In light of the decision of the union cabinet to promulgate an Ordinance to uphold provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, this blog examines the Ordinance making power of the Executive in India.  The Ordinance allows legislators (Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies) to retain membership of the legislature even after conviction, if (a)     an appeal against the conviction is filed before a court within 90 days and (b)     the appeal is stayed by the court. However, the Ordinance will only be promulgated after it receives the assent of the President. I. Separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary In India, the central and state legislatures are responsible for law making, the central and state governments are responsible for the implementation of laws and the judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts and lower courts) interprets these laws. However, there are several overlaps in the functions and powers of the three institutions.  For example, the President has certain legislative and judicial functions and the legislature can delegate some of its functions to the executive in the form of subordinate legislation. II. Ordinance making powers of the President Article 123 of the Constitution grants the President certain law making powers to promulgate Ordinances when either of the two Houses of Parliament is not in session and hence it is not possible to enact laws in the Parliament.[i] An Ordinance may relate to any subject that the Parliament has the power to legislate on. Conversely, it has the same limitations as the Parliament to legislate, given the distribution of powers between the Union, State and Concurrent Lists. Thus, the following limitations exist with regard to the Ordinance making power of the executive: i.   Legislature is not in session: The President can only promulgate an Ordinance when either of the two Houses of Parliament is not in session. ii.   Immediate action is required: The President cannot promulgate an Ordinance unless he is satisfied that there are circumstances that require taking ‘immediate action’[ii]. iii.   Parliamentary approval during session: Ordinances must be approved by Parliament within six weeks of reassembling or they shall cease to operate.  They will also cease to operate in case resolutions disapproving the Ordinance are passed by both the Houses.   Figure 1 shows the number of Ordinances that have been promulgated in India since 1990.  The largest number of Ordinances was promulgated in 1993, and there has been a decline in the number of Ordinance promulgated since then.  However, the past year has seen a rise in the number of Ordinances promulgated.            Figure 1: Number of national Ordinances promulgated in India since 1990 Ordinances PromulgatedSource: Ministry of Law and Justice; Agnihotri, VK (2009) ‘The Ordinance: Legislation by the Executive in India when the Parliament is not in Session’; PRS Legislative Research III. Ordinance making powers of the Governor Just as the President of India is constitutionally mandated to issue Ordinances under Article 123, the Governor of a state can issue Ordinances under Article 213, when the state legislative assembly (or either of the two Houses in states with bicameral legislatures) is not in session.  The powers of the President and the Governor are broadly comparable with respect to Ordinance making.  However, the Governor cannot issue an Ordinance without instructions from the President in three cases where the assent of the President would have been required to pass a similar Bill.[iii] IV. Key debates relating to the Ordinance making powers of the Executive There has been significant debate surrounding the Ordinance making power of the President (and Governor).  Constitutionally, important issues that have been raised include judicial review of the Ordinance making powers of the executive; the necessity for ‘immediate action’ while promulgating an Ordinance; and the granting of Ordinance making powers to the executive, given the principle of separation of powers. Table 1 provides a brief historical overview of the manner in which the debate on the Ordinance making powers of the executive has evolved in India post independence. Table 1: Key debates on the President's Ordinance making power

Year

Legislative development

Key arguments

1970 RC Cooper vs. Union of India In RC Cooper vs. Union of India (1970) the Supreme Court, while examining the constitutionality of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969 which sought to nationalise 14 of India’s largest commercial banks, held that the President’s decision could be challenged on the grounds that ‘immediate action’ was not required; and the Ordinance had been passed primarily to by-pass debate and discussion in the legislature.
1975 38th Constitutional Amendment Act Inserted a new clause (4) in Article 123 stating that the President’s satisfaction while promulgating an Ordinance was final and could not be questioned in any court on any ground.
1978 44th Constitutional Amendment Act Deleted clause (4) inserted by the 38th CAA and therefore reopened the possibility for the judicial review of the President’s decision to promulgate an Ordinance.
1980 AK Roy vs. Union of India In AK Roy vs. Union of India (1982) while examining the constitutionality of the National Security Ordinance, 1980, which sought to provide for preventive detention in certain cases, the Court argued that the President’s Ordinance making power is not beyond the scope of judicial review. However, it did not explore the issue further as there was insufficient evidence before it and the Ordinance was replaced by an Act. It also pointed out the need to exercise judicial review over the President’s decision only when there were substantial grounds to challenge the decision, and not at “every casual and passing challenge”.
1985 T Venkata Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh In T Venkata Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985), while deliberating on the promulgation of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984 which abolished certain village level posts, the Court reiterated that the Ordinance making power of the President and the Governor was a legislative power, comparable to the legislative power of the Parliament and state legislatures respectively. This implies that the motives behind the exercise of this power cannot be questioned, just as is the case with legislation by the Parliament and state legislatures.
1987 DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar It was argued in DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1987) the legislative power of the executive to promulgate Ordinances is to be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a substitute for the law making power of the legislature.  Here, the court was examining a case where a state government (under the authority of the Governor) continued to re-promulgate ordinances, that is, it repeatedly issued new Ordinances to replace the old ones, instead of laying them before the state legislature.  A total of 259 Ordinances were re-promulgated, some of them for as long as 14 years.  The Supreme Court argued that if Ordinance making was made a usual practice, creating an ‘Ordinance raj’ the courts could strike down re-promulgated Ordinances.

Source: Basu, DD (2010) Introduction to the Constitution of India; Singh, Mahendra P. (2008) VN Shukla's Constitution of India; PRS Legislative Research

  This year, the following 9 Ordinances have been promulgated:

  1. The Securities Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013
  2. The Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Second Ordinance, 2013
  3. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013
  4. The National Food Security Ordinance, 2013
  5. The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013
  6. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013
  7. The Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Ordinance, 2013
  8. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013
  9. The Securities Laws (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013

Three of these Ordinances have been re-promulgated, i.e., a second Ordinance has been promulgated to replace an existing one.  This seems to be in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar.  


Notes: [i] With regard to issuing Ordinances as with other matters, the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers. While the Ordinance is promulgated in the name of the President and constitutionally to his satisfaction, in fact, it is promulgated on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

[ii] Article 123, Clause (1)

[iii]  (a) if a Bill containing the same provisions would have required the previous sanction of the President for introduction into the legislature; (b) if the Governor would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill containing the same provisions for the consideration of the President; and (c) if an Act of the legislature containing the same provisions would have been invalid unless it received the assent of the President.

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 
The requirement of having a certain number of electors propose a candidate was introduced after the experience of the first five Presidential elections.  It was common then for several candidates to put themselves up for election when they did not have a remote chance of getting elected.  In the 1967 Presidential elections, 17 candidates contested, but nine of them did not win a single vote.  This repeated again in the 1969 elections, when out of 15 candidates, five did not secure any votes.

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 
India’s sixth President, Mr. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy who served from 1977 to 1982 was the only President to be elected unopposed.  37 candidates had filed their nominations for the 1977 elections, however on scrutiny, the nomination papers of 36 candidates were rejected by the Returning Officer and Mr. Reddy was the only candidate standing.