Mr. Ramnath Kovind completes his tenure as President in July. With the Election Commission of India expected to notify the election dates this week, we look at how India will elect its next President.
As the Head of the State, the President is a key part of Parliament. The President calls the two Houses of Parliament into session on the advice of the Council of Ministers. A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha does not become a law unless assented to by the President. Further, when Parliament is not in session, the President holds the power to sign a law with immediate effect through an Ordinance.
Who elects the President?
The manner of election of the President is provided in Article 55 of the Constitution. Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MPs and MLAs) including elected representatives from the Union Territories (UTs) of Delhi and Puducherry form the electoral college, which elects the President. At least 50 elected representatives must propose a candidate, who must then be seconded by 50 other electors to run for the President's office. Members of Legislative Councils and the 12 nominated members of Rajya Sabha do not participate in the voting process.
|
The history behind having proposers and seconders To discourage the practice, candidates had to secure at least 10 proposers and seconders each to contest the elections from the 1974 election onwards. A compulsory security deposit of Rs 2,500 was also introduced. The changes were brought in through an amendment to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Act, 1952. In 1997, the Act was further amended to increase the security deposit to Rs 15,000 and the minimum number of proposers and seconders to 50 each. |
How are the votes calculated?
The Presidential election uses a special voting to tally the votes. A different voting weightage is assigned to an MP and an MLA. The value of each MLA's vote is determined based on the population of their state and the number of MLAs. For instance, an MLA from UP has a value of 208 while an MLA from Sikkim has 7 (see Table 1). Due to a Constitutional Amendment passed in 2002, the population of the state as per the 1971 census is taken for the calculation.
The value of an MP's vote is the sum of all votes of MLAs across the country divided by the number of elected MPs.
How will the numbers look in 2022?
In the 2017 Presidential elections, electors from 31 states and the UTs of Delhi and Puducherry participated. However, in 2019, with the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Reorganization Act, the number of states were reduced to 30. The J&K Assembly was dissolved as per the Act and a new legislature for the UT of J&K is yet to be reconstituted. UTs with legislatures were not originally part of the electoral college for the election of the President. The Constitution was amended in 1992 to specifically include the UTs of Delhi and Puducherry. Note that for MLAs from J&K to participate in future Presidential elections, a similar Constitutional amendment would be required to be passed by Parliament.
Based on the assumption that J&K is not included in the 2022 Presidential election, the total number of votes of MLAs in 2022 elections will have to be adjusted. The 87 Jammu and Kashmir MLAs must be removed from the total number of MLAs of 4,120. Jammu and Kashmir’s contributing vote share of 6,264 must also be reduced from the total vote share of 549,495. Adjusting for these changes, 4,033 MLAs will participate in the 2022 elections and the combined vote share of all MLAs will add up to 543,231.
Table 1: The value of votes of elected MLAs of different states at the 2017 Presidential Election
|
Name of State |
Number of Assembly seats |
Population (1971 Census) |
Value of vote of each MLA |
