Vice-President of India
Exhaustive, Exam-Oriented Notes — Prelims, Mains & Interview
One-Page Concept Snapshot (Last-Day Revision)
- The Vice-President is the second-highest constitutional office in India, established under Article 63 as a safeguard for executive continuity.
- The VP serves dual roles: Vice-President of India and ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Article 64) — merging executive succession with legislative presiding authority.
- VP ≠ President: The VP has no executive power of their own; they act as President only when a vacancy arises, resignation, removal, death, or incapacity of the President (Article 65).
- Unlike the UK, India needed a VP because of the directly-elected-but-indirectly-chosen Presidential model, requiring a designated successor rather than relying on the Prime Minister.
- India borrowed the concept of a VP from the United States, but adapted it to the parliamentary framework — the Indian VP presides over the Upper House, much like the US VP presides over the Senate.
- The VP is not a mere ceremonial post: they cast the deciding vote in Rajya Sabha, influence legislative decorum, and serve as an institutional shock absorber during constitutional crises.
- Election is by an Electoral College comprising elected + nominated members of both Houses of Parliament — unlike the President’s election which includes state legislatures.
- Removal requires a resolution of the Rajya Sabha passed by effective majority and agreed to by the Lok Sabha — a unique constitutional mechanism (Article 67).
- The VP takes oath before the President (or a person appointed by the President), unlike the President who takes oath before the CJI.
- There is no formal qualification of being an Indian citizen by birth — the VP must only be a citizen of India, over 35, and qualified for Rajya Sabha membership.
- When acting as President, the VP enjoys all powers, immunities, and emoluments of the President — not of the VP.
- The Indian VP does not act on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while functioning as Chairman of Rajya Sabha — ensuring legislative independence from the executive.
- Three Vice-Presidents — S. Radhakrishnan, Zakir Husain (elected President but died in office), V.V. Giri (resigned as Acting President to contest the election), and M. Hamid Ansari (longest-serving VP with two terms) — are notable exam-relevant figures.
- The VP’s role becomes constitutionally critical during periods of Presidential vacancy — the Constitution mandates that a new President must be elected within six months.
“The Vice-President is the second dignitary of the land and should be elected in a manner befitting that position.”
— Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates“The Vice-President shall be ex-officio Chairman of the Council of States.”
— Article 64, Constitution of IndiaConstitutional Philosophy: Why Vice-President of India?
Constituent Assembly Debates
During the Constituent Assembly deliberations, the creation of the office of Vice-President was debated in the context of functional necessity versus ceremonial redundancy. Some members argued that in a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister already ensures executive continuity and hence a VP was unnecessary (the British model). However, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and others countered that since the Indian President — unlike the British monarch — could face vacancy through death, resignation, or removal, a constitutional successor was essential to prevent a power vacuum.
The debate also centered on the dignity of the Rajya Sabha. The Upper House, representing the federal principle, needed a presiding officer of sufficient constitutional stature — someone who was not a member of the House itself. By combining the roles of VP and Chairman of Rajya Sabha, the framers achieved a dual objective: executive succession insurance and legislative presiding authority, both vested in a single constitutional office.
Stability of Executive & Continuity of the State
The VP ensures that there is never a moment when the Indian republic is without a head of state. In a parliamentary system where the President is largely ceremonial but constitutionally indispensable (assent to bills, appointment of PM, emergency powers), a gap in the presidential office could create a constitutional deadlock. The VP fills this role seamlessly, ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of the state machinery.
Parliamentary System + Federal Balance
India’s VP embodies a creative synthesis: borrowed from the American presidential model in concept, yet made to function within a parliamentary framework. The VP’s dual role as Rajya Sabha Chairman also strengthens the federal balance — the Upper House represents states, and its Chairman must be an impartial arbiter in Centre–State legislative dynamics.
Why India Rejected the Pure British Model
In the UK, there is no Vice-President because the monarch is hereditary, virtually irremovable, and succession is governed by the line of descent. India’s elected presidency needed a designed succession mechanism. Moreover, the UK’s Lord Speaker (formerly the Lord Chancellor) presides over the House of Lords — an office tied to the judiciary and the executive. India preferred a cleaner separation by having an elected constitutional functionary serve as Chairman.
VP as Institutional Shock Absorber
The VP acts as a constitutional safety net during political crises, presidential vacancies, and transitions. When V.V. Giri served as Acting President in 1969 and then resigned to contest the presidential election, the system functioned smoothly because constitutional mechanisms were in place. The VP’s office thus absorbs institutional shocks without destabilizing governance.
