Constitution of India
Article 65: The Vice-President to act as President or to discharge his functions during casual vacancies in the office, or during the absence, of President
Part V — The Union (Chapter I — The Executive)
Clause (1) — VP acts as President during vacancy
WHAT IT SAYS: When the President's office becomes vacant due to death, resignation, removal, or otherwise, the Vice-President shall act as President until a new President is elected and enters office. WHAT IT MEANS: The VP immediately assumes full presidential authority upon any vacancy — there is no interregnum or power vacuum. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Constitutional Continuity — ensures unbroken executive headship of the State at all times.
Clause (2) — VP discharges President's functions during temporary inability
WHAT IT SAYS: When the President is unable to discharge functions due to absence, illness, or any other cause, the VP shall discharge the President's functions until the President resumes duties. WHAT IT MEANS: This covers temporary inability (not vacancy) — the President remains in office but the VP exercises all executive functions in the interim. KEY DOCTRINE: Distinction between 'acting as President' (Clause 1 — permanent vacancy) and 'discharging functions' (Clause 2 — temporary inability). The President's office is NOT vacated under Clause 2.
Clause (3) — Powers, immunities, emoluments of VP while acting as President
WHAT IT SAYS: While acting as or discharging functions of the President, the VP shall have all powers and immunities of the President and be entitled to emoluments, allowances, and privileges as Parliament may determine by law, or, until so determined, as specified in the Second Schedule. WHAT IT MEANS: The VP exercises FULL presidential power — no diminished authority. Parliament may fix different (not necessarily equal) emoluments for the acting President. KEY DOCTRINE: Principle of Plenitude of Power — the acting President is not a 'lesser' President; constitutional powers are identical, only the source of authority differs.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United States Constitution — Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 and the 25th Amendment (1967) Original provision: The US VP becomes President upon death, resignation, or removal of the President. What India kept: The concept of VP as first in line of presidential succession and as presiding officer of the Upper House. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. VP only 'acts as' President, does NOT become President — India mandates a fresh election within 6 months (Art. 62), unlike the US where the VP completes the full remaining term. 2. VP ceases to be Rajya Sabha Chairman while acting as President (Art. 64 proviso) — preserving separation between executive and legislative functions during the interim period. 3. Third line of succession via CJI — Under the President's Discharge of Functions Act, 1969, if both President and VP offices are vacant, the CJI acts as President. This is a statutory (not constitutional) safeguard unique to India. 4. Parliament given flexibility to fix different emoluments for the acting President — reflecting the temporary nature of the arrangement, unlike the US where the VP-turned-President receives the same salary automatically.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 28 December 1948 (CAD Volume VII) Draft Article Number: Draft Article 54 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Moved amendment to add Clause 3 ensuring VP gets 'privileges, emoluments, and allowances' as determined by Parliament while acting as President. 2. Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava — Argued VP acting as President should also bear 'duties and liabilities' of the President, not just enjoy benefits; raised concern about impeachability of the temporary President. 3. Other members — Argued that the temporary President should receive the same benefits as the President with no discrimination. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Emoluments parity — Some members wanted the acting President to automatically get the same emoluments as the President. Ambedkar said Parliament should have flexibility to fix different amounts for a temporary position. 2. Duties and liabilities — Members wanted explicit mention that impeachment provisions apply to the acting President. Ambedkar said this was 'unnecessary and superfluous' as the acting President would inherently have the same obligations. FINAL OUTCOME: The Assembly adopted Draft Article 54 with the Drafting Committee's amendment (adding Clause 3 on powers, immunities, and emoluments); proposals for explicit 'duties and liabilities' language were rejected. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: "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 a President."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) — SC held that the President (and by extension, VP acting as President under Art. 65) must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; real executive power rests with the Cabinet, not the constitutional head. 2. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) — During B.D. Jatti's acting presidency under Art. 65, the SC addressed the scope of Art. 356 powers exercised by the acting President, confirming that the acting President's satisfaction is subject to the same limited judicial review as the President's. HISTORIC INVOCATIONS: 1. 1969: V.V. Giri — Became acting President under Art. 65(1) after President Zakir Husain's death on 3 May 1969. Giri promulgated the bank nationalisation ordinance as acting President, then resigned on 20 July 1969 to contest the presidential election. CJI M. Hidayatullah then acted as President until 24 August 1969. 2. 1977: B.D. Jatti — Became acting President under Art. 65(1) after President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed's death on 11 February 1977. Served until 25 July 1977. Oversaw the 1977 general elections, revocation of Emergency, and swearing-in of Morarji Desai as PM. 3. 2002: Krishan Kant — Briefly acted as President when K.R. Narayanan's term ended and the successor had not yet taken office. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Noted the critical distinction between 'acting as President' (vacancy — Art. 65(1)) and 'discharging functions' (temporary inability — Art. 65(2)), emphasizing that the VP does not become President but only acts in that capacity. 2. M.P. Jain — Observed that Art. 65 represents a layered safeguard mechanism ensuring constitutional continuity, and that the 1969 episode (Giri → Hidayatullah) demonstrated the resilience of India's succession framework without any constitutional amendment being needed.