New Delhi: Pranab Mukherjee, the man who will be India's 13th president, has tough choices to make when he takes office on July 25.
There are more than 10 petitions sent by prisoners on death row to the president's office, asking for clemency. Among them, Afzal Guru, convicted for a terror attack on Parliament in 2001, a brazen assault in which 12 people were killed when Parliament was in session. The new president will have to decide what becomes of these mercy petitions, some of which have major political ramifications. For example, Balwant Singh Rajoana, who is in jail in Punjab for the assassination of former chief minister Beant Singh, is treated as a martyr and paid lavish tribute by the Sikh clergy.
The President is also likely to have a huge imprint on the political future of the country in 2014, when the general elections are expected to yield a hung parliament. The president could then have a casting vote to decide who should come to power. He also has the right to dissolve a deeply-fractured parliament, if that's what the results deliver.
The President can delay legislation by withholding the required presidential assent.
The Indian constitution recognises the president as head of state but stipulates that real executive power sits with the prime minister and his or her ministers. Where the president does have a say, however, is on the appointment of the prime minister.
Sonia Gandhi's Congress Party, which leads today's coalition government, has seen its popularity crumble after a run of corruption scandals and scant progress in taming inflation, while the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is riven by squabbling leaders and hardly more ready for an election.
Unless there is a radical change in the fortunes of one of these two national parties, the next general election should yield a 'hung parliament' and both will scramble to prove to the president that - with coalition partners - they command a majority of seats in parliament and therefore the right to rule.
The Constitution is silent on who the president should appoint in such cases: the party with the most parliamentary seats or the alliance with the most credible claim that it has a workable coalition?
In effect, it may be down to the judgement - and perhaps political preference - of the president to name the prime minister.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMBIGUITYFramed in 1949 after the Westminster model, India's Constitution made the president a ceremonial head like the queen in Britain. However, the authors omitted to mention whether that model should be strictly followed, leaving it ambiguous.
"This is a role that has been governed by convention rather than norm," said KK Venugopal, a constitutional expert.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the president is not a mere figurehead but a moral authority who may stay in touch with the prime minister on matters of national importance and policy.
So, without ever becoming a parallel political centre of power, the president can choose to influence the government - though few have chosen to flex their muscles and indeed most have been happy to play a passive, ceremonial role.
Zail Singh, a president during the 1980s, contemplated dismissing the government led by Sonia Gandhi's husband, Rajiv Gandhi, after it became embroiled in a massive defence procurement scandal - but he didn't.
"The problem is, some presidents have allowed brow-beating by governments," said BG Verghese of the Centre for Policy Research think tank.
There have been some precedent-setting presidents, however.
In 1999, following an inconclusive general election, Sonia Gandhi stood amid camera flashlights in the sweltering forecourt of the president's palace and announced that Congress and its allied parties together had 272 seats in the 545-strong lower house of parliament, enough to form a government.
Then-president KR Narayanan was not convinced by her claim and allowed the BJP to form the government, which subsequently fell after a key ally pulled out of its coalition.
His predecessor, former Congressman Shankar Dayal Sharma, also exercised his discretionary powers, choosing the BJP over its rival after inconclusive elections in 1996.
(With inputs from Reuters)