Total value of votes for the state (B x D) |
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
|
Andhra Pradesh |
175 |
2,78,00,586 |
159 |
27,825 |
|
Arunachal Pradesh |
60 |
4,67,511 |
8 |
480 |
|
Assam |
126 |
1,46,25,152 |
116 |
14,616 |
|
Bihar |
243 |
4,21,26,236 |
173 |
42,039 |
|
Chhattisgarh |
90 |
1,16,37,494 |
129 |
11,610 |
|
Goa |
40 |
7,95,120 |
20 |
800 |
|
Gujarat |
182 |
2,66,97,475 |
147 |
26,754 |
|
Haryana |
90 |
1,00,36,808 |
112 |
10,080 |
|
Himachal Pradesh |
68 |
34,60,434 |
51 |
3,468 |
|
Jammu and Kashmir |
87 |
63,00,000 |
72 |
6,264 |
|
Jharkhand |
81 |
1,42,27,133 |
176 |
14,256 |
|
Karnataka |
224 |
2,92,99,014 |
131 |
29,344 |
|
Kerala |
140 |
2,13,47,375 |
152 |
21,280 |
|
Madhya Pradesh |
230 |
3,00,16,625 |
131 |
30,130 |
|
Maharashtra |
288 |
5,04,12,235 |
175 |
50,400 |
|
Manipur |
60 |
10,72,753 |
18 |
1,080 |
|
Meghalaya |
60 |
10,11,699 |
17 |
1,020 |
|
Mizoram |
40 |
3,32,390 |
8 |
320 |
|
Nagaland |
60 |
5,16,449 |
9 |
540 |
|
Odisha |
147 |
2,19,44,615 |
149 |
21,903 |
|
Punjab |
117 |
1,35,51,060 |
116 |
13,572 |
|
Rajasthan |
200 |
2,57,65,806 |
129 |
25,800 |
|
Sikkim |
32 |
2,09,843 |
7 |
224 |
|
Tamil Nadu |
234 |
4,11,99,168 |
176 |
41,184 |
|
Telangana |
119 |
1,57,02,122 |
132 |
15,708 |
|
Tripura |
60 |
15,56,342 |
26 |
1,560 |
|
Uttarakhand |
70 |
44,91,239 |
64 |
4,480 |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
403 |
8,38,49,905 |
208 |
83,824 |
|
West Bengal |
294 |
4,43,12,011 |
151 |
44,394 |
|
NCT of Delhi |
70 |
40,65,698 |
58 |
4,060 |
|
Puducherry |
30 |
4,71,707 |
16 |
480 |
|
Total |
4,120 |
54,93,02,005 |
|
5,49,495 |
Source: Election Commission of India (2017); PRS.
The value of an MP’s vote correspondingly will change from 708 in 2017 to 700 in 2022.
Value of one MP's vote = Total value of all votes of MLAs = 543231 = 700
Total number of elected MPs 776
Note that the value of an MP’s vote is rounded off to the closest whole number. This brings the combined value of the votes of all MPs to 543,200 (700 x 776).
What is the number of votes required to win?
The voting for the Presidential elections is done through the system of single transferable vote. In this system, electors rank the candidates in the order of their preference. The winning candidate must secure more than half of the total value of valid votes to win the election. This is known as the quota.
Assuming that each elector casts his vote and that each vote is valid:
Quota = Total value of MP’s votes + Total value of MLA’s votes + 1
2
= 543200 + 543231 +1 = 1086431 +1 = 543,216
2 2
The anti-defection law which disallows MPs from crossing the party line does not apply to the Presidential election. This means that the MPs and MLAs can keep their ballot secret.
The counting of votes takes place in rounds. In Round 1, only the first preference marked on each ballot is counted. If any of the candidates secures the quota at this stage, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate secures the quota in the first round, then another round of counting takes place. In this round, the votes cast to the candidate who secures the least number of votes in Round 1 are transferred. This means that these votes are now added to the second preference candidate marked on each ballot. This process is repeated till only one candidate remains. Note that it is not compulsory for an elector to mark his preference for all candidates. If no second preference is marked, then the ballots are treated as exhausted ballots in Round 2 and are not counted further.
The fifth Presidential election which elected Mr. VV Giri is the only instance when a candidate did not secure the quota in the first round. The second preference votes were then evaluated and Mr. Giri secured 4,20,077 of the 8,36,337 votes and was declared the President.
