The President of India is elected indirectly. The framers chose this method deliberately — direct election would have produced a President with a popular mandate competing with the Prime Minister, and election by Parliament alone would have given the ruling party at the Centre a free hand. The compromise was an electoral college consisting of elected members of both Houses of Parliament and elected members of all State Legislative Assemblies (and, since 1992, the Legislative Assemblies of Delhi and Puducherry). The vote-weighting formula in Article 55 attempts to balance Centre-State equality and inter-State equality. Disputes go to the Supreme Court under Article 71. The 2018 Prelims tested vote values; the 2023 Prelims tested four interlocking propositions about election validity, postponement, and assent. Hold this carefully.
The electoral college — Article 54
Article 54 sets out the electoral college for President's election. The college consists of:
(i) Elected members of both Houses of Parliament. All elected MPs of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Note: NOMINATED members of either House are NOT in the electoral college. The 12 nominated Rajya Sabha members and the 2 nominated Lok Sabha members (under the original Article 331, removed by 104th Amendment 2020) do not vote.
(ii) Elected members of all State Legislative Assemblies. All MLAs across the country. NOMINATED members of State Assemblies are not in the electoral college.
(iii) Elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of Delhi and Puducherry. Added by the 70th Amendment of 1992. Before this amendment, Union Territory legislatures (Delhi was a UT then) did not participate in the President's election. The 70th Amendment specifically added Delhi (now National Capital Territory of Delhi) and Puducherry to the electoral college because they have elected legislatures.
What is notably NOT in the electoral college: the Vice-President; nominated members of any House; legislators from other Union Territories without legislatures (Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, Andaman, Daman, Ladakh, J&K UT); nominated MLAs of Delhi or Puducherry.
Article 55(3) provides that the election is held by the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. Voting is by secret ballot. Each elector marks preferences (1, 2, 3, etc.) for the candidates. A candidate must obtain the "quota" — total valid votes divided by 2, plus 1 — to win. If no one reaches the quota in the first count, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated and their second-preference votes are redistributed.
Vote values — Article 55(2)
Not every elector's vote counts the same. Article 55(2) provides the formulas for calculating the value of each elector's vote. The two formulas balance Centre-State equality and inter-State equality.
Vote of an MLA — Article 55(2)(a):
Value of vote of MLA = (State population divided by Total elected MLAs of the State) divided by 1000
If the remainder when the population is divided is not less than 500, the value is rounded up by one. So an MLA from a populous State (UP, Maharashtra) has a higher vote value than an MLA from a smaller State (Sikkim, Arunachal). The vote value reflects the State's population, not just its number of seats.
Vote of an MP — Article 55(2)(c):
Value of vote of MP = (Total value of votes of all MLAs across India) divided by (Total elected MPs of both Houses)
Each MP — whether from the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha — has the same vote value. The MP vote value is calculated to ensure that the total value of MP votes equals the total value of MLA votes — preserving Centre-State parity.
The 2018 Prelims tested two specific propositions:
- The value of the vote of each MLA varies from state to state.
- The value of the vote of MPs of the Lok Sabha is more than the value of the vote of MPs of the Rajya Sabha.
The trap in statement 2 is to assume that the Lok Sabha's direct election makes its members more powerful in Presidential elections. The Constitution does not draw this distinction — both Houses' elected MPs vote with the same weight. The trap is intuitive but textually wrong.
The 1971 population freeze
An important technical point: the State population used in the vote-weighting formula is not the current population. It is the population as per the 1971 Census.
This freeze was introduced by the 42nd Amendment in 1976 — it provided that until the first Census after 2000, the 1971 population would be used for several constitutional formulas (including Lok Sabha seats, Rajya Sabha seats, and President's election vote values). The freeze was extended by the 84th Amendment in 2001 — extending the freeze until the first Census after 2026.
Why the freeze? The political logic was sensitive. The southern States (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka) had successfully reduced their population growth through family planning. The northern States (UP, Bihar, MP, Rajasthan) had not. If population were updated, the southern States would lose seats to the north — punishing them for the very success that the family-planning policy intended.
For Presidential elections, this means an MLA's vote value is calculated using the State's 1971 population, not its current population. UP today has a much larger population than its 1971 figures suggest — but its MLAs vote in the Presidential election based on the 1971 figures.
The current freeze extends to the first Census after 2026. The 2021 Census has been delayed. When the next Census is conducted and seat-allocation is updated, the President's election vote values will also be recalculated. This is a significant pending constitutional event.
Disputes — Article 71
Article 71(1) provides: "All doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President or Vice-President shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision shall be final."
This makes the Supreme Court the sole forum for Presidential election disputes. No High Court can entertain such a petition; no other body can decide.
The petition must be filed within 30 days of the announcement of the result. It can be filed by a candidate at the election (under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act 1952), or by 10 or more electors.
A person who is neither a candidate nor an elector cannot challenge the election. The Supreme Court has held this in N.B. Khare v. Election Commission (1958).
The Court will not entertain a petition before the announcement of the result. The reason is that pre-result challenges could derail the election process and could leave the Presidency vacant beyond the constitutional deadline (Article 62 requires the new President to assume office before the outgoing President's term expires).
