Article 71

Article 71 of the Constitution of India provides the legal and procedural framework for handling disputes and matters connected with the elections of the President and Vice-President of India. It ensures that these offices—central to the constitutional structure—are safeguarded against electoral uncertainty and procedural ambiguities. The Article entrusts the Supreme Court of India with exclusive jurisdiction to decide election-related disputes, thereby upholding the principles of judicial independence, electoral integrity, and continuity in governance.

Purpose and Constitutional Context

The offices of the President and Vice-President represent the highest constitutional authorities in the Indian Republic. Given their significance, the framers of the Constitution recognised the necessity of providing a specialised and definitive mechanism for the resolution of electoral disputes related to these offices. Article 71, therefore, serves as a constitutional safeguard ensuring that election controversies are handled impartially, efficiently, and without compromising the stability of the Union’s executive framework.
This article is located in Part V (The Union), Chapter I (The Executive) of the Constitution and functions in conjunction with Articles 52 to 70, which collectively define the powers, election procedures, and contingencies associated with these two offices.

Provisions of Article 71

Clause (1): Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Article 71(1) vests the Supreme Court of India with exclusive authority to decide all doubts and disputes concerning the election of the President or Vice-President. The decision of the Supreme Court in such matters is final and binding. This eliminates the possibility of multiple judicial forums adjudicating election disputes and ensures uniformity and finality in decisions relating to the highest constitutional offices.
By assigning exclusive jurisdiction to the apex court, the Constitution reinforces the principle of judicial supremacy in maintaining the sanctity of elections and preventing any conflict of authority among different branches of government.
Clause (2): Validity of Acts Before Election Declared Void

Article 71(2) provides that if the Supreme Court declares the election of the President or Vice-President void, all official acts performed by the officeholder before such declaration remain valid and legally effective. This clause is critical for preventing administrative chaos and ensuring continuity of governance.
For instance, if the President has assented to Bills or made official appointments before the election is annulled, those acts continue to hold legal validity. This provision thus protects public interest and preserves the legitimacy of governmental operations during judicial proceedings.
Clause (3): Parliament’s Power to Regulate Elections

Article 71(3) empowers Parliament to make laws relating to the election of the President and Vice-President, subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Accordingly, Parliament has enacted the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and related rules, which specify the procedure for nomination, voting, counting, and adjudication of disputes.
This legislative power ensures transparency and procedural uniformity, reinforcing the rule of law in the conduct of elections for these high offices.
Clause (4): Vacancies in the Electoral College

Article 71(4) states that an election to the office of the President or Vice-President cannot be challenged on the ground of any vacancy in the electoral college. This provision ensures that temporary vacancies or unfilled seats in Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies do not invalidate or delay the election process.
By disregarding such vacancies as grounds for dispute, the Constitution ensures that the offices of President and Vice-President are filled in a timely manner, maintaining the continuity and stability of the executive branch.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

Although Article 71 has been invoked sparingly, several judicial pronouncements have elaborated upon its implications and reaffirmed the supremacy of the Supreme Court in election-related disputes:

• K. Prabhakaran v. Union of India (2008): The Court reaffirmed its exclusive jurisdiction under Article 71 to adjudicate disputes concerning presidential and vice-presidential elections, emphasising that no other authority can intervene in such matters.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): This landmark case, though primarily addressing parliamentary election disputes, underlined the judiciary’s crucial role in ensuring electoral integrity and protecting democratic legitimacy—principles that are equally relevant to Article 71.
• Keshav Singh v. Union of India (1965): Discussed the consequences of declaring an election void, illustrating the balance between judicial authority and the need for continuity in governance.

Through these decisions, the judiciary has reinforced the constitutional philosophy that electoral legitimacy must coexist with administrative stability.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Article 71 operates alongside several key constitutional articles that collectively govern the offices of the President and Vice-President:

• Article 52: Establishes the office of the President of India.
• Article 63: Establishes the office of the Vice-President.
• Article 324: Vests the Election Commission of India with powers to conduct and supervise elections.

While the Election Commission is responsible for conducting the elections, any disputes arising from them fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, creating a clear separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial functions in electoral matters.

Significance and Constitutional Rationale

The significance of Article 71 lies in its role as a constitutional safeguard that maintains the stability and integrity of India’s highest offices. Key features include:

• Judicial Finality: By assigning exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, the article eliminates prolonged or conflicting litigation.
• Administrative Continuity: The validation of official acts performed before annulment prevents governance paralysis.
• Legislative Oversight: Empowering Parliament to frame election laws ensures procedural clarity and democratic transparency.
• Resilience Against Procedural Gaps: The provision regarding vacancies in the electoral college prevents technical irregularities from invalidating elections.

Collectively, these elements preserve both the legitimacy of elections and the continuity of constitutional authority.

Historical Context and Legislative Development

During the Constituent Assembly Debates, members recognised the possibility of disputes arising in the election of the President or Vice-President and sought to create a reliable and authoritative mechanism for their resolution. Article 71 (initially Draft Article 57) was therefore designed to centralise judicial power in the Supreme Court, ensuring impartiality and finality.
Post-Independence, the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and the accompanying Election Rules have provided detailed legislative mechanisms for implementing Article 71. The Election Commission, acting under Article 324, conducts these elections, while the Supreme Court, under Article 71, adjudicates disputes arising from them.

Practical and Contemporary Relevance

In contemporary India, Article 71 continues to serve as a cornerstone of constitutional stability. It ensures that political contests for the nation’s highest offices are conducted within a framework of legality, fairness, and final judicial oversight.