The office of the Vice-President represents the Constituent Assembly’s pragmatic wisdom in adapting a borrowed institution (from the USA) to serve India’s unique parliamentary-federal framework. It ensures executive continuity, upholds the dignity and independence of the Rajya Sabha, and functions as a constitutional bridge between ceremonial authority and democratic accountability. For GS-II, the VP is best understood not as a redundant office but as a structural safeguard for constitutional governance.
Comparative Origins: From Where Is the Office Borrowed?
The office of the Vice-President of India is widely acknowledged to have been borrowed from the Constitution of the United States. The American VP serves as the President of the Senate and is first in the line of presidential succession — a model that India adapted with significant modifications.
Similarities with the USA
Both the Indian and American VPs serve as presiding officers of the Upper House (Rajya Sabha / Senate). Both are first in line to assume presidential responsibilities during vacancy. Both are elected indirectly and hold office for a fixed term. In both systems, the VP casts a deciding vote in the event of a tie in the Upper House.
Differences from the UK
The UK has no equivalent of a Vice-President. The Head of State (monarch) has hereditary succession. The House of Lords is presided over by the Lord Speaker (since 2006), an elected peer. There is no separate constitutional office designed for executive succession.
Why Indian VP Is Closer to the US Model in Design but Parliamentary in Function
While the concept of having a VP and their role as Upper House presiding officer mirrors the US, the functioning is parliamentary. The Indian VP, when acting as President, acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers — unlike the US VP who, as Acting President, exercises independent executive authority. Moreover, the Indian VP as Rajya Sabha Chairman operates independently of the executive, whereas the US VP’s Senate role is often politically aligned with the President’s party agenda.
Why VP Is Also Chairman of Rajya Sabha
This dual role was designed to provide the Rajya Sabha with a presiding officer of high constitutional status who is not a member of the House (ensuring impartiality), while simultaneously giving the VP a substantive functional role beyond mere succession insurance. It also mirrors the American model and ensures the VP remains constitutionally active during the presidential tenure.
| Feature | India | USA | UK |
|---|---|---|---|
| Office exists? | Yes (Art. 63) | Yes (Art. I, Sec. 3) | No VP equivalent |
| Presides over Upper House? | Yes — Rajya Sabha | Yes — Senate | Lord Speaker (elected peer) |
| Succession to Head of State? | Yes — Acting President | Yes — Becomes President | Hereditary line of succession |
| Electoral method | Electoral College (Parliament) | Electoral College (public vote) | N/A |
| Casting vote? | Yes (as RS Chairman) | Yes (as Senate President) | N/A |
| Term of office | 5 years | 4 years | N/A |
| Acts on aid & advice? | Only as Acting President | Independent executive authority | N/A |
| Removal | RS resolution + LS agreement | Impeachment by Congress | N/A |
| Can VP become full President? | Only Acting; must win election for full term | Yes — automatic succession (25th Amdt) | N/A |
Constitutional Provisions (Articles Explained)
Article 63 — The Vice-President of India
What it says: “There shall be a Vice-President of India.” This is the foundational provision establishing the office. It is a simple, declarative article — meaning the office is constitutionally mandated, not optional. Unlike the UK system where there is no such equivalent, this article ensures India always has a designated successor to the President.
Why it exists: To guarantee executive continuity and to ensure the republic is never without a constitutional head of state or a presiding officer for the Rajya Sabha.
Article 64 — The Vice-President to Be Ex-Officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha
What it says: The VP shall be ex-officio Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and shall not hold any other office of profit. If the VP acts as President (under Art. 65), they shall not perform the duties of the Chairman of Rajya Sabha during that period.
Why it exists: This dual-role provision ensures (a) the Rajya Sabha has a presiding officer of high constitutional standing, and (b) the VP has a substantive day-to-day role rather than being a dormant ceremonial figure.
Article 65 — VP to Act as or Discharge Functions of President
What it says: In the event of a vacancy in the office of the President by reason of death, resignation, removal, or otherwise, the VP shall act as President until a new President is elected. When the President is unable to discharge functions due to absence, illness, or any other cause, the VP shall discharge those functions until the President resumes duties.
Why it exists: This is the succession clause — the very raison d’être of having a VP. It prevents a constitutional vacuum in the highest office.
Article 66 — Election of Vice-President
What it says: The VP shall be elected by an Electoral College consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament (elected and nominated) through proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote, and the voting shall be by secret ballot.
Why it exists: To ensure the VP has a broad base of parliamentary legitimacy. Including nominated members (unlike the Presidential election) reflects the VP’s role as Chairman of Rajya Sabha, where nominated members also participate.
