WHAT ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION AS PRESIDENT OF INDIA?

ABSTRACT

The President of India represents a symbol of sovereignty, unity, and values of the people. Article 58 of the Constitution lays down the qualifications for the President, which are that one should be a citizen of India, be thirty-five years or more in age, not be disqualified for membership of Parliament, and also not be holding any office of profit. The article explains the constitutional framework of the president, the eligibility criteria, and their significance in ensuring a capable leader. The article further discusses the electoral process and explains how the stringent qualifications have preserved the dignity and neutrality of the office enabling the President to act as custodian of the Constitution and the symbol of national unity. By preserving the democratic spirit, these criteria guard the presidency as an institution with integrity and adherence to the Constitution, reflecting the vision with which the framers of the Indian Constitution laid it down.

Keywords

President, Qualifications, Election, Constitution, Democracy

INTRODUCTION

The President of India occupies a very pivotal position-the Head of State and the highest constitutional authority of the country. The President embodies the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of the nation, acts as the Custodian of the Constitution, and unfailingly stands for the proper functioning of the Democratic System. Unlike other offices that usually have ceremony-only powers, the powers of the office of the president become much stronger whenever there are special situations like National Emergency, where a fundamental role is played in executive and legislative affairs.

The President is elected by an electoral college, itself an extraordinary assemblage in that it consists of the elected representatives which combines MP and MLA, state, and union territory. Because of the very important nature of his functions, the Constitution of India has provided quite concise qualifications prescribed to ensure that the presidential candidates elected must possess the requisite qualifications, integrity, and understanding of constitutional matters.

The first of these qualifications and grounds of disqualification are listed in Article 58 of the Constitution of India, which lays down qualification parameters to maintain the respectableness and neutrality of the office. These qualifications include citizenship status, age, eligibility to become an MP in Lok Sabha, and grounds for disqualifications against the candidate to avoid any conflict of interest. Besides, the requirements of proposers and seconders, together with a monetary deposit as a guard clause, provide that candidacy for the post further ensures seriousness on behalf of candidates and proper representation.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

The office of the President of India originated from Part V of the Indian Constitution, dealing with the structure of the Union Executive. President shall be called the constitutional Head of State signifying the unity and sovereignty of the nation. Article 52 clearly declares, “There shall be a President of the Republic of India,” thus establishing the existence of the office to be a vital aspect of the Union Executive. Article 52 of the Constitution establishes the presidency, whereas Articles 54-60 govern electoral procedures. The President is elected indirectly by an electoral college made up of elected members from both Houses of Parliament and state legislatures. The indirect election process emphasises the executive’s ministerial role, with the Ministry holding effective authority rather than the President. Direct election would have been expensive and energy-intensive. There was concern that if a President was chosen directly, they may eventually gain complete control. The qualifications, election process, powers, and duties of the President must follow some provisions which aim to make the office function within the ambit of democratic principles and constitutional norms.[1]

QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT

Article 58 says that no person shall be eligible to become a President of India unless;

He is be a citizen of India.
He has completed the age of 35 years.
He has qualified for election as a member of the House of the People (i.e., he must be registered as a voter in any Parliamentary Constituency),
He should not be holding any office of profit under the Central or State Government, or under any local or other authority subject to the control of any of the said Governments.

But the following persons shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit and hence qualified for being a candidate for President. They are (a) the President and Vice- President of the Union, (b) the Governor of any State, (c) the Minister of the Union or of any State [Art. 58].

