Abstract

The Union Government of India is the central authority responsible for national governance, structured into three main organs: the executive, Parliament, and the Judiciary. The executive includes the president, Prime Minister, and Council of Ministers, supported by the Cabinet Secretariat and the PMO. The Parliament, comprising the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, performs legislative functions, while the Judiciary, headed by the Supreme Court, ensures constitutional integrity. Administrative functions are carried out by the Central Secretariat, Ministries, Departments, Boards, Commissions, Attached Offices, and Field Organisations, forming a vast bureaucratic network. IG relations involve coordination between various branches and levels of administration. Enhanced transparency and accountability mechanisms are reshaping administrative work processes. This article examines the structure, functions, and evolving dynamics of the administration of the Union Government in India.

Keywords: Union Government, executive, Parliament, Judiciary, Cabinet Secretariat, PMO, Central Secretariat, Ministries, Commissions, Boards, Field Organisations, Intra governmental Relations

The Indian Parliament

The Parliament of India is the highest legislative authority in India, comprising the President, the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). It functions under a bicameral system, meaning it has two houses. The Lok Sabha is the lower house, whose members are directly elected by the people through five-year general elections. The Rajya Sabha is the upper house, with members elected by state and union territory legislatures. The Parliament is responsible for making laws, approving budgets, debating national issues, and holding the executive accountable. It also plays a key role in amending the Constitution and checking the government’s power through various motions and questions. Although not a member of either house, the President of India plays a crucial role in the legislative process by summoning sessions, giving assent to bills, and even dissolving the Lok Sabha when necessary. India’s Parliament is a cornerstone of its democratic governance, representing the people’s will. As the nation’s democratic nerve centre, Parliament facilitates debate, ensures representation, and drives national progress through constitutional governance. 

The Executive

The executive is one of India’s three branches of government, alongside the legislature and judiciary. It implements laws, manages administration, and governs the nation. In India’s parliamentary system, the Executive includes the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Council of Ministers and operates in close connection with the Legislature.

The President of India

Established on January 26, 1950, the President of India serves as the ceremonial head of state and a key constitutional figure in the world’s largest democracy. Although often seen as symbolic, the president plays a vital role in maintaining democratic values, especially during periods of political instability and constitutional crises.

Articles 52–62 of the Indian Constitution outline the president’s election, tenure, powers, and responsibilities. Inspired by the British monarch, India’s president holds greater authority. Article 53 vests executive powers in the president, but Article 74 requires the Prime Minister to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Though advice is binding, the president may request reconsideration at any time.

In the executive domain, the President formally appoints key officials, such as the Prime Minister, governors, judges of the Supreme and High Courts, and heads of constitutional bodies, such as the Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Most of these powers are exercised on ministerial advice. However, discretion becomes relevant in cases such as a hung Parliament. For example, President Neelam Sanjiva Reddy’s 1979 appointment of Charan Singh without a clear majority and similar decisions in the coalition-driven 1980s and 1990s highlight the President’s importance during unstable political times.

The president also plays a legislative role. Under Article 111, bills passed by Parliament require the president’s assent to become law. The President may use veto powers: absolute (rejecting the bill), suspensive (returning it for reconsideration), and pocket (withholding assent without action). President Zail Singh notably used the pocket veto in 1986 to delay the Postal Bill. Additionally, Article 123 empowers the President to issue ordinances when Parliament is not in session, although the Supreme Court clarified this power in 2017.

The President’s legislative duties include summoning and dissolving the Lok Sabha, proroguing Parliament, and delivering addresses at the beginning of parliamentary sessions and after general elections, reinforcing the ceremonial yet constitutional role of the President in the legislature.

According to Article 72, the president can grant pardons and commute sentences, particularly in capital punishment cases. For example, Narayanan’s refusal to commute the sentences of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins reflected the weight of the role. Under Article 356, the President can impose the President’s Rule in a state based on the advice of the Cabinet. Although this is a routine function, its misuse-especially during the 1975 Emergency-has been controversial. Later Presidents like R. Venkataraman showed restraint, reinforcing the office’s role as a constitutional safeguard.

The president also holds powers during national and financial emergencies, although these are rarely invoked because of their serious implications. The office allows for some discretionary powers, especially in situations of political deadlock or when exercising vetoes, as seen in actions taken by Presidents Venkataraman, Narayanan, and K.R. Narayanan.