Article 67 — Term of Office of Vice-President
What it says: The VP holds office for five years from the date they enter office. They can resign by writing to the President. They can be removed by a resolution of the Rajya Sabha passed by a majority of all the then members of the Rajya Sabha and agreed to by the Lok Sabha. The VP can continue in office beyond 5 years until a successor enters office.
Why it exists: The removal process reflects the VP’s unique link to the Rajya Sabha — since they preside over it, the House they preside over initiates the removal. This ensures accountability to Parliament.
Article 68 — Time of Holding Election & Vacancies
What it says: An election to fill a vacancy caused by the expiration of the VP’s term shall be completed before the expiration of that term. An election to fill a vacancy caused by death, resignation, or removal shall be held as soon as possible, and the person elected shall hold office for a full term of five years from the date of entering office.
Why it exists: To prevent any gap in the VP’s office and to ensure constitutional continuity. The “full term from date of entering office” provision (unlike a remainder term) is important for exam purposes.
Election of Vice-President
Electoral College
The VP is elected by an Electoral College consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament — this includes both elected and nominated members of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. This is a critical distinction from the President’s election.
Who votes: All MPs — elected members of Lok Sabha, elected members of Rajya Sabha, nominated members of Lok Sabha, and nominated members of Rajya Sabha.
Who does NOT vote: Members of State Legislative Assemblies, Members of State Legislative Councils, and members of the Legislative Assemblies of Delhi and Puducherry. State legislatures play absolutely no role in the VP’s election.
Why State Legislatures Are Excluded
The VP does not represent the federation in the same way the President does. The President is the head of the Indian Union, representing both the centre and the states — hence state legislatures participate. The VP’s primary functional role is as Chairman of Rajya Sabha, an office linked to Parliament. Therefore, only members of Parliament constitute the Electoral College. This also makes the VP accountable to Parliament rather than to the states.
Method: Proportional Representation + Single Transferable Vote
The election uses the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. Each MP’s vote has equal value (unlike the President’s election where votes are weighted). Voting is by secret ballot. To win, a candidate must secure more than 50% of the valid votes cast (quota system). The Election Commission of India supervises and conducts the election.
Comparison with Presidential Election
| Feature | President’s Election | VP’s Election |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral College | Elected MPs + Elected MLAs (incl. Delhi/Puducherry) | All MPs (elected + nominated) |
| Nominated members vote? | No | Yes |
| State Legislatures vote? | Yes (elected MLAs) | No |
| Value of votes | Weighted (varies by state population) | Equal (1 MP = 1 vote) |
| Method | PR + STV + Secret Ballot | PR + STV + Secret Ballot |
| Disputes | Supreme Court | Supreme Court |
Qualifications & Eligibility
Constitutional Eligibility (Article 66)
To be eligible for election as Vice-President, a person must: (a) be a citizen of India, (b) have completed 35 years of age, (c) be qualified for election as a member of the Rajya Sabha, and (d) not hold any office of profit under the Government of India, any State Government, or any local authority.
However, the President, Vice-President, Governor, and Ministers of the Union or States are not considered to hold an “office of profit” for this purpose.
Why the Same Qualification as a Rajya Sabha Member?
Since the VP is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the framers logically required the same base eligibility as a Rajya Sabha member. However, unlike a Rajya Sabha member, the VP need not be a resident of any particular state and is not elected by any State Legislature.
Oath (Article 69)
The VP takes an oath before the President (or a person appointed by the President). The oath is to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and to faithfully discharge duties. Note: The President takes oath before the Chief Justice of India, marking a key difference.
Term & Re-election
The VP holds office for five years and is eligible for re-election any number of times. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan and M. Hamid Ansari are the only VPs to have served two consecutive terms.
Comparison with President’s Eligibility
| Feature | President | Vice-President |
|---|---|---|
| Citizenship | Citizen of India | Citizen of India |
| Minimum age | 35 years | 35 years |
| Qualification linked to | Lok Sabha membership | Rajya Sabha membership |
| Office of profit bar | Yes | Yes |
| Oath administered by | CJI (or senior-most SC Judge) | President |
| Re-election | Allowed | Allowed |
Functions & Powers
A. As Vice-President
The VP, in their capacity as Vice-President, has no independent executive functions. The primary constitutional purpose is to serve as the standby for the President. The VP has no discretionary powers in this capacity — the role activates only when the President is unable to function or when the office falls vacant.
The VP is the second-highest dignitary of the country in the order of precedence. They represent India at ceremonial occasions, receive foreign dignitaries alongside the President, and perform such other functions as the President may assign (though this is convention, not constitutional mandate).