The Supreme Court has provided an interpretation for the term “office of profit” as mentioned under 102(1)(a). When determining whether one is holding a profit-making position or not, what matters is whether the office is capable of generating a profit or financial benefit, not whether the individual earned a monetary gain. If a monetary benefit is recoverable in connection with the office, the office becomes profitable, regardless of whether the pecuniary gain is obtained or not.[2]

In Purno Agitok Sangama v. Pranab Mukherjee[3], Pranab Mukherjee’s election as President of India was impugned by the defeated candidate P.A. Sangama His plea was that Mukherjee was holding the office of Chairman, Council of Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), Calcutta (now Kolkata) at the time of filing his nomination papers which was an office of profit. The apex court by a majority of three to two ruling dismissed the petition at preliminary stage under Art. 71 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. The majority judgment read Art. 58(2) of the Constitution with the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 and declared that the post of the Chairman ISI is not included in the list of offices of profit.

Minority judgment, however pointed out that the 1959 Act does not apply to the President because while Article 102 of the constitution gives power to Parliament to enact a law for removing disqualification for election to either House of Parliament, Art. 58 does not make such provision for removal of disqualification. The minority judgment appears logical and reasonable. The case required full hearing which the majority of the Judges did not provide.

A person when elected as the President of India is bound to make and subscribe in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court, before entering upon his office, an oath or affirmation indicating that he would faithfully carry out the duties of the President of India and will maintain, protect, and defend the Constitution and the law to the best of his abilities, as well as commit himself to the service and well-being of the Indian people. He cannot hold any office of profit or cannot be a member of a House of Parliament or State Legislature. If he is a member of any of the above-mentioned Houses, upon entering the office of President, his seat in the House concerned will automatically fall vacant.

PROCESS OF ELECTION OF PRESIDENT

India is a democratic republic. There cannot be a hereditary head of the State. The Constitution provides for an elected head of State for a fixed period He is the President of India. The President is elected by indirect method in which the entire nation participates through its elected representatives. According to Art. 54, the President is elected by an electoral college made up of elected members from both Houses of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the States.

The Constitution (70th Amendment) Act, 1992, provided a new explanation to Article 54, stating that the term “State” covers the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union Territory of Pondicherry. This implies that the President’s electoral college will comprise MLAs from the National Territory of Delhi and the Union Territory.[4]

The nominated members of the aforementioned Houses at the Centre and States do not have the ability to vote in the Presidential election. The President shall be elected using the proportional representation system with a single transferable vote [Art. 55(3)]. Voting is done using a secret ballot. The Constitution states that, as far as possible, there shall be consistency in the scale of representation among the states, as well as parity between the states as a whole and the Union in the election of the President [Art. 55 (1)].[5] For the purpose of securing such uniformity among the State and parity between the Union and States the following formula is adopted:

Every elected member of a State’s Legislative Assembly is entitled to as many votes as there are multiples of 1000 in the quotient produced by dividing the State’s population by the total number of elected members of Assembly.[6] If the residual from this division is 500 or more, it is considered as one, and each member’s vote increases by one.[7] Thus, the amount of votes that an M.L.A. is allowed to cast in the Presidential election is determined by the state’s population ratio.

The number of votes that each elected member of Parliament is entitled to cast is calculated by dividing the total number of votes acquired from the Legislative Assemblies of all States using the above method by the total number of elected members in both Houses of Parliament. If the residual from this division exceeds one-half, it will be considered as one.[8] This formula ensures that members of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the States have equal voting rights.

MODE OF VOTING

The Constitution requires that the President be elected using the proportional representation method with a single transferable vote. The President is elected under a single transferable vote system with proportional representation. The approach involves listing all candidates’ names on the ballot paper and assigning numbers based on voter choice. Voters may indicate as many choices on the ballot as there are candidates. The elector should mark their first preference by placing a number 1 next to the candidate’s name. They can register several preferences by placing figures 2, 3, 4, and so on against the names of additional candidates. The ballot is invalid if the first choice is marked against several candidates or not indicated at all.[9]

Let us suppose that there are 4 candidates A, B, C, D, and the total number of valid votes 1500. A candidate must secure at least 7.501 first preference votes that is, more than half the valid votes to be declared elected. In the count A, B, C, D, have polled as follows:

A-5250, B-4800, C-2700, D-2250 —————– Total 15,000

Here no candidate has secured a minimum of 7501 votes. In this case D having obtained the least number of votes would be the first to be eliminated and the second preference votes recorded in his favour will be transferred to the remaining candidates A, B. and C. Suppose that the second preference votes recorded in the votes of D are as follows:-A-300, B-1050 and C-900. These would be transferred and added to the first preference votes in favour of A, B, C as follows:

A – 5250 + 300 = 5550

B-4800+1050 5850.

