De Toqueville reviewing the British Constitution says that it is the best constitution because of its checks and balance. The question of check was raised because democracy was in the state of experiment hence a good deal of caution was necessary. But Democracy as it works now must be a Government of the people, by the people and for the people; the most important factor being that the people must feel that the administration is being run for furthering their interest as a whole not for the interest of a particular section. In the modern set up untrammelled power is given to the executive (the Cabinet of Ministers) for the period between one general election and another. During this period the Cabinet of Ministers can do anything and everything without any check. In the democratic countries the so-called check is to be found in the obsolete practice of Impeachment. Because the check is obsolete therefore it is like brandishing a tinsword in a theatrical show. In Britain or America, the executive head of the state, the cabinet or the President generally does not deviate from the path of honesty and strict adherence to principle because he has a tradition to keep up. The Ministers or President has the illustrious fore-runners whose path he follows. He takes the office as a sacred trust hallowed by the footprints of the great departed. India has no such tradition; the present or future incumbents are to create one. According to some political writers to establish real democracy, Referendum, Recall and Initiative should be introduced in the Constitution. But practically introduction of these checks is impossible in a country like India. In the working of the administration, if the people feel that the Government is being run not for the public interest, such a feeling strikes at the root of the allegiance of the citizens to the state which is the primary condition of any democratic administration. In the language of Mathew Arnold it may be stated ‘Might till right is ripe’. Hence in the new Constitution of India there must be some check, at least for sometime, to the untrammelled power of the ministers of the Cabinet in the provinces and in the States. The Ministers are indeed representatives of the people and elected by them but there is a good deal of difference between what man is and what he becomes before and after the election. As a Minister whether he is serving the Nation or himself, there is no one to check provided he can keep his party satisfied. He may take recourse to malpractices unhampered upto the time of next general election. In order to put a check to the Ministerial Vagaries, I beg to suggest that the following clauses be included in the Constitution:-
