In Re: Presidential Poll vs Unknown on 5 June 1974

Authored By: Shivendu Singh, Penultimate Year of BBA LLB



In Re: Presidential Poll vs Unknown on 5 June 1974

Equivalent citations: (1974)2SCC33, [1975]1SCR504

Author: A.N. Ray

Bench: A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, Y.V. Chandrachud

PARTIES INVOLVED

The case you are referring to is the Presidential Reference Case of 1974[1], also known as Re Presidential Election, 1974. In this case, the parties involved were:

• The Union of India (representing the central government, which sought the opinion of the Supreme Court).
• The President of India (who, under Article 143 of the Constitution, referred the matter to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion).
• The Supreme Court of India (which provided its advisory opinion on the matter).

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India came out with a landmark judgment on the timing and conditions subject to which a presidential election may be conducted, encompassing some of the most critical Constitutional questions. This decision has huge implications for the governance of this country. The reference case on the expiry of the term of the President and the dissolution of a State Legislative Assembly further opened up the dynamics of legislatures of the state to how the Constitutional mandate must be held for Presidential elections to be held on time. At the heart of the Court's considerations was Article 62 of the Indian Constitution[2], which provided that elections for filling a void caused by the expiry of the President's term were to be conducted before that date. It reminded us that the exercise for the continuation of governance was to be kept free from any constitutional vacuum that might be created by delay. The Court in this context went ahead to explain that dissolution of a State legislative assembly does not take away the requirement or compulsion of conducting Presidential elections so then independence of the leadership electoral process cannot be played around with for calculations or political maneuvering at the behest of the states.

The electoral process was thus highly fortified in integrity by the single decision and created a lead precedent for any future electoral matter to be taken care of, which has firmly entrenched the principles of democracy and constitutionalism into the framework of governance in India. In that judgment, the Supreme Court once again reassured its commitment to the principles of the rule of law and the stability of democratic institutions in the country.

FACTS

The Union Government has sought the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on the Presidential election, due before August 24, for continuation despite the dissolution of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly. This is because according to the Law Minister, the Government's interpretation of the Constitution is that only elected members from existing Legislative Assemblies can form the electoral college. The government has, however, taken a decision to invite the attention of the Supreme Court to the question under Article 143 of the Constitution[3] for clarification of the constitutional provisions involved as there were differences of opinion regarding the issue and its importance.

ISSUES

In the case of "Presidential Poll, In Re (Supreme Court Of India, 1974)", some important questions arose regarding the interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to the election of the President of India. Thereupon, issues arising in the following case have been dealt with:

1. Whether the electoral college provided for in Article 54 comprises only the elected members of the State Legislatures as are in existence at or before the expiry of the term of office of the President under Article 56(1).[4]

2. Whether the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly or Assemblies of any State or States amounts to a vacancy or vacancies having occurred in the electoral college within the meaning of Article 71(4)[5].

3. Whether, having regard to Articles 54[6], 62(1)[7], and 71(4), an election to the office of President need be held before the expiration of the term of the outgoing President notwithstanding that at that time the Legislative Assembly or Assemblies of any State or States may stand dissolved.

JUDGMENT

The decision in this case has been a landmark in the interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to the time and circumstances for holding presidential elections. The decision of the Court therein was hinged on the broader principle of the Constitution—that of ensuring continuity at the highest office in the country—to ensure stable governance and avert any kind of constitutional crises.

Issue 1 - Electoral College Composition

The decision on the composition of the Electoral College further entrenches the constitutional framework governing the presidential election process. Another way in which the way the presidential election is conducted entrenches the holding of elections is that only those members of either Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies, who are elected at the time when the election is held, have a vote. It is an interpretation that protects democratic principles for the election of a President, where the process has to reflect current, duly elected representatives of the people.

Issue 2 - Impact of Legislative Assembly Dissolution

But the single most important aspect of the judgment is the decision wherein the Court held that dissolution of a State Legislative Assembly has no bearing on the requirement to hold the presidential election within the prescribed time. This interpretation has made sure that elections for the presidency remain independent from the vacillating dynamics at the state level. It reflects the Court's understanding that a presidency as an institution cannot be delayed or thrown into turmoil by political events at the state level. The ruling tries to instill a buffer against any action hurting the integrity and independence of the presidential election process.

Issue 3 - Mandatory Nature of Article 62(1)

The strong message that comes out, therefore, in insisting that the presidential election must be completed without any conditionalities before the expiry of the incumbent's tenure is one of continuity in the office of the President. Article 62(1) forecloses any vacuum in leadership at the highest level of the executive, which may be attended by uncertainty or paralysis in government functioning. By reiterating that this deadline is not extendable, the Court puts force behind the legislative intent lying behind this constitutional provision to protect the unbroken continuity of the executive power.