C-2700+900 = 3600.

Even in the second count no candidate could secure a minimum of 7501. Here C having obtained the least number of votes is eliminated and the third preference votes recorded in his favour will once again be transferred to A and B. Suppose the third preference votes on the ballot paper recorded in favour of A and B are 1700 and 1900, respectively. The result of this second transfer would be as follows:

A – 5550 + 1700 = 7250

B – 5850 + 1900 = 7750

In this illustration, B having obtained the maximum votes, that is, more than half of the valid votes, will be a successful candidate though he had secured fewer first preference votes than A. This process will be repeated again and again till a candidate secures more than half the valid votes. Until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year ‘2026” have been published, the reference to the last preceding census be construed as a reference to the 1971 census.[10]

SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS

The criteria laid down under Article 58 of the Constitution become an adjunct to an affirmation and solemn acknowledgement of the importance and dignity of the office, going above and beyond procedural hurdles. They ensure that the head of state is worthy and well-qualified to withstand the immense burdens of responsibilities that will come with such an exalted position.

Ensuring National Citizenship and Allegiance- The requirement that the President must be a citizen of India ensures the individual’s allegiance to the nation and its democratic traditions. The idea is that the highest office of the country should be held by someone who has deep-rooted attachments to this nation.
Having Appropriate Age and Maturity- By fixing a minimum age of 35 years, the Constitution ensures that the candidate has attained sufficient maturity, experience, and wisdom to handle the delicacies and complexities of the office. The threshold signifies the need for an experienced individual to represent the nation both within the home and abroad.
Competency in the Parliament- By requiring candidates to be able to be held eligible for election as a member of the Lok Sabha, this shows that the election is based on an essential knowledge of how Parliament functions and the executive. Such a requirement will give credence to the notion that the President is adept in matters of legislation and constitutional responsibilities.
Conflict of Interest- The person will not hold any office of profit to guarantee that the President remains neutral and free from extraneous pressure. This upholds the principle of impartiality and ensures that the office is not corrupted and undermined by the affiliations of various interests conflicting with each other.

These qualifications shall uphold the sanctity of the office by providing that the individual elected will be capable, indifferent, and devoted to certain ideals and the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Such stringent eligibility guarantees that a democratic ethos will be preserved in the proper spirit and enable the President to be a true custodian of constitutional values.

PROCEDURE FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT

The President can be removed from his office by a process of impeachment for the violation of the constitution. Under Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the President shall be impeached and removed from the office on account of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The range for the impeachment of the Indian president would be much wider than that. The term “violation of the Constitution” has a very wide scope.

The impeachment procedure of the President has been laid down in Article 61. The selected members of both Houses of the Parliament and elected members of State Legislative Assemblies participate in the election of the President. However, in the removal of the President from the office, State Legislatures have no role whatsoever; he is removed by means of Parliament. The violation of the Constitution against the President may be charged by either House of Parliament. Such charges must exist in a resolution of the House preferring the charges. The proposal for the charges shall be contained in a resolution which must be moved upon giving fourteen clear days prior written notice thereof. The resolution must be signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of members of the House. There shall also be a requirement that a resolution making the charge must be carried by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House. The House which makes the charge cannot itself try the charge. Rather, it must be tried by the other House. The President charged has the right to appear and be represented at such investigation. So, this is a quasi-judicial procedure. If the charge against the President is established and if the House conducting the investigation passes a resolution to that effect by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of that House, the consequence would be the removal of the President from the date of passage of such a resolution.[11]

Impeachment of a President is a very difficult procedure. The allegations and counter-allegations concerning impeachment hearings are subject to the vagaries of political party lines, with the President functioning on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers generally enjoys the confidence of the House of the People. Given the predominance of coalition governments today, this methodology for conducting business may not, as a matter of course, secure a two-thirds majority in either House of Parliament. The impeachment procedure, while quasi-judicial in character, is imbued with political overtones. There is no provision for impeachment to be challenged in a court of law.