B. As Chairman of Rajya Sabha
This is where the VP exercises substantial, day-to-day constitutional authority:
Presiding Powers
The VP presides over sessions of the Rajya Sabha, maintains order, interprets rules of procedure, and decides points of order. The Chairman’s rulings on procedure are final within the House. The VP decides whether a bill is a Money Bill for the purpose of Rajya Sabha (though this is practically done by the Lok Sabha Speaker).
Casting Vote
The VP, as Chairman, has no right to vote in the first instance. However, in the case of a tie, the Chairman exercises a casting vote to break the deadlock. This is a significant power that can determine the fate of legislation. The logic is that the Chairman maintains impartiality by not voting routinely, intervening only when necessary to produce a decision.
Disciplinary Authority
The Chairman can order the removal of a member from the House for disorderly conduct, adjourn the House or suspend sittings, and enforce rules of debate and parliamentary privilege.
Anti-Defection Role (Tenth Schedule)
Under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law), the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is the deciding authority on disqualification petitions against Rajya Sabha members (except the Chairman themselves). This quasi-judicial role has been subject to controversy — the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) upheld this power but made it subject to judicial review. The Chairman must act fairly, impartially, and within a reasonable time.
C. As Acting President
When Does the VP Act as President?
Under Article 65, the VP acts as President in the following situations: (i) vacancy due to death of the President, (ii) vacancy due to resignation, (iii) vacancy due to removal (impeachment under Art. 61), and (iv) when the President is unable to discharge functions due to absence, illness, or any other cause.
For How Long?
In cases of vacancy (death/resignation/removal), the VP acts as President until a new President is elected, which must happen within six months from the date of vacancy. In cases of temporary inability, the VP discharges functions until the President resumes duties — there is no specific time limit for this.
Constitutional Safeguards
While acting as President, the VP receives the salary and privileges of the President (not of the VP). The VP ceases to perform the duties of Chairman of Rajya Sabha during this period (Art. 64). The VP, as Acting President, is bound by Article 74 — must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Removal & Vacancy
Removal Procedure (Article 67)
The VP can be removed by a resolution of the Rajya Sabha passed by a majority of all the then members of the Rajya Sabha (effective majority) and agreed to by the Lok Sabha (simple majority suffices for agreement). A 14-day advance notice must be given before moving the resolution.
This is a unique feature of Indian constitutional law — the VP is the only high constitutional functionary whose removal is initiated by a specific House without the formality of impeachment charges, investigation, or quasi-judicial proceedings.
Why the Rajya Sabha Initiates Removal
Since the VP is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, it is constitutionally logical that the House over which they preside has the primary authority to initiate removal. This ensures accountability to the institution they lead. The Lok Sabha’s agreement acts as a democratic check, preventing arbitrary removal by one House alone.
Key Constitutional Features
No grounds specified: Unlike the President’s impeachment (which requires “violation of the Constitution”), no specific grounds need to be stated for the VP’s removal. This is a significant distinction.
No impeachment: The process is not called “impeachment” — it is a simple resolution. The VP’s removal is procedurally less complex than the President’s.
No judicial participation: Unlike the removal of judges (where each House has a role and a judicial committee investigates), the VP’s removal is purely a parliamentary process.
Comparison with Other Removals
| Functionary | Initiated by | Majority Required | Grounds | Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| President | Either House | Special majority (2/3) in both | Violation of Constitution | Impeachment (Art. 61) |
| Vice-President | Rajya Sabha | Effective majority (RS) + simple majority (LS) | No grounds needed | Resolution (Art. 67) |
| SC/HC Judges | Either House | Special majority in both | Proved misbehaviour or incapacity | Address by Parliament (Art. 124) |
Acting President: Case Studies
Constitutional Situations Requiring an Acting President
Article 65 envisions the VP acting as President when: (a) the President dies in office, (b) the President resigns, (c) the President is removed through impeachment, or (d) the President is unable to discharge functions due to absence, illness, or any other cause. In the first three cases, a new President must be elected within six months.
