Constitution (Nineteenth Amendment) Act, 1966

The Constitution (Nineteenth Amendment) Act, 1966 reformed India’s electoral adjudication system by abolishing Election Tribunals and transferring the power to try election petitions to the High Courts. This Amendment streamlined the constitutional and legal framework governing electoral disputes and ensured that such disputes were henceforth decided by the regular judicial system rather than by special tribunals appointed under the Election Commission.
The Amendment, which modified Article 324(1) of the Constitution, marked an important administrative and judicial reform in India’s electoral machinery. It was enacted by Parliament in November 1966, received Presidential assent on 11 December 1966, and came into force the same day.

Background

When the Constitution came into effect in 1950, the power of superintendence, direction, and control over elections to Parliament and State Legislatures was vested in the Election Commission of India under Article 324. Among its functions was the authority to appoint Election Tribunals to decide disputes and doubts arising out of elections. These tribunals were temporary bodies constituted after every election to adjudicate election petitions.
In practice, however, Election Tribunals faced several difficulties:

• They lacked uniformity in judicial standards.
• Their decisions were sometimes inconsistent, leading to fragmentation of election law.
• Delays and procedural variations hindered the speedy resolution of election disputes.

Recognising these problems, the Election Commission, in its Report on the Third General Elections (1962), recommended the abolition of Election Tribunals and proposed that High Courts should directly hear and decide election petitions, thus ensuring judicial independence and consistency.
The Government of India accepted this recommendation, and to implement it, amendments were made to both the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Constitution itself through the Nineteenth Amendment.

Objectives of the Amendment

The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill clearly stated the purpose of the constitutional change:

“One of the important recommendations made by the Election Commission in its Report on the Third General Elections in India in 1962, and accepted by the Government, relates to the abolition of election tribunals and the trial of election petitions by High Courts. It would therefore be necessary to make a minor amendment in clause (1) of article 324 of the Constitution to delete the words ‘including the appointment of election tribunals for the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with elections to Parliament and to the Legislatures of States.’”

Thus, the primary objective of the Nineteenth Amendment was to:

1. Remove the Election Commission’s power to appoint Election Tribunals;
2. Empower High Courts to try election petitions under the amended Representation of the People Act, 1951;
3. Strengthen the independence and efficiency of election dispute adjudication.

Key Provision

The Amendment modified Article 324(1) by deleting the words:

“including the appointment of election tribunals for the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with elections to Parliament and to the Legislatures of States.”

After the Amendment, Article 324(1) read as follows:

“The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission).”

This change removed the Election Commission’s authority to constitute tribunals, thereby leaving the trial of election disputes to be regulated by ordinary law—specifically, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended to confer jurisdiction on the High Courts.

Legislative History

The measure originated as the Constitution (Twenty-first Amendment) Bill, 1966 (Bill No. 57 of 1966), introduced in the Lok Sabha on 29 August 1966 by Gopal Swarup Pathak, then Minister of Law.

• The Bill was debated extensively in the Lok Sabha on 8, 9, 10, and 22 November 1966, and passed on 22 November 1966, after only a formal amendment to rename it as the Constitution (Nineteenth Amendment) Act, 1966.
• The Rajya Sabha considered and passed the Bill on 30 November 1966.
• It received Presidential assent from Dr. Zakir Husain on 11 December 1966, and was notified in The Gazette of India on the same date.

The corresponding statutory change—vesting jurisdiction over election petitions in the High Courts—was simultaneously effected by an amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Changes in Electoral Adjudication

Following the Nineteenth Amendment, the system for handling election disputes underwent major transformation:

1. Before the Amendment:
   • The Election Commission appointed temporary Election Tribunals to hear election petitions.
   • Their composition, procedure, and tenure varied across elections, leading to administrative inconsistency.
2. After the Amendment:
   • The jurisdiction to try all election petitions was transferred to the High Courts, ensuring permanence, independence, and judicial uniformity.
   • Appeals from High Court decisions could be taken to the Supreme Court, providing a clear judicial hierarchy.
3. Resulting Advantages:
   • Election petitions were now tried by regular judges with established judicial standards.
   • Enhanced credibility and impartiality of election dispute resolution.
   • Reduced administrative burden on the Election Commission, allowing it to focus solely on the conduct of elections.

Constitutional and Political Significance

The Nineteenth Amendment is notable not for altering fundamental principles of the Constitution, but for refining India’s electoral process. Its significance lies in the following areas:

1. Judicial Control over Election DisputesBy transferring adjudicatory power to the High Courts, the Amendment entrenched the principle that election disputes are essentially judicial questions, not administrative ones.
2. Strengthening Electoral IntegrityThe reform enhanced the transparency and fairness of India’s democratic process, ensuring that election disputes were resolved under independent judicial scrutiny.
3. Administrative SimplificationThe change separated electoral administration (conducted by the Election Commission) from electoral adjudication (handled by the judiciary), reducing overlap and potential conflicts of interest.
4. Alignment with Democratic NormsMost democracies treat election disputes as judicial matters, and India’s shift to High Court jurisdiction aligned its practices with international democratic standards.
5. Foundation for Future Electoral ReformsThe Amendment set a precedent for subsequent legal developments in the electoral field, including the streamlining of election petition procedures under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the increasing judicialisation of electoral ethics and accountability.

Broader Context

The Nineteenth Amendment came during a period of significant constitutional clarification and consolidation in the mid-1960s, following the States’ reorganisation and the introduction of numerous structural amendments (e.g., the 17th and 18th Amendments). It reflected the broader trend of rationalising administrative processes and reinforcing the independence of institutions within India’s parliamentary democracy.
By placing the resolution of election disputes under judicial control, the Amendment reinforced the separation of powers and the rule of law, both central tenets of the Indian Constitution.