HELP TO UNDERSTAND

1. Synopsis
1. Area of research
The area of research is Constitutional Law
2. Topic of research
Functioning of Parliamentary Form of Government in India: A Critical Study.
3. Review of literature
List of review of literatures are as following:-
1. CAD Vol. I to XII.
2. Government of India Act, 1911.
3. Government of India Act, 1919.
4. Government of India Act, 1935.
5. Government of India Act, 1948.
6. Government of union territories Act, 1963.
7. Indian councils Act, 1892.
8. Indian councils Act, 1909.
9. Indian independence Act, 1947.
10. The constitution of Britain.
11. The constitution of India.
12. The constitution of united state of America.

2. 4. Hypothesis
1. Constitution of India is holy but lengthy and complicated so that problem to understand
and interpret it.
2. Connectivity of provisions which confirming functioning of parliamentary form of
Government in India is good but interlinked in one part of constitution of India to another
part, so that work of its interpretation is difficult in the sense of framing father of it.
3. Nature of recent functioning of Indian’s Parliament being affected due to biasness of
politics and instability.
4. Parliamentary committees do not perform its duties in the pure sense of constitution will.
5. Criminalization, corruption and corporatization in politics which are also effects
parliamentary system of India.
6. Supreme Court of India is also fails to interpret Constitutional provisions in many cases in
pure sense according to constitution will that is also effects parliamentary system of India.
7. Members of parliament and state legislature are not take interest in working of
parliament.
8. Role of speaker in parliament and state legislature being affected due to biasness of
politics.
9. Role of people of India is also not responsible regarding to improve functioning of
parliamentary form of government.
10. And, finally constitution of India is not fail but we failed to under and execute it in the
pure sense if it’s soul.

3. 5. Objective of the study
1. to give understandable simple overlook of our parliamentary system within our constitution by which
a common people can understand our system of government;
2. find out problems which facing by day to day function of parliamentary system of India in practice till
date;
3. find out pure sense of parliamentary system of India under constitution of India which cannot find out
till date;
4. to overview the leading cases and rulings which effects parliamentary system and those cases also
which save it nature;
5. to find out solution which removing ambiguity and problems which fall down importance of our
system of government till date;
6. Not it last, but to find out general view and their experiences of Member of Parliament regarding
function of our parliamentary system.

4. 6. Significance of the study
To remove and understand the major problem areas which affect the health of India’s Parliamentary
democracy are: - (a) Instability syndrome;
(b) Criminalization, corruption and corporatization of politics that effects parliamentary system of India;
and
(c) The nature of recent functioning of India’s Parliament.
7. Research methodology to be opted
The research methodology applied is ‘Hypothetico – deductive’ nature – doctrinal one. The study is
based on primary and secondary sources. The research is based on the soul of constitution of India, case
laws, jurist opinion, various extant legislation, report of various committee and commission, interview of
various members of parliament and state legislature and other experts of constitution of India etc. The
analytical approach will be applied to arrive at the conclusion.

5. 8. Research design
A. Title of the Investigation: - Functioning of Parliamentary Form of Government in India: A Critical
Study.
B. Sources of data:- Both documentary and primary sources
Documents:
1. Constitution of India, specially (Arts. 1-4, 12 -14, 32, 36-51, 52-78, 79-122, 132,143, 153-167, 226,
105, 194, 239-244a, 243-243a, 243-293, 294-300, 352-360, 368 and schedules).
2. CAD Vol. I-XII
3. Constitution of U.S.A.
4. Constitution of Britain
5. Research report of similar subject
6. Commission report on similar subject
7. Case laws: - Supreme Court leading cases related research till date.
C. Scope: - the research purpose for Partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of
Ph.D in own self expenditure without any grants till date.
D. Objective of the study: - The main objective of the study is to give understandable simple overlook of
our parliamentary system within our constitution by which a common people can understand our system
of government.
E. Formulation of hypotheses: - main hypotheses is that the Constitution of India holy but is lengthy and
complicated so that problem to understand and interpret it.
F. Mode of Collection of data and sampling: - By interview and questionnaire method.
G. Analysis and interpretation: - The analysis methodology applied is ‘Hypothetico – deductive’ nature –
doctrinal one.
H. Verification of result: - The results of study have to be compared with of the other similar studies.
I. Conceptualization: - The result of study should be stated in a concept form.