Beyond constitutional duties, the president symbolises national unity and moral authority. In times of unrest, the president’s role is to uphold democratic and constitutional values. Abdul Kalam, dubbed the “People’s president,” exemplified this by championing education and innovation and reshaping public perception of the role of education.

In essence, the President of India is a vital constitutional figure, serving as a guardian of democracy, a symbol of unity, and a moral compass for the nation.

The Vice President of India

The Vice President of India, established under Article 63 of the Constitution, is the country’s second-highest constitutional authority. Although the office is prestigious, its functional scope is limited and largely ceremonial. It combines legislative duties with symbolic responsibilities but lacks executive power.

Constitutional Role and Election Process: The Vice President is elected for a five-year term by an electoral college comprising members of both Houses of Parliament, including nominated members, through proportional representation and a single transferable vote. Unlike the presidential election, this process excludes state legislatures, which has raised concerns about the federal balance. Articles 63 to 71 govern the role of the vice president, defining their primary function as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and, under Article 65, as the acting president during a temporary vacancy or incapacity in the presidency.

Role as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha: The most active function of the Vice President is presiding over the Rajya Sabha. As the chairman, they oversee debates, ensure order, and enforce procedural rules. Although not a member of the Rajya Sabha and unable to participate in debates, the Vice President may cast a tie-breaking vote. This role demands neutrality and authority, especially during politically charged sessions. Vice Presidents like S. Radhakrishnan and Hamid Ansari are remembered for maintaining high parliamentary standards, though criticism regarding perceived partisanship has increased in recent times.

Succession Duties and Symbolic Role: In the event of the president’s death, resignation, or removal, the vice president becomes the acting president until a new president is elected. This occurred in 1969 when Vice President V. V. After Zakir Husain’s death, Giri temporarily assumed the presidency, later resigning to contest the presidential election. Beyond formal duties, the vice president often represents India at ceremonial and international events, reflecting the office’s symbolic stature. Despite these appearances, they hold no cabinet position and have no say in policy decisions.

The Vice President’s powers are constitutionally constrained. The role carries no salary outside their duties as Rajya Sabha Chairman, and removal requires only a simple majority vote. Although essential for legislative continuity, the office remains underutilised, with its impact largely shaped by the conduct and interpretation of the responsibilities of the incumbent.

The Prime Minister of India 

The Prime Minister of India occupies the most powerful and central position in the Indian political and administrative system. As the head of government, the Prime Minister leads the executive branch and plays a critical role in shaping national policies, directing governance, and representing India on the global stage. Although the Constitution of India provides only a basic framework for the office, particularly under Articles 74 and 75, the role has been extensively developed and defined over time through convention, precedent, and political practice.

The leadership of the Council of Ministers is at the core of the Prime Minister’s powers. Article 74 mandates that a Council of Ministers shall be established with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the president. Advice is binding on the president, making the Prime Minister the executive authority. The President appoints the Prime Minister, usually the leader of the majority party or coalition in the Lok Sabha, and acts on the Prime Minister’s advice in appointing other ministers. The Prime Minister allocates portfolios, coordinates activities among ministers, and recommends the dismissal or resignation of ministers to the president.

In the legislative sphere, the Prime Minister plays a crucial role in shaping the agenda of the government in Parliament. As the leader of the majority party, the Prime Minister ensures the passage of important bills and policies and answers to Parliament during Question Hour. The Prime Minister also advises the President regarding the summoning and proroguing of parliamentary sessions and can recommend the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, leading to general elections. Furthermore, the Prime Minister addresses the nation on key issues and represents the government’s stance during debates and discussions, acting as the primary communicator between the government and the people.

On the administrative front, the Prime Minister exercises direct control over the PMO, which serves as the nerve centre of policy coordination and implementation. The PMO oversees the functioning of various ministries and ensures alignment with national priorities. In times of emergency or crisis, the Prime Minister becomes the chief decision-maker, guiding the country through coordinated governmental efforts. The PM also plays a crucial role in appointments to key constitutional and administrative positions, including governors, judges, and key commissions and regulatory bodies.