Indian Vice-Presidents Who Served as Acting President
| Vice-President | Year | Reason | Duration | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. S. Radhakrishnan | 1962 | Death of Dr. Rajendra Prasad? — No. Radhakrishnan was elected President directly. He did not serve as Acting President. | — | Common confusion — he was elected VP (1952) then President (1962). |
| V.V. Giri | 1969 | Death of President Zakir Husain (3 May 1969) | 3 May – 20 July 1969 (approx. 79 days) | Resigned as Acting President to contest presidential election. After his resignation, CJI M. Hidayatullah served as Acting President. |
| Justice M. Hidayatullah | 1969 | Resignation of V.V. Giri (as Acting President) + VP office also vacant | 20 July – 24 Aug 1969 (approx. 35 days) | CJI acted as President since both President and VP offices were vacant — a constitutional rarity. |
| B.D. Jatti | 1977 | Death of President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (11 Feb 1977) | 11 Feb – 25 July 1977 (approx. 5 months) | Longest stint as Acting President. Served during the turbulent post-Emergency period. |
List of Vice-Presidents of India
| # | Name | Term | Background | Later Became President? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dr. S. Radhakrishnan | 1952–1962 | Philosopher, diplomat, academic | Yes (1962–67) |
| 2 | Dr. Zakir Husain | 1962–1967 | Educationist, freedom fighter | Yes (1967–69; died in office) |
| 3 | V.V. Giri | 1967–1969 | Trade unionist, freedom fighter | Yes (1969–74; Acting + elected) |
| 4 | Gopal Swarup Pathak | 1969–1974 | Jurist, politician | No |
| 5 | B.D. Jatti | 1974–1979 | Politician, CM of Mysore | No (but served as Acting President) |
| 6 | Justice M. Hidayatullah | 1979–1984 | Former CJI | No (but served as Acting President in 1969 as CJI) |
| 7 | R. Venkataraman | 1984–1987 | Freedom fighter, politician | Yes (1987–92) |
| 8 | Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma | 1987–1992 | Jurist, politician, Governor | Yes (1992–97) |
| 9 | K.R. Narayanan | 1992–1997 | Diplomat, academic, Dalit icon | Yes (1997–2002) |
| 10 | Krishan Kant | 1997–2002 | Freedom fighter, politician | No (died in office in 2002) |
| 11 | Bhairon Singh Shekhawat | 2002–2007 | Politician, CM of Rajasthan | No |
| 12 | M. Hamid Ansari | 2007–2017 | Diplomat, academic | No (two terms — longest-serving VP) |
| 13 | M. Venkaiah Naidu | 2017–2022 | Politician, Union Minister | No |
| 14 | Jagdeep Dhankhar | 2022–present | Jurist, politician, Governor of WB | Incumbent |
Notable Firsts & Distinctions
6 VPs later became Presidents — Radhakrishnan, Zakir Husain, V.V. Giri, Venkataraman, Shankar Dayal Sharma, and K.R. Narayanan.
First VP: Dr. S. Radhakrishnan (1952) — his birthday (5 September) is celebrated as Teachers’ Day.
Only VP to die in office: Krishan Kant (2002).
Only former CJI to serve as VP: Justice M. Hidayatullah.
Longest-serving VP: M. Hamid Ansari (two terms, 2007–2017).
Only two VPs served two terms: Dr. S. Radhakrishnan and M. Hamid Ansari.
Comparative Study: Vice-President in Other Countries
USA
The US VP is the most comparable to the Indian VP. Elected on the presidential ticket (joint ballot), the US VP presides over the Senate, casts tie-breaking votes, and succeeds the President upon vacancy. Key difference: upon presidential vacancy, the US VP becomes the President for the remainder of the term (under the 25th Amendment), whereas in India, the VP only acts as President pending a fresh election within 6 months.
United Kingdom
The UK has no Vice-President. The monarchy provides hereditary succession (line of descent). The House of Lords is presided over by the Lord Speaker (elected since 2006). The Prime Minister ensures executive continuity. The absence of a VP in the UK was a deliberate model India chose not to follow, given its republican and elected-presidency framework.
France
France does not have a VP. The President of the Senate acts as interim President if the office of President falls vacant. This is partly analogous to India’s VP acting as President, except the French Senate President is not a separate constitutional office equivalent to a VP.
Pakistan
Pakistan had a VP under its earlier constitutions but abolished the office. Currently, the Chairman of the Senate is the first in line of presidential succession — similar in function to India’s VP-as-RS-Chairman role.
Germany
Germany does not have a VP. The President of the Bundesrat (Upper House) acts as the deputy to the Federal President. This is similar to India’s arrangement, where the VP (as RS Chairman) is the designated successor. However, Germany’s Bundesrat President rotates annually among state minister-presidents.
USA Vice-President as Acting President (25th Amendment)
The 25th Amendment (1967)
The 25th Amendment to the US Constitution provides a detailed framework for presidential succession and temporary transfer of power. Its key provisions include:
Section 1: If the President is removed, dies, or resigns, the VP becomes President (not merely “acts as”).
Section 2: When the VP office is vacant, the President nominates a new VP, confirmed by majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3: The President can voluntarily transfer powers to the VP temporarily (e.g., during surgery under general anaesthesia). The President transmits a written declaration to Congress.
