Constitution so far made by endless piecemeal amendments, Inevitably resulting in Injury upon the dignity and solemnity of the Constitution, an impartial observer may suggest that a Commission for the revision of the Constitution should be set up to examine, objectively, each of the existing provisions in the light or suggestions for amendment from the Government as well as the citizens and to recommend the enactment of one comprehensive Amendment Act Or a revision of the Constitution itself
Also Constitution should be amplified, by Inserting in It provisions relating to matters on which it is silent, or It is left to conventions or the goodwill of those who are to administer those matters respectively,-because in the absence of such codified provisions, much confusion has arisen not only amongst the masses who have little knowledge about the British conventions of Cabinet Government or the common law privUeges of the British Parliament, but amongst the administrators themselves.
Though the Cabinet syslem of governmenl was adopted by the framers of the Indian Constitution both at the Union and State (subject to the discretionary sphere left to the Stare Governor) levels
The British Cabinet system is a complicated outcome of history and the sagacity of trained politicians and even then, as veteran scholars have pointed out, it is a difficult task to formulate clear-cut propositions, relating to the conventions upon which the system is founded.
Naturally, in India, there has been much controversy both at the Centre and the States to what course should be taken by the Presldeni or the Governor in the matter of selecting a person to form a government In a situation where no party commands a clear majority;
Conversely, what action should be taken by the constitutional head of the State where it is alleged against a party in power that it has lost majority in the popular House of the Legislature by reason of defection or the like;
Whether the constitutional head has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, ie., the Council of Ministers collectively, and, if so, when.
Though there is scope for controversy on such questions, it is not wholesome for the country if the Governors of two States or the President of the Union take divergent steps in the same or similar situation.
Questions relating to the exercise of the pardoning or Ordinance-making powers have also created confusion.
Even though it may not be possible to make comprehensive provisions relating to such matters or to apprehend all possible situations of doubt or controversy, it would be possible and profitable to formulate those propositions which have already been laid down by the Supreme Court or on which there has been a fair amount of consensus amongst the political parties 'as a result of the working of the Constitution for about fifty nine years.
The uncodified privileges of the British House of Commons were sanctified by the Indian Constitution, but only as a temporary measure, because it was not practicable, at once, to grapple with the difficult problem of codifying the mass of British precedents which constitute the foundation of privileges of Parliament in England
But almost six decades have passed since then, and today, even if the task of a fairly exhaustive codification may not be completed all at once, many of the ptindples have been setUed by judicial decisions of the highest Court and the consensus of precedents laid down by the Presiding Officers of the Houses of the Union and State Legislatures.
It is not conducive to a smooth working of the Parliamentary system in this poor and developing country to have a war between the Courts and the Legislatures as has happened on occaslons
A repetition of which can be averted only by a proper solution embodied in the Constitution Itself.
Score more than 80% marks and move ahead else stay back and read again!