In foreign affairs, the PM represents India in international forums and plays a leading role in formulating foreign policy. The Prime Minister promotes India’s strategic and economic interests abroad through state visits, international summits, and bilateral engagements. The Prime Minister also serves as the country’s chief spokesperson, articulating national goals and positions on global issues.

Despite the concentration of power, the office of the Prime Minister is also subject to checks and balances. The need for parliamentary support, judiciary scrutiny, and the role of the media and civil society are important restraints. However, the effectiveness and reach of the prime minister often depend on the electoral mandate’s strength, political circumstances, and individual leadership style.

In conclusion, the Prime Minister of India is the pivotal authority in the country’s democratic framework, wielding extensive powers across legislative, executive, administrative, and diplomatic domains. The office is not only the engine of governance but also the face of the Indian state, evolving continuously with the political and institutional landscape of the nation.

Council of Ministers 

The Council of Ministers, defined under Articles 74 and 75 of the Indian Constitution, is the central executive authority of the Union government, headed by the Prime Minister. It advises the president in exercising executive powers and plays a pivotal role in India’s parliamentary democracy. As per the 91st Amendment Act (2003), the size of the Lok Sabha is capped at 15% of the total membership. The Council is structured into three tiers: Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State, and Deputy Ministers, with the Cabinet serving as the core decision-making body.

Historical Evolution: After independence, the Council functioned as a robust collective under Prime Minister Nehru, who emphasised democratic deliberation and nation-building. Initiatives such as the Planning Commission and public sector expansion emerged through Cabinet consensus.

However, during the Emergency (1975–1977), Prime Minister Indira Gandhi centralised power within the PMO, weakening Cabinet autonomy. Ministerial loyalty overtook competence, undermining the principle of collective responsibility.

Post-emergency governments, including the Janata Party and later coalition regimes, saw a revival of consultation and power-sharing. Coalition dynamics between the 1990s and early 2000s required ideological compromise and greater collaboration among ministers, but also led to policy delays and instability.

Functional Role: The Council of Ministers is responsible for policymaking, legislation, and crisis response. It describes key national strategies and pilot bills in Parliament. Major reforms, such as the 1991 economic liberalisation under P.V. Narasimha Rao, demonstrated their decisive potential when cohesive. More recently, strong Cabinets like Modi’s post-2014 facilitated the swift passage of policies like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

However, coordination lapses have occurred, such as during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown, when sudden directives led to migrant distress and logistical chaos, reflecting inadequate inter-ministerial communication.

Challenges -

i. Centralisation of Power: The growing dominance of the Prime Minister can marginalise ministers, reducing the deliberation of the cabinet.

ii. Ministerial Appointments: Political loyalty and caste/regional calculations often outweigh merit, affecting governance quality.

iii. Parliamentary Control: Declining legislative scrutiny weakens executive accountability.

iv. Coalition Politics: Portfolio bargaining dilutes efficiency and encourages corruption.

Federal Strains: The Council sometimes encroaches on the jurisdiction of the state. Although cooperative in intent, the GST Council faces criticism for reducing state fiscal autonomy.

In essence, the Council of Ministers is both a cornerstone of governance and a reflection of India’s political realities. Reforms are needed in appointments, accountability, and federal coordination to restore its effectiveness. A more inclusive, merit-driven, and transparent council can better uphold its constitutional mandate.

The Judiciary in India

Established in 1950, the Indian judiciary is a cornerstone of the democratic structure of the country, tasked with upholding the Constitution and protecting citizens’ rights. It operates as an independent, integrated, and hierarchical system that ensures checks and balances among the legislature, executive, and public.

The judiciary is organised in a pyramidal structure: the Supreme Court sitting at the apex, followed by the 25 High Courts and a wide network of subordinate courts. Articles 124–147 define the powers of the Supreme Court, including original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction. Articles 214–231 empower high courts to supervise subordinate courts. In addition, specialised tribunals like the NGT and AFT support the legal framework. Despite this integration, issues of federal imbalance persist due to the central government’s control over appointments and funding.

A central feature is judicial review, which affirms the authority of courts to examine legislative and executive actions. Though not explicitly stated, it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits the power of Parliament to amend core constitutional principles. The judiciary also plays a key role in enforcing fundamental rights through writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226, as seen in landmark cases such as Maneka Gandhi (1978) and Vishaka (1997).