Section 4: If the President is unable or unwilling to declare incapacity, the VP and a majority of the Cabinet can jointly declare the President incapacitated. The VP then becomes Acting President. The President can contest this, and Congress ultimately decides.
US Vice-Presidents Who Acted as President
| VP (Acting President) | Year | Reason | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| George H.W. Bush | 1985 | Reagan’s colon surgery (Sec. 3) | ~8 hours |
| Dick Cheney | 2002, 2007 | Bush’s colonoscopies (Sec. 3) | ~2 hours each |
| Kamala Harris | 2021 | Biden’s colonoscopy (Sec. 3) | ~1 hour 25 min |
Additionally, 9 US VPs have succeeded to the presidency upon the death or resignation of the President, including John Tyler (1841), Andrew Johnson (1865), Gerald Ford (1974, after Nixon’s resignation), and Lyndon B. Johnson (1963, after Kennedy’s assassination).
Key Constitutional Difference from India
In the USA, the VP becomes the President for the remainder of the term upon vacancy — no fresh election is required. In India, the VP only acts as President, and a new presidential election must be held within 6 months. India’s model is arguably more democratic (ensuring a fresh mandate) but risks instability during the transition. The US model prioritizes continuity and stability.
UPSC PYQ Mapping
Direct questions on the VP are relatively rare in Prelims but frequently appear as part of broader themes. The VP is also indirectly relevant to many Mains questions on parliamentary institutions, presiding officers, and executive continuity.
| Theme | Year(s) | Nature | How VP Can Be Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electoral College composition | 2016, 2019 | Prelims — factual | Compare VP’s vs President’s Electoral College; nominated members angle |
| Rajya Sabha Chairman’s powers | 2017, 2020 | Prelims + Mains | VP’s casting vote, anti-defection authority, presiding powers |
| Anti-defection law / Tenth Schedule | 2017, 2018, 2022 | Mains — analytical | VP as deciding authority under Tenth Schedule for RS members |
| Presiding officers’ comparison | 2018 | Mains — conceptual | VP vs Speaker: election, removal, neutrality, casting vote |
| Parliamentary control over executive | Multiple years | Mains — analytical | VP’s removal as democratic accountability mechanism |
| Federal balance / Rajya Sabha’s role | 2015, 2021 | Mains — conceptual | VP as impartial Chairman upholding federal character |
| Executive continuity / Emergency provisions | 2016, 2020 | Mains — dynamic | VP as Acting President; 1969 case study; 6-month rule |
| Comparative polity (India vs USA) | Recurring | Mains — comparative | 25th Amendment vs Art. 65; succession vs acting; VP’s role in Senate vs RS |
UPSC Mains Questions (Topic-wise)
Q1. “The office of the Vice-President of India is neither purely ceremonial nor substantively executive.” Examine this statement in the context of the VP’s dual role. MAINS CONCEPTUAL (15 marks)
Q2. Compare and contrast the electoral process and constitutional position of the Vice-President of India with that of the Vice-President of the United States. MAINS STATIC (15 marks)
Q3. Critically analyze the removal process of the Vice-President under Article 67. Does the absence of specified grounds make the office vulnerable to political misuse? MAINS CONCEPTUAL (10 marks)
Q4. Discuss the role of the Vice-President as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in ensuring the federal character of Indian polity. MAINS STATIC (15 marks)
Q5. Examine the constitutional significance of the VP acting as President with reference to the events of 1969 and 1977. What lessons do these episodes offer for institutional resilience? MAINS DYNAMIC (15 marks)
Q6. “The VP’s casting vote in the Rajya Sabha is a power of restraint, not of initiative.” Comment. MAINS CONCEPTUAL (10 marks)
Q7. Why did the Indian Constitution exclude state legislatures from the VP’s electoral college? Discuss the constitutional logic and its implications for federalism. MAINS STATIC (10 marks)
Q8. Analyze the anti-defection jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in light of the Kihoto Hollohan judgment. Is this quasi-judicial power appropriate for a constitutional functionary? MAINS DYNAMIC (15 marks)
Q9. Compare the mechanisms of executive succession in India, the USA, and France. Which model better ensures democratic legitimacy? MAINS CONCEPTUAL (15 marks)
Q10. Evaluate the convention of neutrality expected of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Should this convention be given constitutional backing? MAINS DYNAMIC (10 marks)
Answer Writing Frameworks
The Vice-President of India, established under Article 63, occupies a unique constitutional space — bridging the ceremonial presidency with the functional demands of parliamentary governance. The office defies simple categorization.
