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 |
A few minutes ago, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement striking down Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This was in response to a PIL that challenged the constitutionality of this provision. In light of this, we present a background to Section 66 A and the recent developments leading up to its challenge before the Court. What does the Information Technology Act, 2000 provide for? The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 provides for legal recognition for transactions through electronic communication, also known as e-commerce. The Act also penalizes various forms of cyber crime. The Act was amended in 2009 to insert a new section, Section 66A which was said to address cases of cyber crime with the advent of technology and the internet. What does Section 66(A) of the IT Act say? Section 66(A) of the Act criminalises the sending of offensive messages through a computer or other communication devices. Under this provision, any person who by means of a computer or communication device sends any information that is:
Over the past few years, incidents related to comments, sharing of information, or thoughts expressed by an individual to a wider audience on the internet have attracted criminal penalties under Section 66(A). This has led to discussion and debate on the ambit of the Section and its applicability to such actions. What have been the major developments in context of this Section? In the recent past, a few arrests were made under Section 66(A) on the basis of social media posts directed at notable personalities, including politicians. These were alleged to be offensive in nature. In November 2012, there were various reports of alleged misuse of the law, and the penalties imposed were said to be disproportionate to the offence. Thereafter, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court, challenging this provision on grounds of unconstitutionality. It was said to impinge upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. How has the government responded so far? Subsequently, the central government issued guidelines for the purposes of Section 66(A). These guidelines clarified that prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner or Inspector General of Police was required before a police officer or police station could register a complaint under Section 66(A). In May 2013, the Supreme Court (in relation to the above PIL) also passed an order saying that such approval was necessary before any arrest is to be made. Since matters related to police and public order are dealt with by respective state governments, a Supreme Court order was required for these guidelines to be applicable across the country. However, no changes have been made to Section 66 A itself. Has there been any legislative movement with regard to Section 66(A)? A Private Member Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in 2013 to amend Section 66(A) of the IT Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill stated that most of the offences that Section 66(A) dealt with were already covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. This had resulted in dual penalties for the same offence. According to the Bill, there were also inconsistencies between the two laws in relation to the duration of imprisonment for the same offence. The offence of threatening someone with injury through email attracts imprisonment of two years under the IPC and three years under the IT Act. The Bill was eventually withdrawn. In the same year, a Private Members resolution was also moved in Parliament. The resolution proposed to make four changes: (i) bring Section 66(A) in line with the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution; (ii) restrict the application of the provision to communication between two persons; (iii) precisely define the offence covered; and (iv) reduce the penalty and make the offence a non-cognizable one (which means no arrest could be made without a court order). However, the resolution was also withdrawn. Meanwhile, how has the PIL proceeded? According to news reports, the Supreme Court in February, 2015 had stated that the constitutional validity of the provision would be tested, in relation to the PIL before it. The government argued that they were open to amend/change the provision as the intention was not to suppress freedom of speech and expression, but only deal with cyber crime. The issues being examined by the Court relate to the powers of the police to decide what is abusive, causes annoyance, etc,. instead of the examination of the offence by the judiciary . This is pertinent because this offence is a cognizable one, attracting a penalty of at least three years imprisonment. The law is also said to be ambiguous on the issue of what would constitute information that is “grossly offensive,” as no guidelines have been provided for the same. This lack of clarity could lead to increased litigation. The judgement is not available in the public domain yet. It remains to be seen on what the reasoning of the Supreme Court was, in its decision to strike down Section 66A, today.