Interpretation of "Otherwise" in Article 62(2)

Another critical aspect of the judgment is the interpretation given by the Court to the word "otherwise" under Article 62(2). By limiting its application to events other than expiry of tenure, like disqualification or elections being declared void, it makes clear that Article 62(1) is an imperative provision on its own, independent of Article 62(2); if it was not, Article 62(2) might be misused and used to support undue delays in holding presidential elections at the expense of clear constitutional mandate for timely elections.

JURISPRUDENTIAL ANALYSIS

The reasons behind the Presidential Poll would present a very tight structure of their case resting on a sound constitutional basis governing presidential elections in India. Only those members of Parliament, and those of the State Legislative Assemblies who are elected at the time of the election to the office of President–such is the meaning accorded by the Court–in an Electoral College, shall ensure democratic principles and secure the legitimacy of the process. By limiting the vote to current, elected representatives, it ensures that any presidential election cannot be controlled by past or future legislators who may not represent the expressed will of the people at the time of that vote. To that effect, this ruling further underscores the constitutional framework for presidential elections and strengthens the case for a fully constituted body with legitimacy to have the president elected. This, therefore, rules out any form of manipulation of the process through the selection and rejection of some few members of the legislature.

Article 71(4) lays down unequivocally that if during an election, there be a vacancy or vacancies in the electoral college, it shall not affect or call into question the election of the President or Vice-President. It is brought in to guard against disruption of the electoral process because of such vacancies. The Supreme Court, in this case, followed the ratio of this judgment in the Khare case[8] wherein it was held that any uncertainty or dispute as to the composition of the electoral college shall not invalidate the election process. The election is to proceed, and concerns could be addressed post-election, ensuring that the office of the President does not remain vacant due to procedural disputes.

The presidential election is independent of the elections to either House of Parliament or the State Legislatures. It has a distinct legal regime, both constitutional and statutory, reflecting the importance and uniqueness of the office. While deciding the case of Purno Agitok Sangma v. Pranab Mukherjee,[9] the Supreme Court reiterated in 2012 that while challenges to parliamentary elections may deal with general electoral laws, presidential elections are conducted under more rigorous provisions. This very demarcation would suggest that presidential elections are sacrosanct and are regulated minutely to ensure that the election is not delayed or frustrated by frivolous or procedural challenges.

The judgment segregates presidential elections from the ever-changing dynamics of politics at the state level, ensuring that the election process is not delayed or hampered by any action at the state level. In effect, this buffer for external interference serves as a safeguard to maintain the sanctity of the presidential election and prevents it from becoming a trump card in jockeying for position at the state level.

In Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy,[10] the Supreme Court in 1978 upheld the presidential election Law, including the law relating to election disputes. Article 71 empowers Parliament to regulate matters connected with the election of the President, reinforcing the constitutional legitimacy of such regulations. Case nailed the fact that the legal regime for presidential elections guarantees the process concerning integrity by making sure that elections are peacefully and orderly conducted and anchored on legal processes to handle resulting disputes. This judgment does establish that the presidency does signify a national institution cutting across state jurisdictions and becomes a symbol for the consensus of people's will throughout the land. It strengthens the proposition that the President, who is the head of state, has to be elected in time, irrespective of any political situation prevailing in various states.

In Anand Mohan v. Union Of India[11], and it was said clearly that all disputes relating to an election must be raised after the election process is complete. The Court held that the electoral process should not be interfered with by the courts before the completion of the election. This will avoid the problem of causing an undue delay or hindrance to the democratic process and hence to the process of government, because at no time will the government be left in a situation where it needs a President. Resolution of disputes after the election avoids interruption in the electoral process and the smooth filling of the office of President without any breaks.

It is through this judgment that the broader constitutional purpose behind Articles 54, 55, and 62 of the Constitution has been laid down. These provisions visualize the avoidance of a vacuum in the governance of the country, in case there is a vacancy in the office of the President. In headily invoking these provisions, the court emphasized that continuity of governance and the stability of the executive are paramount public interests. Therefore, in this respect, it serves as a check against manipulation of either the time or the conditions of presidential elections for political advantage.

JURISPRUDENTIAL IMPACT

The Supreme Court judgment on the timing and conditions of presidential elections is an important reiteration of some basic constitutional principles underpinning the democratic framework of the nation. It laid stress on the mandatory nature of Article 62(1) and reiterated that elections to be conducted to fill up a vacancy caused by the expiration of the incumbent's tenure will have to be held within the prescribed time. This will ensure that there is no break in the executive of the government, an element also very essential for stable governance and the rule of law.

The Court's specification that the dissolution of a State Legislative Assembly does not absolve the Presidential election was meant to ensure that the electoral process relating to the presidency remains free from State legislative processes. This is an important interpretation in averting any kind of manipulative instrument or procrastination that might emerge from the electoral process due to political intrigue at the state level. The very fact that it had to be an insistent presidential election, irrespective of whatever happened to the state assemblies, has made certain—once again—the integrity of the electoral process and that the mandate of the constitution shall be carried out without exception.