Body StructurePara 1 — Ceremonial dimension: Second dignitary, no independent executive power, succession function dormant during normal times. Contrast with the UK model where no VP is needed.
Para 2 — Executive/functional dimension: As Chairman of Rajya Sabha (Art. 64) — presiding powers, casting vote, anti-defection authority, disciplinary jurisdiction. These are substantive, daily-exercise powers.
Para 3 — Crisis dimension: Art. 65 — Acting President with full presidential powers. Case studies: 1969 (V.V. Giri), 1977 (B.D. Jatti). Institutional shock absorber role.
Para 4 — Comparative angle: US VP also combines symbolic + functional roles; Senate presidency + succession. UK has no equivalent, proving the office’s non-redundancy in republics.
Conclusion (Value-Based)The VP’s office is a constitutional calibration — ceremonial enough to preserve parliamentary primacy, yet substantive enough to safeguard institutional continuity. It reflects the Constituent Assembly’s foresight in designing an office that is simultaneously restrained and resilient.
Article 67 provides a unique removal mechanism for the VP — a resolution by the Rajya Sabha (effective majority) agreed to by the Lok Sabha, without specifying grounds. This simplicity raises questions about institutional safeguards.
Body StructurePara 1 — The mechanism: Explain Art. 67 in detail. Contrast with presidential impeachment (Art. 61) — grounds required, special majority, quasi-judicial process. Note 14-day notice requirement.
Para 2 — Case for vulnerability: No grounds needed → theoretically, a politically hostile majority could remove a VP for partisan reasons. No judicial oversight. No investigation committee. Concentration of removal power in Parliament alone.
Para 3 — Case against vulnerability: Requires both Houses → cross-check mechanism. Effective majority in RS is high threshold. Convention and political costs deter frivolous removal. No VP has ever been removed — suggesting the provision works as a latent deterrent.
Para 4 — Comparative: US VP removal requires formal impeachment. India’s simpler process reflects the VP’s relatively lesser executive authority.
Conclusion (Value-Based)The absence of specified grounds is a double-edged constitutional choice — it ensures flexibility but demands responsible parliamentary practice. The provision works not because of legal safeguards but because of democratic conventions. Strengthening these conventions, rather than amending the Constitution, may be the more prudent path.
The events of 1969 (death of President Zakir Husain) and 1977 (death of President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed) tested the constitutional provisions governing vice-presidential succession and revealed both the strengths and potential vulnerabilities of India’s institutional design.
Body StructurePara 1 — 1969 episode: Zakir Husain’s death → V.V. Giri as Acting President → Giri’s resignation to contest election → CJI Hidayatullah as Acting President. Demonstrate the layered safeguard mechanism. Discuss the controversial presidential election (conscience vote, Indira Gandhi’s role).
Para 2 — 1977 episode: Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed’s death → B.D. Jatti as Acting President for nearly 5 months. Post-Emergency context — Jatti oversaw the transition to the Janata government. Demonstrates VP’s role during political upheaval.
Para 3 — Constitutional lessons: Art. 65 worked as designed. Six-month rule ensures fresh mandate. CJI as third line of succession (convention, not explicit provision). System proved resilient without needing amendments.
Para 4 — Comparative: US 25th Amendment was enacted in 1967 partly due to similar succession anxieties (Kennedy assassination, 1963). India’s original constitutional design already contained adequate safeguards.
Conclusion (Value-Based)The 1969 and 1977 episodes are testaments to the resilience embedded in India’s constitutional architecture. They demonstrate that institutions, when well-designed, can absorb political shocks without rupturing the democratic fabric. The VP’s office proved indispensable in both instances.
Unlike the President — who is elected by an Electoral College comprising MPs and elected MLAs — the VP is elected exclusively by members of Parliament. This deliberate exclusion of state legislatures reflects a specific constitutional rationale.
Body StructurePara 1 — The provision: Art. 66 — Electoral College = all MPs (elected + nominated). No MLAs, no MLCs. Contrast with Art. 54 (President’s election).
Para 2 — Constitutional logic: President = head of the Indian Union, representing federal unity → state participation essential. VP = primarily Chairman of RS, a parliamentary functionary → only Parliament votes. The VP’s role is institutional (linked to Parliament), not representational (linked to federal units).
Para 3 — Implications for federalism: Critics may argue this weakens the VP’s federal legitimacy. Counter: the RS itself represents states; having its Chairman elected by Parliament ensures accountability to the House they preside over, not to state executives.
Para 4 — Nominated members included: This is significant — nominated members participate in VP’s but not President’s election. Rationale: nominated RS members are part of the House the VP chairs; their voice should count in choosing their presiding officer.
