Constitution of India
Article 63: The Vice-President of India
Part V — The Union, Chapter I — The Executive
Article 63 (No sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAYS: There shall be a Vice-President of India. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Creates a mandatory constitutional office — the second-highest in India. 2. The office MUST exist at all times; it is not discretionary. 3. Serves as the constitutional basis for all subsequent VP-related articles (Arts. 64–71). KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Constitutional Continuity — ensures executive succession is never left unattended. 2. No separate doctrine arises from this single-sentence article, but it activates the broader Succession & Dual-Role Framework (VP as Rajya Sabha Chair under Art. 64 + Acting President under Art. 65).
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United States Constitution — Article I, Section 3 & Article II, Section 1 Original provision: The US VP serves as President of the Senate and succeeds the President automatically upon vacancy. What India kept: Dual role — presiding officer of Upper House + presidential successor. 2. British Parliamentary Model — Lord Chancellor / Speaker of the House of Lords Original provision: In the UK, the Lord Speaker presides over the House of Lords. What India kept: The idea of a presiding officer for the Upper House drawn from British bicameral tradition. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. VP acts as President only TEMPORARILY (max 6 months) — Unlike the US VP who becomes full President for the remainder of the term. India's parliamentary system requires fresh election of a new President. 2. Electoral College limited to PARLIAMENT only — Unlike the US where VP is directly elected with the President on a joint ticket. State legislatures excluded because VP's primary role is limited to presiding over the Rajya Sabha. 3. VP has NO executive advisory role — Unlike the US VP who sits in Cabinet meetings and advises the President. India's real executive power vests in the PM and Council of Ministers, so the VP remains a legislative-ceremonial functionary. 4. Removal is SIMPLER than impeachment — VP can be removed by a resolution of Rajya Sabha (effective majority) agreed to by Lok Sabha (simple majority), with 14-day notice. No need for formal 'impeachment' as with the President.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 28 December 1948 (CAD Volume VII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 52 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Moved Draft Article 52; explained that the VP's primary role is to preside over the Council of States, so state legislatures need not participate in his election. 2. No other speaker made a substantive intervention on this specific article. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. NONE — There was no substantive debate on Draft Article 52 itself. 2. The Assembly adopted it without any amendments on 28 December 1948. 3. The more detailed debates occurred on related Draft Articles (e.g., Draft Article 56 on VP's term was discussed on 29 December 1948). FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 52 was adopted as-is, becoming Article 63 — no amendments were moved or accepted. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (from related debate on VP election, CAD Vol. VII, p. 1001): "The Vice-President, his normal functions are to preside over the Council of States. It is only on a rare occasion, and that too for a temporary period, that he may be called upon to assume the duties of the President."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. N.B. Khare v. Election Commission of India (1957) [AIR 1958 SC 139] — SC held that election disputes regarding President/VP must be raised only via election petition under the Presidential & Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952; Art. 71(1) prescribes the forum, not unlimited common-law right to challenge. 2. In re Presidential Election (1974) — SC held that presidential/VP election must be completed before the incumbent's term expires, even if a state assembly is dissolved; vacancy in electoral college does not invalidate the election (led to 11th Amendment inserting Art. 71(4)). 3. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) [AIR 1975 SC 2299] — SC struck down clauses of Art. 329A (introduced by 39th Amendment) that placed President/VP elections beyond judicial review, reaffirming that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure. 4. K. Prabhakaran v. Union of India (2008) — SC reaffirmed its exclusive jurisdiction under Art. 71 to adjudicate disputes concerning presidential and vice-presidential elections. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None directly on Article 63 — the article's simplicity has not generated judicial dissent. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Described the VP office as borrowed from the American model but adapted to India's parliamentary framework, making it largely ceremonial. 2. M.P. Jain — Noted that the VP's office ensures constitutional continuity and provides a ready successor, but remains one of the least powerful high offices compared to its US counterpart. 3. Granville Austin — Observed that the Constituent Assembly treated the VP as necessary constitutional furniture with minimal debate, reflecting its limited independent authority.