Since you provided the case title "Article 53 in Constitution of India" and the court as "Constitution Article" with a date of "26 January 1950," it appears you're asking for an explanation of Article 53 of the Indian Constitution itself, rather than a specific court case interpreting it. There isn't a court case named "Article 53 in Constitution of India." Therefore, I will provide a summary of Article 53.

Short Summary

Article 53 of the Indian Constitution vests the executive power of the Union in the President and specifies how that power is to be exercised. It clarifies that the President can exercise this power either directly or through officers subordinate to him, in accordance with the Constitution. It also states that this article does not transfer to the President any functions conferred by existing law on other authorities.

Facts

Article 53 is a foundational provision within Part V of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the Union. It is part of the chapter on the Executive, defining the scope and manner of exercising executive power at the Union level. There are no specific "facts" in the sense of a case, as this is a constitutional provision itself.

Issues

The core issue addressed by Article 53 is: How is the executive power of the Union to be vested and exercised? It also addresses the issue of potential conflicts with existing laws conferring functions on other authorities.

Petitioner's Arguments

Since this is a constitutional article and not a court case, there are no petitioner's arguments. However, during the Constituent Assembly debates, proponents of this article likely argued for the need to clearly define the executive power and ensure its exercise is consistent with the Constitution.

Respondent's Arguments

Similarly, there are no respondent's arguments in the context of a court case. However, potential concerns during the drafting process might have revolved around ensuring checks and balances on the President's power and preventing an overreach of executive authority.

Court's Reasoning

As this is not a court case, there is no court reasoning. The Constituent Assembly's reasoning behind including Article 53 was to establish a clear framework for the exercise of executive power, ensuring accountability and adherence to the Constitution. The inclusion of the clause regarding existing laws was likely intended to avoid disrupting established administrative structures.

Conclusion

Article 53 of the Indian Constitution vests the executive power of the Union in the President, outlining the manner in which that power can be exercised, either directly or through subordinate officers, in accordance with the Constitution. It also clarifies that existing laws conferring functions on other authorities are not affected by this article. No specific relief is granted, as this is a definitional article.