Conclusion (Value-Based)The exclusion of state legislatures reflects the VP’s functional identity as a parliamentary institution rather than a federal-representative one. It is not a democratic deficit but a calibrated constitutional design that links electoral accountability to institutional role.
The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is expected, by parliamentary convention, to maintain impartiality in presiding over the House — akin to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. However, this expectation lacks explicit constitutional backing, raising questions about its enforceability and adequacy.
Body StructurePara 1 — Current position: No constitutional article mandates neutrality. Convention borrows from the Westminster tradition. VP is not required to resign party membership (unlike the UK Speaker). This creates an inherent tension between partisan identity and presiding impartiality.
Para 2 — Arguments for constitutionalizing: Convention alone has not prevented accusations of partisan presiding. Anti-defection decisions by Chairman have faced judicial scrutiny (Kihoto Hollohan). Formal neutrality mandate would strengthen institutional credibility, especially given the RS’s role as a federal check on the LS majority.
Para 3 — Arguments against: Over-constitutionalization rigidifies institutions. UK Speaker’s neutrality convention works without a written rule. Political accountability (via removal process) already provides checks. The Constitution trusts institutional self-regulation.
Para 4 — Comparative: UK Speaker resigns party membership upon election — a strong convention with near-constitutional force. US VP in the Senate is openly partisan. India occupies a middle ground.
Conclusion (Value-Based)While formal constitutionalization may enhance accountability, the greater need is to strengthen parliamentary culture and institutional norms. The quality of constitutional governance depends not only on written rules but on the democratic maturity of its practitioners. A code of conduct for presiding officers, endorsed by Parliament, may offer a balanced middle path.
Prelims Booster Section
10 Factual Bullets for Quick Revision
- The VP is established under Article 63; ex-officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha under Article 64.
- The VP’s Electoral College consists of all members of both Houses of Parliament — elected AND nominated.
- State legislatures have no role in the VP’s election.
- The VP is elected by proportional representation + single transferable vote + secret ballot.
- Each MP’s vote has equal value (unlike the President’s election where votes are weighted).
- The VP takes oath before the President; the President takes oath before the CJI.
- Removal: Resolution of RS (effective majority) + agreed by LS. No grounds needed. 14-day notice required.
- When VP acts as President, they enjoy the salary, privileges, and powers of the President, not of the VP.
- If both President and VP offices are vacant, the CJI acts as President (convention; 1969 precedent).
- A new President must be elected within 6 months of a vacancy. The VP acts as President during this period.
5 MCQs with Answers
Q1. Consider the following statements regarding the election of the Vice-President of India:
- Nominated members of both Houses participate in the election.
- Members of State Legislative Assemblies participate in the election.
- The value of votes of MPs is weighted based on population.
Which of the above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1, 2, and 3
[ Hover to reveal answer ]✅ Answer: (a) 1 only. Nominated members vote; MLAs do not participate; votes are equal, not weighted.
Q2. The Vice-President of India can be removed from office by:
- A resolution passed by the Rajya Sabha by special majority and agreed to by the Lok Sabha.
- A resolution passed by the Rajya Sabha by effective majority and agreed to by the Lok Sabha.
- Impeachment by both Houses of Parliament following the same procedure as for the President.
- A joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament by simple majority.
[ Hover to reveal answer ]✅ Answer: (b). Effective majority of RS + simple agreement by LS. It is NOT impeachment, NOT special majority, NOT a joint sitting.
Q3. When the Vice-President acts as President of India, they:
- Continue to perform duties of the Chairman of Rajya Sabha
- Receive the salary of both the VP and the President
- Exercise powers on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers
- Can dissolve the Lok Sabha without ministerial advice
[ Hover to reveal answer ]✅ Answer: (c). As Acting President, the VP is bound by Art. 74 (aid & advice). They do NOT preside over RS or receive dual salary.
Q4. Which of the following Vice-Presidents did NOT later become the President of India?
- Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
- B.D. Jatti
- K.R. Narayanan
- Dr. Zakir Husain
[ Hover to reveal answer ]✅ Answer: (b). B.D. Jatti served as Acting President (1977) but was never elected President. The other three were.
Q5. Consider the following differences between the VP’s and the President’s election:
- The VP’s Electoral College is smaller than the President’s.
- Both use proportional representation by single transferable vote.
- Disputes in both are decided by the Supreme Court.
Which of the above is/are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2, and 3
[ Hover to reveal answer ]✅ Answer: (d). All three are correct. VP’s college is only Parliament (smaller); both use PR+STV; Supreme Court decides disputes for both.