The judiciary gained prominence in the 1980s through Public Interest Litigation (PILs), aimed at expanding access to justice. PILs enabled intervention in environmental protection, corruption, and gender justice. However, critics argue that excessive judicial activism can blur the separation of powers by encroaching on legislative and executive domains.

The Collegium System, where judges appoint judges, aims to preserve judicial independence but has been criticised for a lack of transparency and accountability. In 2015, the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)-which included inputs from the executive and civil society-was struck down in 2015, reigniting debates on balancing autonomy with democratic oversight.

Despite its strengths, the judiciary, especially in district courts, struggles with delays and limited access to justice. Over 5 crore pending cases, procedural complexity, and under-resourced courts limit timely redress. Initiatives such as e-courts, fast-track courts, and ADR offer some relief, but systemic reforms are needed.

In recent years, the judiciary has advanced constitutional morality, as reflected in transformative verdicts such as Navtej Johar (LGBTQ+ rights), Puttaswamy (privacy rights), and Sabarimala (gender equality). However, questions remain about judicial overreach and legitimacy in enacting social change.

To remain effective, the judiciary must ensure timely, transparent, and equitable justice, balancing independence with accountability while remaining true to constitutional principles.

Intra-Governmental Relations in India

India’s intra-governmental relations operate within a quasi-federal framework that combines central authority with regional autonomy. The Constitution reflects a hybrid of British parliamentary democracy and American federalism, resulting in a structure that emphasises unity while accommodating diversity. Power is shared among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, and between the Union and states, but political developments have frequently altered this constitutional balance.

Constitutional Framework: Article 1 describes India as a “Union of States,” reflecting a federal structure with a unitary bias. The Seventh Schedule divides legislative powers into union, state, and concurrent lists, with the Centre holding overriding authority in the concurrent list (Article 254) and residuary powers (Article 248). Emergency provisions (Articles 352–360), especially Article 356, grant the Centre sweeping powers during crises, often undermining state autonomy. Financial centralisation is another important feature. The Centre controls major revenue sources (e.g., income tax and customs), while states rely on Finance Commission transfers (Article 280) and grants-in-aid (Article 275). The GST Council (2017) introduced cooperative federalism in taxation, but its centralising tendencies have limited states’ fiscal freedom.

Legislative–Executive Relations: India’s parliamentary system promotes interdependence: the Executive, led by the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, is drawn from and accountable to the Legislature. In the early decades, parliament exercised strong control. However, during the Indira Gandhi era, executive dominance surged, diminishing parliamentary checks. In recent years, legislative control has weakened-marked by reduced sittings, increased ordinance use, and underutilised committees. Strong majority governments, especially post-2014, have further centralised authority in the PMO, raising concerns about declining democratic accountability.

Executive–Judiciary Relations: The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, serves as a constitutional check on executive power. Post-Emergency, courts embraced judicial activism, asserting doctrines such as the Basic Structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) to limit constitutional amendments. PILs empowered courts to intervene in areas such as the environment, corruption, and human rights. However, tensions persist. The Collegium System, where judges appoint judges, was upheld in 2015 after the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, citing threats to judicial independence. Critics argue that self-regulation lacks transparency and accountability.

Legislature–Judiciary Relations: Judicial review often places courts in conflict with Parliament, especially over social justice laws, reservations, and land reforms. The Ninth Schedule, which was once used to shield laws from judicial scrutiny, and amendments such as the 42nd and 44th, reflect attempts to redefine the balance of power. Judicial interventions in policy areas (e.g., electoral reforms, environment) raise questions about judicial overreach and blur the lines between law interpretation and policymaking.

Centre–State Relations: Asymmetric federalism in India favours the Centre. For decades, one-party dominance ensured smooth Centre-state coordination. With the rise of regional parties post-1990s, states gained bargaining power, pressing for autonomy in policy and finance. However, central interventions through governors, central laws without state consent, and fiscal disputes under the GST reflect persistent central dominance. Cases like S.R. Bommai (1994) curbed the misuse of the President’s rule, while the Delhi governance case highlighted the complex dynamics of the Union territory.

