Compare how the executive is held accountable to the legislature in the U.S. presidential system and India's parliamentary system.

The two systems answer to the legislature in different ways. In India, the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Article 75(3)) [2]. Because the executive is drawn from Parliament, it survives only while it keeps the House's confidence. The U.S. President, by contrast, has a fixed term under a strict separation of powers [1]. That is why President Trump stays in office even after the 2026 midterms gave Democrats both chambers. India's accountability is continuous and existential. America's works through checks, not through the threat of removal.

U.S.: accountability through checks and balances

• Power of the purse: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law" (Art. I, Sec. 9) [1]. Withholding funds is Congress's sharpest weapon.
• Senate advice and consent: treaties need a two-thirds Senate vote, and senior appointments need Senate confirmation [1].
• Impeachment: the House impeaches, and the Senate convicts by a two-thirds vote [1]. It is a remedy for "high crimes", not for losing political trust.
• War Powers Resolution, 1973: the President must consult Congress and report to it when committing troops [3].
• Limits: the President's veto can be overridden only by two-thirds of each House [1]. Powers Congress has delegated also allow unilateral action. One example is the extra 10% Section 301 duty on India in 2026 [7].

India: accountability through fusion of powers

• No-confidence motion: it can be moved with the support of 50 MPs. If it passes, the whole ministry must resign [4].
• Financial control: the Lok Sabha votes demands for grants (Arts. 113–114) [2]. Defeat on these is treated as a loss of confidence.
• Daily scrutiny: ministers answer in Question Hour and Zero Hour. Departmentally related standing committees and the PAC (using CAG audits) examine spending and policy [5].
• Limits: under the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule), MPs must follow the party whip [6]. A disciplined majority can therefore turn accountability into a formality.

Comparative assessment

Dimension        | U.S.                          | India
Survival         | Fixed 4-yr term               | Confidence of Lok Sabha
Main tool        | Purse, impeachment, consent   | No-confidence, questions, budget
Strongest when   | Divided government            | Coalition / thin majority
Weakest when     | Unified "trifecta"            | Brute single-party majority

Fig.: How strong accountability is depends on the balance of party control

In short, the American Congress can restrain a President but cannot remove him for political reasons. India's Parliament can remove a government, though it rarely restrains a strong majority day to day. Each system can learn from the other. India could make referral of bills to committees routine and strengthen opposition-led scrutiny. The U.S. could take back powers it has delegated over war and trade. Both reforms would serve the constitutional ideal of a responsible, answerable executive.