|
The only President of India to win unopposed |
Earlier today, the Supreme Court struck down the two Acts that created an independent body for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. One of the Acts amended the Constitution to replace the method of appointment of judges by a collegium system with that of an independent commission, called the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The composition of the NJAC would include: (i) the Chief Justice of India (Chairperson) (ii) two other senior most judges of the Supreme Court, (iii) the Union Law Minister, and (iv) two eminent persons to be nominated by the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition of the Lok Sabha. The other Act laid down the processes in relation to such appointments. Both Acts were passed by Parliament in August 2014, and received Presidential assent in December 2014. Following this, a batch of petitions that had been filed in Supreme Court challenging the two Bills on grounds of unconstitutionality, was referred to a five judge bench. It was contended that the presence of executive members in the NJAC violated the independence of the judiciary. In its judgement today, the Court held that the executive involvement in appointment of judges impinges upon the independence of the judiciary. This violates the principle of separation of powers between the executive and judiciary, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. In this context, we examine the proposals around the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. Appointment of judges before the introduction of the NJAC The method of appointment of the Chief Justice of India, SC and HC judges was laid down in the Constitution.[i] The Constitution stated that the President shall make these appointments after consulting with the Chief Justice of India and other SC and HC judges as he considers necessary. Between the years 1982-1999, the issue of method of appointment of judges was examined and reinterpreted by the Supreme Court. Since then, a collegium, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and 4 other senior most SC judges, made recommendations for persons to be appointed as SC and HC judges, to the President.[ii] Recommendations of various bodies for setting up an independent appointments commission Over the decades, several high level Commissions have examined this method of appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. They have suggested that an independent body be set up to make recommendations for such appointments. However, they differed in the representation of the judiciary, legislature and executive in making such appointments. These are summarised below. Table 1: Comparison of various recommendations on the composition of a proposed appointments body
| Recommendatory Body | Suggested composition |
| 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) | Judiciary : CJI; [For HC judges: Chief Justice of the relevant High Court of that state] Executive : Vice-President (Chairperson), PM, Law Minister, [For HC judges: Includes CM of the state] Legislature: Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leaders of Opposition from both Houses of Parliament. Other: No representative. |
| National Advisory Council (2005) | Judiciary: CJI; [For HC judges: Chief Justice of the relevant High Court of that state] Executive: Vice-President (Chairman), PM (or nominee), Law Minister, [For HC judges: Includes CM of the state] Legislature: Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition from both Houses of Parliament. Other: No representative. |
| NCRWC (2002) | Judiciary :CJI (Chairman), two senior most SC judges Executive: Union Law Minister Legislature: No representative Other: one eminent person |
| Law Commission (1987) | Judiciary : CJI (Chairman), three senior most SC judges, immediate predecessor of the CJI, three senior most CJs of HCs, [For HC judges: Chief Justice of the relevant High Court of that state] Executive: Law Minister, Attorney General of India, [For HC judges: Includes CM of the state] Legislature: No representative Other: One Law academic |
Sources: 121st Report of the Law Commission, 1987; Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), 2002; A Consultation Paper on Superior Judiciary, NCRWC, 2001; A National Judicial Commission-Report for discussion in the National Advisory Council, 2005; Fourth Report of the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), ‘Ethics in Governance’, 2007; PRS. It may be noted that the Law Commission, in its 2008 and 2009 reports, suggested that Government should seek a reconsideration of the judgments in the Three Judges cases. In the alternative, Parliament should pass a law restoring the primacy of the CJI, while ensuring that the executive played a role in making judicial appointments. Appointments process in different countries Internationally, there are varied methods for making appointments of judges to the higher judiciary. The method of appointment of judges to the highest court, in some jurisdictions, is outlined in Table 2. Table 2: Appointment of judges to the highest court in different jurisdictions
| Country | Method of Appointment to the highest court | Who is involved in making the appointments |
| UK | SC judges are appointed by a five-person selection commission. | It consists of the SC President, his deputy, and one member each appointed by the JACs of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.[iii] (The JACs comprise lay persons, members of the judiciary and the Bar and make appointments of judges of lower courts.) |
| Canada | Appointments are made by the Governor in Council.[iv] | A selection panel comprising five MPs (from the government and the opposition) reviews list of nominees and submits 3 names to the Prime Minister.[v] |
| USA | Appointments are made by the President. | Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate.[vi] |
| Germany | Appointments are made by election. | Half the members of the Federal Constitutional Court are elected by the executive and half by the legislature.[vii] |
| France | Appointments are made by the President. | President receives proposals for appointments from Conseil Superieur de la Magistrature.[viii] |
Sources: Constitutional Reform Act, 2005; Canada Supreme Court Act, 1985; Constitution of the United States of America; Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany; Constitution of France; PRS. In delivering its judgment that strikes down the setting up of an NJAC, the Court has stated that it would schedule hearings from November 3, 2015 regarding ways in which the collegium system can be strengthened.
[i] Article 124, Constitution of India (Prior to 2015 Amendments)
[ii] S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, AIR 1982, SC 149; S.C. Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268; In re: Special Reference, AIR 1999 SC 1.
[iii]. Schedule 8, Constitutional Reform Act, 2005.
[iv]. Section 4(2), Supreme Court Act (RSC, 1985).
[v]. Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the retirement of Justice Morris Fish, http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2013/04/23/statement-prime-minister-canada-retirement-justice-morris-fish.
[vi]. Article II, Section 2, The Constitution of the United States of America.
[vii]. Article 94 (1), Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.
[viii] Article 65, Constitution of France, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/constiution_anglais_oct2009.pdf.