The second limb of this decision is the rubbishing by the Court of arguments advanced by the applicant to the effect that the word "otherwise" in Article 62(2) can accommodate delays in presidential elections. This cemented the fact that constitutional provisions on the timing of elections were not mere suggestions, but rather binding and had to be adhered to to the letter. This judgment stands to remind the country that this Constitution was meant to be for clarification and surety in governance, and any vagueness leading to delay or uncertainty ought to be resolved in favor of holding on to the constitutional order.

Likewise, to a great extent, this judgment goes a long way to talk about the relevance of having a fully constituted electoral college for holding a presidential election. It is thus crystallized that the right to vote and ensure that the process of election is representative and legitimate is conferred only upon those who are elected members of both the Houses of Parliament and the State Legislatures at the time of election. This is a decision that has to lie at the base of the public's confidence in electoral procedures, which ensure the direct representation of citizens in making a choice for a head of state.

The most important lesson from the Supreme Court judgment is the high degree of upholding the Constitution at the expense of the public interests. Provisions relating to the time of presidential elections, therefore, cannot be treated as purely procedural; they relate to the very heart of the working of democracy in India. The judgment pronounced in this case, therefore, lays down a guiding precedent for future electoral matters and emphasizes continuity in governance as paramount and avoiding at all costs any possible eventuality of constitutional vacuum.

No doubt this judgment of the Supreme Court is seminal for removing ambiguities in constitutional provisions relating to presidential elections and for its proper democratic anchorage. This judgment contributed extremely seriously to upholding the integrity of democratic institutions, by ensuring timely elections and insulation of the electoral process from political disturbances at the state level in India. No doubt, this decision is going to have far-reaching implications on the conduct of future elections and the general governance of the country in ways that raise standards about adherence to principles of democracy and constitutionalism amidst challenges.

CONCLUSION

The "Presidential Poll, In Re" (1974) This case remains a landmark moment in the constitutional history of India for bringing forward the role of the judiciary to protect the purity of the electoral process amidst the labyrinth of a dynamic and federal democracy. The Supreme Court was very tentative in ensuring continuity in governance, especially at the office of the President, and shows astute awareness of practical problems that may arise in a country like India which is so diversified and populous.

The most significant aspect of the judgment of the Court is emphasizing the President's office not remaining vacant at all. By putting the requirement for the completion of the Presidential election before the expiry of the incumbent's term, irrespective of the status of state legislative assemblies, the Court emphasized how stability at the highest order of the Government should be kept protected. This decision assumes immense importance because the President, though largely a titular head in India's parliamentary system, performs certain very significant functions to maintain constitutional balance. The office is a safeguard against any political crisis and provides for the smooth functioning of state machinery. Any vacancy in this office could create uncertainties that may intrude on the democratic process.

The Court's interpretation of Article 54 is thus pragmatic about the realities of Indian politics. By permitting the Presidential election to proceed with the elected members of the legislative assemblies in existence at the relevant time, the Court tacitly accepted that it would be impossible to ensure an electoral college that is complete in its membership in every instance. Be it political upheavals or electoral cycles, or even the unexpected such as a pandemic or natural calamity, legislative assemblies can be dissolved for any range of reasons. That judgment of the Court prevents disruption from bringing the election process to a grinding halt. Hence, such flexibility is important in a country like India where the political situation is often fluid and changes rapidly.

The other important aspect of the judgment was the reiteration by the Court that Article 71(4) bars any challenge to the Presidential election on the grounds of vacancies in the electoral college. Some such provisions were imperative to retain the inviolability and conclusiveness of the electoral process. By its decision, the Court has conclusively shut the doors for any Presidential election to be challenged on legal grounds impinging on the legitimacy of the office. What is required in a rule-of-law democracy is mechanisms to ensure that provisions of the law are not misused to destabilize the electoral process. Therefore, this decision upholds not only the letter of the Constitution but also its spirit by ensuring the smooth conduct of elections without unnecessary interruptions.

The Supreme Court's judgment is a milestone in the jurisprudential history of India, undoubtedly consolidating democracy, constitutionalism, and the rule of law. It has now become a beacon of precedent for similar electoral cases coming up in the future and has clearly given the message that elections are necessities for stable governance and must be held on time. In doing so, the Court has taken a very vital step toward safeguarding India's democratic institutions and keeping the electoral process absolutely free from political disturbances. On the whole, that decision is a welcoming factor for the health of democracy in India and its governance structure.

[1] (1974)2SCC33

[2] INDIA CONST. art. 62

[3] INDIA CONST. art. 143, cl. 1.

[4] INDIA CONST. art. 56, cl. 1.

[5] INDIA CONST. art. 71, cl. 4.

[6] INDIA CONST. art. 54.

[7] INDIA CONST. art. 62, cl. 1.

[8] Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of India, AIR 1957 SC 694

[9] Purno Agitok Sangma vs Pranab Mukherjee, AIR 2013 SC 372

[10] Charan Lal Sahu vs Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, 1978 AIR 499

[11] Anand Mohan v. Union Of India, AIR1987ALL351