Examine how the separation of powers is practised in India compared to the rigid presidential model of the United States of America. In this context, compare the actual authority of the Indian Prime Minister with that of the President of the USA. (Answer in 250 words)

India follows a parliamentary fusion of executive and legislature with constitutional checks, whereas the United States separates elected executive and legislature through a presidential system.

Articles 53, 74 and 75 place executive power formally in the President but politically in a Prime Minister-led Council collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. The executive participates in law-making, while an independent judiciary reviews constitutionality; conventions and federalism temper majoritarian power.

The US President is separately elected, appoints the executive, is not responsible to Congress for tenure and cannot ordinarily sit in it. Congress legislates and controls appropriations; the President vetoes, while courts exercise judicial review. Checks and balances produce negotiation and possible gridlock.

India’s Prime Minister is normally the real executive: controls Cabinet composition, policy agenda, parliamentary majority, appointments and coalition coordination, though constrained by party numbers, federal politics, courts and constitutional rights. The US President combines head-of-state and head-of-government roles, commands the executive and foreign policy and has veto and appointment powers, but faces congressional appropriations, confirmation and oversight.

India prioritises responsible and coordinated government; the US prioritises institutional autonomy and executive-legislative checks. Practice in both systems depends on party discipline, conventions and political majorities.

Articles 53, 74 and 75; collective responsibility; fusion of powers; checks and balances; veto; judicial review; congressional oversight