India’s intra-governmental relations showcase a centralised federation navigating democratic diversity. While central control has ensured national stability, it often marginalises regional voices. Sustaining cooperative federalism demands reforms: depoliticising governor roles, empowering inter-state councils, and revising fiscal arrangements. Strengthening democratic institutions and balancing autonomy with accountability remain vital for inclusive and responsive governance.

Cabinet Secretariat in India

The Cabinet Secretariat of India serves as the principal coordinating body of the Union executive, playing a critical role in ensuring cohesive governance across ministries and between political leadership and the bureaucracy. Originating from the British-era Executive Council Secretariat, it has evolved from a mere record-keeping office into a key institution responsible for streamlined governance, particularly in a complex, federal system like India’s.

The Cabinet Secretariat operates through three main wings: Civil, Military, and Intelligence. The Civil Wing is primarily responsible for inter-ministerial coordination and the management of Cabinet procedures, assisting in the effective implementation of government policies while upholding the autonomy of individual ministries. Meanwhile, the Military and Intelligence Wings focus on national security matters, ensuring fast, coordinated responses while minimising bureaucratic delays. This internal structure allows the Secretariat to function as both a facilitator of communication and a guardian of coherent governance.

Over time, the Secretariat has played a pivotal role during significant moments of transformation, such as the 1991 economic liberalisation and the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). It has also proven to be central during times of national crisis. Modern initiatives such as Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation (PRAGATI), launched by the Prime Minister, illustrate the Secretariat’s embrace of digital tools to bridge gaps between policy and execution. This is particularly relevant in India’s multi-layered governance system, which involves both the central government and states.

However, the authority of the Cabinet Secretariat has not remained constant. Its role has often been affected by political leadership shifts. While it functioned as an impartial and efficient body under Jawaharlal Nehru, it experienced reduced influence during phases of political centralisation, particularly with the PMO’s growing dominance. Although centralisation can accelerate decision-making, it can also marginalise the Secretariat and weaken bureaucratic control.

The Cabinet Secretary, who heads the Secretariat, is India’s top civil servant and plays a key role in ensuring administrative continuity. Although the position is not constitutionally mandated, it is critical to governance. The Cabinet Secretary advises the Prime Minister, coordinates among ministries, chairs the Civil Services Board, and oversees national events such as the Republic Day celebrations. However, challenges such as short tenures, politicisation of appointments, and disconnects from grassroots realities can limit the effectiveness of this role.

Complementing the Secretariat is the system of Cabinet Committees, which enables specialised decision-making in areas such as security, economic affairs, and political affairs. These committees reflect the need for focused deliberation in a complex governance environment. Their adaptability is evident in the emergence of new committees on employment and skill development. However, they also face criticisms, such as a lack of transparency, the absence of expert voices, and functioning as rubber stamps for predetermined decisions.

The Cabinet Secretariat must undergo targeted reforms to remain relevant and effective. Transparency should be improved without compromising operational efficiency. To reduce micromanagement, the balance between political leadership and bureaucratic expertise must be recalibrated. Finally, the adoption of digital technologies and the incorporation of domain-specific knowledge will enhance the precision of policy implementation.

In conclusion, the Cabinet Secretariat is a cornerstone of India’s executive machinery. Its ability to coordinate, adapt, and innovate while upholding democratic accountability will be crucial as India navigates the challenges of 21st-century governance.

The Office of the Prime Minister

The PMO has evolved into the most powerful institution in India’s executive structure, despite not being mentioned in the Constitution. From a modest support unit in 1947 under Jawaharlal Nehru in 1947, the PMO has transformed into the epicentre of policy-making and administrative control. Its rise illustrates how extra-constitutional bodies can gain immense influence in a parliamentary democracy, shaped significantly by successive prime ministers’ leadership styles.

Initially, the PMO was limited to administrative tasks and reflected Nehru’s commitment to collective Cabinet decision-making. The transformation began under Indira Gandhi, who institutionalised the PMO in 1977 and centralised executive power. Events such as the 1974 Pokhran nuclear test demonstrated the PMO’s capacity to coordinate sensitive national projects independently of conventional ministries. However, this centralisation also exposed weaknesses, including a widening gap between policy decisions and on-ground implementation.

