You do realise that Presidential Pardon is subject to judicial review right? Very well, and the appointment of State Governers, Judges of Supreme Court and High Court, members of U and JPSC, Attorney and Auditor General, Election Comissioner shall be done by the PM I suppose? Diplomatic functions of the Pres can also be dumped on the already overburdened PM I suppose? Already there is way too much politican interference in defence, but officially making the Defence Minister the Supreme Commander of the Armed forces seems like a good step that ll further boost the force's morale and image. Also, while we are at it, maybe the nomination of 12 members the President makes to the Rajya Sabha can be directly handled by the ruling party with nil Presidential discretion. But how about the issuance of ordinances if the House is not in session..maybe that power can be given to the PM too. But screw all that, those powers are formal already, lets further weaken the already weakened and politicised post of President and remove the post altogether, great. How about emergency powers? You don't think in times of external aggression or unforseeable national or constitutional crisis, a unitary state will be better able to respond to the challenge? No, I thought not. Excellent, so you are basing your judgement on something that hasn't happened yet. But either way, at least blaming not UPA but the "flaw in the system" for preventing Afzal's execution. Lets move on - Its you who said - Thats the thing, the problem, we should never assume the functionaries to be flawed, untill that is done we will not be free of these situations. Is that a self-contradictory statement, make your point clear, are the politicians flawed or not? Rhetoric. Don't put words in my mouth. I said cannot be exclusively blamed. Anyway, we are in agreement here now, thought I still don't understand what point you were trying to make? Call a spade a spade put the blame where it lies. In this case and the precedent it sets as the Supreme Court is a Court of Records - squarely at Congress's policy of pseudo-secularism and miniority appeasement. Oh man, amendments are already subject to judicial review. It would do good to read up on the basics of Indian political system. As for sending issues directly to the judiciary, the judiciary is India is the most corrupt of all organs, ask anyone who's been involved in a court case how the system works. You have to take permission from the court to even investigate a case against a sitting judge. They have too much power already. Nevertheless, assuming the judiciary is the best organ - What you are effectively proposing is a Kritocracy. All issues decided by the judiciary, thats one of the worst forms of government I can think of. Increase the size of the judiciary, give them legislative powers, jeez, whatever happened to DEMOCRACY? I am a citizen of India, the constitution gives ME the power to choose my representatives empowered to make laws on my behalf. I can criticize them , I can remove the from power at the next elections. Criticising the court is Contempt of Court and I cannot remove the judges if I find them unsatisfactory. Taking away from the PEOPLE the power given to them by the constitution to govern themselves and giving it to the Judiciary, I don't know what country you are talking of here but it sure as hell isn't India. Irrelevant as to the credit given for work done. Now if you don't have a counter-point, smilys are great :sharabi: The revolution of Congress around the family, the emergency, promotion of family loyalists' in ranks, influence of Sanjay Gandhi during Indira's tenure etc. are pretty clear in pointing out the obvious. What literature have you read that suggests otherwise?