I've a great respect with Abdul Kalam , who is according to me is a man of energy and motivation. This 75 year young man, who is already known for breaking the conventions and changing the face of the chair he holds, today undertook a historic sortie in the India's latest supersonic missile in a Naval base near Pune.

Courtesy: Rediff

Unlike his predicissors, he came out of the virtual line and made some attempts to motivate the young pillars of India and at the same time he shows his great respect and honour for the people who dedicated his/her life for the nation. There's no word against it. But don't we expect much more from the India's one of the prestigious man??. Does it looks even these experts become inactive after assuming the office with the help of our political leaders or Are they dont have enough powers to do much??. Why a calibre of Late. KR Narayanan had to keep mum when Gujarat burns due to the intolerance of some religious leaders and some political game. Why a calibre of Abdul Kalam had signed to dismiss the Bihar govt due to the pressure of the cabinet even in the mid of foreign (Russian) visit??. Even his recent attempt to sent back the Office of profit bill looks like a formality phase. If the cabinet decides (Its already decided, i guess) to resend the bill, according to the constitution he have no other option than accepting the bill. So is our presidental post is a like puppet , as people used to refer.

I'm really looking for the answer and one recent article from the former Law minister, Shanti Bushan of Morarji Desai's regime , in The Hindu gave some insights on the actual power of the president and it has a interesting history about how his cabinet reduced the presidental power to almost nil.

This is what article 74 (1) of the Constitution of India explains the presidental powers.

(1) There shall be a council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice: "Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.

and here is the story 

The proviso did not exist till June 20, 1979, when it was introduced by the Janata Party Government through the Constitution (44th) Amendment Act, 1978. I happened to be the Law Minister. 

As the President is only a titular head with no real powers, he is constitutionally obliged to act as per the advice of the Ministers in exercise of all his functions. When the Bill, after being passed by the two Houses of Parliament, was submitted by the Council of Ministers to the President under Article 111 with its advice that it should be assented to, the President was obliged to give his assent. If he chose to exercise his power under the Proviso to Article 74(1), he could send it back to the Ministry for reconsideration.

Thereafter, if the Ministry after reconsideration again sent back the Bill to the President for his assent, the President would have no option but to give his assent.

As this question arose in 1977 when the then acting President, B.D. Jatti, initially refused to sign the Proclamation of President's Rule in nine States, it would perhaps interest readers if I extract this passage from my memoirs, which are yet to be published:

"Charan Singh, as Home Minister, wrote a letter to the Chief Ministers of the nine States, the contents of which were drafted by me. The letter pointed out that the recent polls had indicated that people had lost confidence in the State Governments and therefore, it was necessary to go in for fresh polls. It was suggested that they themselves recommend the dissolution of the Assemblies and continue in power until the next elections. However, the Chief Ministers refused to get their Assemblies dissolved. In my opinion, the governments could not be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. The Janata Party government therefore, recommended the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356.

"The recommendation was sent to the President for his signatures. At that time Mr. B.D. Jatti, the Vice-President, was Acting President after the death of Shri Fakruddin Ali Ahmed. He had always been a very strong supporter of the Congress (I), and when the notification was taken to him, he refused to sign it. At this unexpected development, the Prime Minister called an emergency meeting of the Cabinet at his residence. Charan Singh and I had a conversation on the way to the meeting, and Charan Singh confessed to being unable to see a way out of the impasse.

"I said that the act of the acting President in refusing to sign the notification on the recommendation of the Cabinet was totally unconstitutional, and that if the acting President persisted in this conduct, we should immediately dissolve the Lok Sabha on this issue alone and go to the people on the conduct of the acting President. Charan Singh cheered up considerably on hearing this, and this combative stance was approved by the Cabinet in the meeting. We were quite confident that the people would resoundingly condemn the President and re-elect a Janata Party government with a bigger mandate than before.

"It was decided that I should personally go to Mr. Jatti and explain the constitutional position to him. So while the Cabinet remained in session at the residence of the Prime Minister, I went to see Mr. Jatti. I told him that this position had always been accepted by the constitutional experts that a President was bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers, although there was no such express provision in the original Constitution. A controversy had arisen in 1954 when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President Rajendra Prasad had fallen out with each other on the Hindu Code Bill and the issue was referred to the Attorney General, Setalwad. The President's position had been that the Council of Ministers' duty was merely to aid and advise the President, and the President was not bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers. However, Setalwad expressed the view that the Indian Constitution was based on the British parliamentary system, in which the advice of the Council of Ministers was supreme and binding on the President even though not so expressly stated in the Constitution. This view was also upheld by the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh's case by a seven Judge bench. Mrs Gandhi even got the Constitution amended, by making it an express provision in the Constitution that the President was bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers. I made it clear to Mr. Jatti that he would be acting unconstitutionally in disregarding the views of the Council of Ministers.

"Mr. Jatti responded by saying that that was all very well, but how could he be a party to a decision that would, in all likelihood, mean the death of Congress (I) as a party? He told me that he owed every office that he had ever held throughout his political career to the Congress (I), and he could not be a party to the destruction of the Congress (I). I told him that these were his personal views, but as long as he held the office of the President, he could not disregard the advice of the Council of Ministers. However, Mr. Jatti still declined to sign, and I reported this to the Cabinet.

"It was then decided that the Prime Minister would send a formal letter to the President, pointing out the constitutional position. Morarji Desai signed a letter, which stated all that had transpired, including the details of my meeting with Mr. Jatti. The letter was taken to the Acting President by the Cabinet Secretary. In the meantime, it was decided that the Prime Minister would take the people into confidence and make a broadcast to the nation in the evening, paving the way for the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. I was asked to draft the address of the Prime Minister to the nation. I came back to my office and started working on the draft of the address to the nation.

"An hour later, I received a call from the Prime Minister that Mr. Jatti had signed the notification. I came to know later that when Mr. Jatti went through the letter which the Cabinet Secretary handed over to him, his hands began to shake and he became extremely nervous. It was only then, that he appended his signatures to the proclamation, and thus ended this episode.

"Subsequently, the nine State Assemblies were dissolved, fresh elections were ordered, and by the end of May 1977, the Janata Party won another resounding victory in all the nine States."

In 1978, the Janata Party Government got Parliament to enact the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act to give a very limited power to the President by adding the proviso to Article 74. However, the President of India rightly remains only a figurehead like the British Queen.

So it seems tht our figureheads have tried their level best with the limited powers provided. It would be really good if you point me some links which has a different view on this .. i'll also try to post , if i came across any interesting story …