CONCLUSION

The office of the President of India is a cornerstone of the nation’s constitutional framework and symbolizes the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of the Republic. As the head of state, the President is not merely a symbol; the office acts as a far more crucial constitutional mechanism to maintain democracy and to fulfill the constitutional duties bestowed upon the government. The qualifying criteria set out under Article 58 act as a buffer to ensure that only those individuals of high integrity, maturity, and an understanding of the Constitution are allowed to rise to this great office.

Strict eligibility criteria concerning citizenship, age, and qualifications laid down to be elected a member of Lok Sabha emphasize the necessity of having an impartial leader qualified to perform without conflict of interest. The prohibition against holding an office of profit ensures that the President shall act with independence, without any external affiliations directly influencing his/her allegiance or functions. These qualifications reaffirmed by the procedural safeguards in the election procedure maintain the dignity of the office and uphold the democratic ethos of the country.

Election of the President through indirect voting system by an electoral college ensures that the selection holds not only representation against the federal structure but would also refrain from undue politicization of the office. The proportional representation system with its single transferable vote approach provides a unique balance in ensuring fair representation for both the Union and the States in the selection of the head of state.

In addition, the impeachment mechanism laid down in Article 61 stands as a major constitutional safeguard against the waywardness of a President. While impeachment is a difficult and rarely invoked means, it acts as a deterrent to prevent any sudden temptation of abusing such powers, thereby safeguarding the pristine sanctity of the Constitution. Not only these procedural safeguards further cement the principle of constitutional supremacy and rule of law but the very quasi-judicial nature of the process itself. The office of the President is the embodiment of the democratic spirit of India, and its occupant is the custodian of the Constitution, thereby ensuring that the ethos and spirit of constitutionalism remain strong and stable within the political discourse of the nation.

REFERENCES

UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR, https://law.uok.edu.in/Files/5ce6c765-c013-446c-b6ac-b9de496f8751/Custom/President_of_India.pdf (last visited 19 Jan, 2025)
DR. K.C. JOSHI, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (2^nd ed. 2013)
DR. J.N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA ( 52^nd ed. 2015)
RENAISSANCE LAW COLLEGE, http://renaissancelawcollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Constitution1.pdf (last visited 20 Jan 2025)
LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13934-president-under-indian-constitution.html (last visited 20 Jan 2025)
IPLEADERS, https://blog.ipleaders.in/president-elections-india/ (last visited 20 Jan 2025)

[1] Dr.Syed Asima Refayi, Constitutional Law | President of India, UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR (19 Jan 2025, 5:45 PM), https://law.uok.edu.in/Files/5ce6c765-c013-446c-b6ac-b9de496f8751/Custom/President_of_India.pdf

[2] DR. K.C. JOSHI, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 346 (2^nd ed. 2013)

[3] Purno Agitok Sangama v. Pranab Mukherjee, AIR 2013 SC 372

[4] DR. J.N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 473 ( 52^nd ed. 2015)

[5] Ibid.

[6] INDIA CONST. art. 55(2)(a).

[7] INDIA CONST. art. 55(2)(b).

[9] Constitution-1., RENAISSANCE LAW COLLEGE (20 Jan 2025, 5:30 PM), http://renaissancelawcollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Constitution1.pdf

[10] DR. J.N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 474 ( 52^nd ed. 2015)

[11] DR. J.N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 477 ( 52^nd ed. 2015)

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.