6. 9. Sources (primary and secondary)
Primary sources:-
1.Constitution of India.
2. CAD Vol. I-XII.
3. Constitution of U.S.A.
4. Constitution of Britain.
5. Case laws: - Supreme Court leading cases related research till date.
Secondary sources:-
1. Research reports of similar subject.
2. Commission reports on similar subject.
3. Commentary of Subhask Kashyp on parliamentary form of government in India.
4. Commentary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on constitution of India.

7. 10. List of cases on the topic till date
1.A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivakant Sukla, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1207.
2. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Sehravardy, A.I.R. S.C. 487.
3. Anil Kumar Jha v. Union of Indian, (2005) 3 S.C.C. 150.
4. Automobile Transport v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1406.
5. B.R. Kapur v. state of Tamil Nadu (2001) 7 S.C.C. 237.
6. Bhikhaji Narayan V. State of M.P. (1955) S.C.R. 589.
7. Bool Chand v. Chancellor, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 292.
8. Common Cause v. Union of Indian, (1996) 6 S.C.C. 530.
9. D.C. Wadhva v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 S.C.C. 378.
10. Deepchand v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 649.
11. Emperor v. Sibnath Benerji, A.I.R. 1942 P.C. 102.
12. Epura Sudhakar v. Gov. of A.P. 2006 (10) SCALE 98.
13. Hargovind Pant v. Raghukul Tilak, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1109.
14. I.C. Golakanath v. State of Panjab, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1963.
15. I.R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs v. State of Tamil Nadu (nine judge bench and unanimous verdict) J.T. 2007(2) 4 S.C.
292.
16. In re Delhi Laws Act (1951) S.C.R. 747.
17. In re Presidential Election, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1982.
18. In re Special Court Bill, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 478.
19. Indira v. Raj Narain, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 22999.
20. Indra Sawhney II v. Union of India, A.I.R. (2000) 1 S.C.C. 168.
21. Jagdambika Pal v. Union of Indian, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 998.
22. Jaya Bachchan v. Union of Indian, (2006) 5 S.C.C. 266.
23. Kahar Singh v. Union of Indian, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 653.
24. Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1641.
25. Kihota Hollohan v. Zachilhu (1992) 1 S.C.C. 309.

8. 26. Kuldeep Bisnoi v. Speaker of Haryana State Legislature 2011.
27 Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, A.I.R. (2006) 7 S.C.C. J at p. 54.
28. Lt. Governor Delhi v. V.K. Sodhi (2007) 10 SCDLE 41.
29. M. Nagraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 S.C.C. 121 at 270.
30. M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 395.
31. Mahander v. State of U.P. (1963) Supp. I. S.C.R. 912.
32. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 718.
33. Marbury v. Madoson (1803) 1 Cranch 137; 2 L.ed 60.
34. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1737.
35. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2120.
36. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2005) 5 S.C.C. 111.
37. President’s Reference No. 1. Of 1961, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 745.
38. R.C. Cooper v. Union of Indian, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 564.
39. R.K. Garg v. Union of Indian, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2139.
40. Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, J.T. 2007 (2) S.C. 1; (2007) 3 S.C.C. 184.
41. Ramjaway Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1956) 2 S.C.R. 225.
42. Ravanna v. G.S. Kaggerappa, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 653.
43. Ravi v. Speaker, Leg. Ass. Chennai (2005) 1 S.C.C. 603.
44. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1918.
45. S.R. Chaudhary v. State of Punjab (2001) 7 S.C.C. 126.
46. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 458.
47. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 252.
48. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1361.
49. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sankar, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 75.
50. State of West Bengal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1241.
51. Sumsher Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. S.C. 2192.
52. U.N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1002.
53. Waman Rao v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 271.

9. 11. Tentative division of study in chapters
The frame work of the present study has been divided into various chapters in the following order:
The first chapter deals with Introduction of the aspect of research topic.
Second chapter deals with Historical background for foundation of parliamentary form of government in
India.
Third chapter deals with Understandable simple overlook of parliamentary form of government in India.
Fourth chapter deals with Working of parliamentary form of government in India.
Fifth chapter deals with Parliamentary working and its rules.
Sixth chapter deals with Problem facing in day to day functioning of parliamentary form of government in
India in practice.
Seventh chapter deals with Leading cases and ruling which effects parliamentary system of India.
Eighth chapter deals with General views and their experiences of Members of Parliament and state
legislature regarding function of our parliamentary form of government.
Last chapter of this work has been devoted to conclusion and suggestions.
An attempt has also been made to summarize the net effect of discussion in this concluding chapter.