Today, the PMO plays a multifaceted role: advising the Prime Minister, ensuring inter-ministerial coordination, monitoring governance through platforms such as PRAGATI, and exercising control over national security and foreign policy. It has also become a powerful force in bureaucratic appointments, influencing the leadership of India’s civil services and regulatory bodies.

The prominence of the PMO has varied with political contexts. While Indira Gandhi’s PMO exemplified executive centralisation, the coalition era (1990s–2000s) saw a temporary return to consensus governance and reduced PMO dominance. However, under Narendra Modi, the PMO has re-emerged as an all-encompassing institution, concentrating decision-making and driving implementation with remarkable efficiency.

This renewed dominance has sparked concerns about democratic accountability. Critics argue that the PMO undermines the principle of CCR, reducing ministries to subordinate roles. Its opacity, resistance to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and control over appointments have raised alarms about the politicisation of the bureaucracy and erosion of ministerial autonomy.

Nevertheless, the PMO remains crucial in India’s vast and complex governance landscape. It provides strategic coherence, ensures rapid crisis response, and drives major national initiatives. The challenge lies in preserving the PMO’s strengths-its agility, coordination, and strategic control -while introducing transparency and accountability mechanisms. Only by restoring institutional balance can the PMO remain a pillar of democratic governance rather than a symbol of centralised authority.

Central Secretariat

The Central Secretariat is India’s Union government’s administrative backbone, acting as a vital conduit between political leadership and the permanent bureaucracy. Although not explicitly defined in the Constitution, its functions are guided by Article 77 and the Rules of Business, making it a central player in policy formulation, inter-ministerial coordination, legislative processes, and implementation.

Historically rooted in colonial administration, the Secretariat has evolved into a sophisticated governance structure. Its hierarchical setup, with Secretaries leading ministries and supported by a chain of senior officers, ensures continuity across political regimes and provides expert, non-partisan advice to elected ministers. This system safeguards institutional memory and supports policy consistency in the face of changing governments.

One of its core functions is policy formulation. Civil servants analyse complex issues, conduct research, and draft policies that form the foundation of government decisions. Its role was pivotal during transformative phases such as the Green Revolution and the 1991 economic reforms, where bureaucratic expertise guided India through structural shifts. However, the Secretariat's centralised nature has also drawn criticism for fostering bureaucratic delays and procedural rigidity, as seen in the unsuccessful 2003 restructuring attempts aimed at enhancing efficiency.

Interministerial coordination is another critical responsibility of the The Secretariat acts as a bridge between departments in a federal system marked by overlapping jurisdictions, ensuring cohesive policy-making. This role was crucial during events such as the 1962 war and during complex liberalisation efforts. However, overlaps with the Cabinet Secretariat have sometimes resulted in functional ambiguities.

The Secretariat drafts bills, prepares responses for Parliament, and ensures compliance with constitutional and legal norms. These behind-the-scenes activities are essential for informed law-making, even if they remain out of public view. In implementation, it allocates resources, monitors programme delivery, and evaluates performance-thus connecting policy intent with grassroots outcomes.

Despite its institutional significance, the Secretariat faces structural challenges. Colonial legacies have fostered a rule-following culture over results. Over-centralisation contradicts federal ideals, while the IAS’s generalist nature often struggles in specialised policy areas such as digital governance or international trade. Opacity and politicisation further erode trust and neutrality.

Reform efforts such as Mission Karmayogi and the updated Office Procedure Manual aim to improve efficiency, transparency, and skill development. However, deeper structural reforms are needed to transform it into a dynamic, knowledge-driven body capable of meeting 21st-century governance demands. In the future, balancing continuity with innovation, neutrality with responsiveness, and central authority with local empowerment will determine the Secretariat’s continued relevance in India’s democratic journey.

Ministries and Departments

The Government of India operates through a structured network of ministries and departments that form the core of the country’s administrative system. Guided by the Business Rules of 1966 and framed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, this organisational framework balances political leadership with bureaucratic continuity, enabling democratic accountability and administrative efficiency.

Each ministry, headed by a minister, may comprise one or more departments, depending on the workload and scope. This flexibility allows the government to respond to emerging priorities, as reflected in the expansion from 18 ministries at independence to around 89 today. Ministries function within a three-tier structure:

(i) Political leadership (Minister, Ministers of State, and Deputy Ministers);

(ii) The Secretariat, led by the Secretary and supported by senior civil servants; and

(iii) executive organisations, comprising attached and subordinate offices responsible for implementation.

