Constitution of India
Article 57: Eligibility for re-election
Part V — The Union (Chapter I — The Executive: The President and Vice-President)
Article 57 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: A person who holds, or who has held, office as President shall, subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, be eligible for re-election to that office. WHAT IT MEANS: There is NO term limit — a sitting or former President can contest the presidential election any number of times, provided he/she continues to meet eligibility criteria under Articles 58 and 59. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Constitutional Trust — re-election is not automatic; it depends on the Electoral College's democratic choice, not on any right of the incumbent.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Ireland — Method of presidential election (indirect election model). Original provision: The Irish President is elected for a 7-year term and may be re-elected only once (Article 12.3.2 of the Irish Constitution). What India kept: India adopted the indirect election concept but deliberately rejected the Irish two-term limit, allowing unlimited re-election. 2. United States — Concept of an elected Head of State. Original provision: Prior to the 22nd Amendment (1951), the US had no constitutional term limit. After 1951, the US imposed a two-term limit. What India kept: India consciously chose not to impose a term limit, since the Indian President is a ceremonial head — unlike the powerful executive US President. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. No term limit imposed — Because the President is a constitutional figurehead in a parliamentary system, not an executive President. Term limits were seen as unnecessary. 2. Re-election subject to other constitutional provisions — Re-eligibility is conditional on meeting qualifications under Art. 58 (citizenship, age 35, qualified for Lok Sabha membership) and conditions under Art. 59 (no office of profit). 3. Reliance on Electoral College as natural check — The framers trusted the indirect election mechanism (elected MPs + elected MLAs) to prevent misuse, rather than imposing rigid term limits.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 13 December 1948 (CAD Volume VII) DRAFT ARTICLE: 46 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Deferred the question of barring impeached Presidents from re-election to the discussion on qualifications under Draft Article 47 (now Art. 58). 2. [Unnamed member who moved the key amendment] — Argued that the one-term restriction should be removed because 'a capable and efficient man' should be allowed to serve the country as long as he is able to. 3. H.V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar) — Proposed that a President who had been impeached should be barred from re-election, citing foreign experiences of impeached Presidents being re-elected on 'nefarious' grounds. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. One-term restriction vs. unlimited re-election — The original Draft Article 46 allowed re-election 'once, but only once.' A member moved to remove this cap. 2. Bar on impeached Presidents seeking re-election — Kamath argued that 'public memory is so short and even party memory is short,' making it likely an impeached President could be re-nominated. Ambedkar deferred this to Art. 47/58 discussion. FINAL OUTCOME: The Assembly voted to remove the one-term restriction. The proposal to bar impeached Presidents was withdrawn. Draft Article 46 was adopted with the amendment allowing unlimited re-election. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: He stated that the issue of disqualifying impeached Presidents 'could be considered during the discussion on the qualifications of the President' (paraphrase from CAD records).
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Dr. N.B. Khare v. Election Commission of India (1957) [AIR 1958 SC 139] — SC held that challenges to presidential elections must comply with the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952; upheld the re-election of Dr. Rajendra Prasad (the only President to serve two terms). 2. Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. Election Commission of India (1957) [AIR 1957 SC 694] — SC dismissed pre-election challenge to the 1957 presidential poll as premature; held that Art. 71(1) jurisdiction arises only after a candidate is declared elected. 3. No direct judicial interpretation of Article 57 has been required, as the provision is unambiguous and straightforward. Courts have upheld the broader framework of free and fair presidential elections under Art. 71. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None recorded — Article 57 has never been the subject of a contested Supreme Court ruling with dissenting opinions. HISTORICAL PRECEDENT: 1. Dr. Rajendra Prasad (1950–1962) — The only President to serve two full consecutive terms, demonstrating Art. 57 in practice. 2. No subsequent President has sought or served a second term — reflecting an unwritten constitutional convention favouring single-term presidency. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Noted that Article 57's lack of term limits is justified because the Indian President is a figurehead in a parliamentary system, unlike an executive President. 2. M.P. Jain — Observed that the absence of term limits reflects constitutional trust in the Electoral College to make democratic choices, with periodic elections acting as a natural safeguard.