If the Court declares the election void, what happens? Article 71(2) is critical:
"Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the acts done by the President or Vice-President before the date on which his election is declared void by the Supreme Court shall not be invalidated by reason of that order."
This means that the President's acts done before the void declaration remain valid. Bills assented to remain laws. Appointments made remain valid. Treaties signed remain operative. The void declaration prospectively unseats the President but does not retroactively undo their acts.
Article 71(4) protects the election from challenge on the ground of vacancy: "The election of a person as President or Vice-President shall not be called in question on the ground of the existence of any vacancy for whatever reason among the members of the electoral college electing him." This means the election cannot be voided merely because some seats in the electoral college were vacant when the election was held.
The 2023 Prelims — three traps
The 2023 Prelims tested three specific propositions about Presidential election and assent.
- If the election of the President of India is declared void by the Supreme Court of India, all acts done by him/her in the performance of duties of his/her office of President before the date of decision become invalid.
- Election for the post of the President of India can be postponed on the ground that some Legislative Assemblies have been dissolved and elections are yet to take place.
- When a Bill is presented to the President of India, the Constitution prescribes time limits within which he/she has to declare his/her assent.
The 2023 question is a particularly elegant test of three interlocking propositions, all of which sound plausible but are wrong.
Statement 1 — invalidation of acts. Aspirants who think "void = retroactive nullity" walk into this trap. Article 71(2) prevents retroactive invalidation. Acts done before the declaration remain valid.
Statement 2 — postponement. The 1974 In re Presidential Poll case is directly on point. The Court held that the election could go forward even with the Gujarat Assembly dissolved (under Article 356). The election cannot be postponed because Article 62 has a strict time limit — the new President must assume office before the outgoing President's term expires.
Statement 3 — time limit on assent. Article 111 simply says the President "shall declare either that he assents to the Bill, or that he withholds assent therefrom." No time limit. The Sarkaria Commission and several Supreme Court observations have suggested that the President should act within a "reasonable time," but no constitutional time limit exists.
Why indirect election — the framers' choice
One additional point on the constitutional architecture. The Vice-President of India is also elected indirectly, but the electoral college is different. Article 66(1) provides that the Vice-President is elected by an electoral college consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament — including the nominated members. State legislators do not vote in the Vice-Presidential election. The reason is that the Vice-President's primary constitutional role is to preside over the Rajya Sabha (as ex-officio Chairman); the Vice-President's functions do not generally involve State-level matters in the way the President's do. Disputes regarding the Vice-Presidential election are decided by the Supreme Court under the same Article 71.
The framers of the Indian Constitution explicitly chose indirect election for the President. Three considerations drove the choice.
One — avoiding a competing power centre. A directly elected President with a popular mandate would have had political legitimacy independent of Parliament. This would have produced a presidential-system dynamic — the President as a real power centre, competing with the Prime Minister. The framers wanted a parliamentary system in which the President is a constitutional formality and the PM is the substantive head of government.
Two — federal balance. The framers wanted both Centre and States to have a role in choosing the President. Election by Parliament alone would have given the ruling party at the Centre a free hand; election by State Assemblies alone would have made the Presidency a State preserve. The compromise — both MPs and MLAs in the electoral college, with vote weighting that gives Centre and States parity — preserved federal balance.
Three — practical considerations. Direct election would have required a national campaign separate from general elections. The expense and political energy involved would have been substantial. Indirect election through existing legislators avoided this.
The choice has worked broadly as intended. Indian Presidents have generally been ceremonial heads of state, not power centres. The federal balance has been preserved — Presidents from Southern States (Radhakrishnan, Reddy, Venkataraman, Narayanan) and Northern States (Prasad, Husain, Giri, Singh, Sharma, Ahmed, Patil, Mukherjee, Kovind, Murmu) have alternated. Direct competition between President and PM has been rare. The framers' design has held.
What students must hold
Six points carry the weight. One, electoral college (Article 54): elected MPs of both Houses + elected MLAs of all States + elected MLAs of Delhi and Puducherry (added by 70th Amendment 1992). NOMINATED members are excluded.
Two, voting (Article 55(3)): proportional representation by single transferable vote, secret ballot. Vote values vary by elector type.
Three, MLA vote value (Article 55(2)(a)): State population divided by Total elected MLAs divided by 1000. Varies by State (2018 PYQ statement 1 correct). Population frozen at 1971 Census until first Census after 2026 (84th Amendment 2001).
Four, MP vote value (Article 55(2)(c)): same for both Houses (2018 PYQ statement 2 wrong — Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha MPs have equal vote value).
Five, disputes go to the Supreme Court (Article 71(1)). Article 71(2) — acts before void declaration NOT invalidated. Article 71(4) — election cannot be challenged on vacancy ground. The 2023 PYQ tested all of these.
Six, election cannot be postponed for dissolved Assemblies (In re Presidential Poll 1974). Article 111 prescribes NO time limit for Presidential assent. For more, see Council of Ministers for the broader executive framework.