The Minister, accountable to Parliament, sets the broad policy direction. The Secretary, a career civil servant, acts as the principal advisor to the Minister and ensures continuity across political changes. This Westminster-style separation of policy formulation from implementation upholds clear accountability while leveraging bureaucratic expertise. The system also affirms the convention of ministerial responsibility, as seen in the resignation of Finance Minister T. T. Krishnamachari in 1958 over the LIC scandal.

Secretariat officials, largely drawn from the IAS, operate under a tenure system introduced by Lord Curzon in 1905. This system rotates officers between central policy roles and state-level field positions, grounding their expertise in policymaking and practical realities. The subordinate staff manages clerical functions within a well-defined hierarchy.

Attached offices offer technical and professional input for policymaking, whereas subordinate offices handle field-level operations. However, increasing centralisation has blurred the lines between policymaking and execution, with secretariats often encroaching on executive functions, thereby undermining the autonomy of field agencies.

The ministries perform eight essential functions: policy formulation, legislative drafting, sectoral planning, budgeting, programme supervision, intergovernmental coordination, capacity building, and parliamentary support. This makes them central to translating political vision into governance outcomes.

Despite its effectiveness, the system faces challenges, such as bureaucratic overlap, coordination issues, and tensions between ministers and civil servants. As governance becomes more complex, India’s ministries and departments must continually refine their structures to better balance central coordination with decentralised execution, and political authority with bureaucratic competence, ensuring long-term institutional resilience.

Boards and Commissions

In India’s governance framework, boards and commissions function as essential administrative bodies that operate beyond traditional ministerial systems. These plural institutions provide critical support for regulation, policy-making, and quasi-judicial functions, offering a collaborative governance model that enhances accountability and expertise.

The concept of such bodies originates from Britain’s Privy Council and early American administrative models. In India, they were first introduced during colonial rule and significantly expanded after independence to accommodate the increasing complexity of governance. Unlike single-headed departments or bureaus, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation, boards and commissions use collective leadership, encouraging broader deliberation and more balanced decisions. For instance, the Railway Board exemplifies how this model enables stakeholder engagement in technical and policy issues.

These institutions are designed to ensure greater operational autonomy and protect against political interference, thereby making them suitable for areas that require a level of impartial control. Their plural composition guards against arbitrary decisions and promotes fairness and transparency-especially in sensitive or technical domains. As noted by Willoughby, a public administration expert, such bodies are most effective in contexts involving rule-making, dispute resolution, and high discretion.

Boards and commissions in India are classified according to legal status and function:

Constitutional bodies (e.g., the Election Commission and the Union Public Service Commission) enjoy the highest independence, with appointments and terms protected under the Constitution.

Statutory bodies (e.g., University Grants Commission, National Commission for Women) are established by parliamentary acts and operate under ministerial control.

Executive bodies (e.g., NITI Aayog) are created by government resolution and mainly serve advisory roles within the administrative hierarchy.

Functionally, these institutions cover a wide spectrum-from advisory and consultative work (e.g., Small-Scale Industries Board) to policy formulation (e.g., NITI Aayog) and policy execution (e.g., Railway Board). Many possess quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial authority, allowing them to frame regulations and resolve disputes, such as in the telecom or human rights sectors.

While traditional bureaus ensure operational efficiency, plural bodies offer critical institutional checks and balances. Their collective decision-making model mitigates unilateral action risks and supports inclusive governance, particularly in civil service appointments, minority rights, and public utilities.

As India’s governance challenges become more complex, boards and commissions must adapt while preserving autonomy and accountability. Their continued relevance depends on striking the right balance between professional expertise and democratic control, ensuring that they remain the effective and equitable arms of the Indian state.

Attached and Subordinate Offices

In India’s administrative framework, attached and subordinate offices play a pivotal role in linking central policy formulation with on-the-ground implementation. These two structures represent India’s effort to balance centralised decision-making with decentralised execution, ensuring that policies designed in New Delhi effectively reach and serve citizens across the country.

Attached offices function as the technical arms of ministries. They provide expert inputs during policy formulation and translate these policies into implementable directives. Headed by officers such as director generals or chief engineers, these offices blend specialised expertise with executive responsibilities. For instance, the Intelligence Bureau under the Ministry of Home Affairs is a classic example of an attached office that combines national security intelligence with administrative precision. Structurally, their reporting lines vary answer to Directors, others to Additional Secretaries demonstrating administrative flexibility.

Subordinate offices operate at the field level, directly executing government schemes and interacting with the public. Agencies such as the Forest Survey of India exemplify these grassroots arms of governance. Despite their crucial implementation role, subordinate offices often suffer from lower status, limited autonomy, and inferior service conditions compared with their secretariat or attached office counterparts. This structural inequity has led to demonisation and operational inefficiencies.

The interaction between these two types of offices is meant to form a feedback loop, where Attached Offices translate Secretariat decisions into operational instructions for Subordinate Offices while relaying field experiences back to policy-makers. However, overlapping roles and blurred boundaries often lead to confusion and administrative friction in practice.

Reform efforts have long recognised these challenges. The Tottenham Committee (1945–46) and the First Pay Commission (1950) questioned the necessity of this artificial classification. The Administrative Reforms Commission (1968) proposed a more functional categorisation, suggesting integration with the Secretariat only for agencies handling complex developmental programmes, while allowing others to have operational autonomy.

Today, these offices perform various functions, including regulation, education, research, service delivery, and programme implementation. However, they still face status disparities, organisational inconsistencies, and a lack of clear career pathways, particularly in subordinate offices.

Reforms must focus on enhancing technical capabilities, career mobility, and digital integration between administrative layers. India can ensure that these institutions not only preserve administrative coherence but also respond effectively to the evolving needs of governance by recalibrating the relationship between policy and execution.

Field Organisations

Field organisations are the operational backbone of the Indian administrative system, acting as the crucial interface between central policy and grassroots implementation. These decentralised units bring governance to citizens, ensuring that national policies are effectively delivered across the country’s vast and diverse terrain.

They emerge from both statutory mandates and administrative necessity, expanding as the welfare state’s functions have grown. From postal services and agriculture to revenue collection and development programmes, field organisations ensure that “government reaches the people,” according to Professor C. P. Bhambhri. They are not limited to India’s borders-diplomatic missions abroad also function as field units extending governance overseas.

Two models structure these field organisations:

i. Territorial (area-based) – typified by revenue administration, where a hierarchical system functions across geographic regions.

ii. Functional (departmental verticals) – where specialised departments such as agriculture or irrigation, manage field offices that report directly to their respective ministries. Most states use a hybrid of both, allowing for broad geographic coverage and subject-specific expertise.

A major administrative challenge is coordination among various field agencies. Effective delivery of development programmes, for instance, requires the integrated functioning of multiple departments. Traditionally, the district collector plays the central coordinating role at the local level, similar to France’s prefect system. However, coordination demands more than formal authority requires physical proximity, common operational boundaries, and regular communication.

The relationship between headquarters and field units is marked by a delicate balance: headquarters ensure policy standardisation, while field units need autonomy to address local diversity and real-time challenges. Striking this balance requires well-designed control systems, budget checks, performance appraisals, inspections, and reporting that guide rather than micromanage.

Improving this relationship involves the following strategies:

i. Rotation of staff between field and central roles to foster mutual understanding of the work.

ii. Mentoring-style inspections to build morale and effectiveness.

iii. Digital tools to enable real-time communication and policy feedback.\

iv. Training and trust to empower field officers as policymakers.

Successful field administration also relies on clear role definitions, adequate staffing, and special incentives for difficult postings. The tenure system and structured briefing-debriefing processes can improve institutional memory and governance continuity.

The diverse social and geographic realities of India necessitate adaptive field governance. Local discretion, which is sensitive to linguistic and cultural contexts, is critical. Digital governance tools, such as geographic information systems (GIS) and mobile platforms, enhance service delivery but cannot replace the value of human judgement.

Conclusion

In sum, the effectiveness of field organisations depends on ensuring autonomy, coordination, and accountability. As India evolves, so must its field units into agile, people-centric institutions that deliver on the promise of democratic governance.