Constitution of India
Article 68: Time of holding election to fill vacancy in the office of Vice-President and the term of office of person elected to fill casual vacancy
Part V — The Union (Chapter I — The Executive: The President and Vice-President)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: An election to fill a vacancy caused by the expiration of the Vice-President's term must be completed BEFORE the term expires. WHAT IT MEANS: The Election Commission must proactively conduct the VP election so that no gap arises between the outgoing and incoming Vice-President. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Continuity of Constitutional Office — ensures seamless transition of high constitutional offices.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: If a vacancy arises due to death, resignation, removal, or otherwise, the election shall be held 'as soon as possible' — and the person elected gets a FULL five-year term from the date of entering office (subject to Article 67). WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Unlike Presidential vacancies (Art. 62) — NO fixed six-month deadline is specified; only 'as soon as possible'. 2. The new VP gets a fresh five-year term, NOT the unexpired portion of the predecessor's term. 3. The Election Commission has discretion on exact timing, but must act promptly. KEY DOCTRINE: Full-Term Guarantee Principle — a VP filling a casual vacancy is not a 'stopgap'; they get a complete five-year tenure.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United States Constitution — Article II, Section 1; 12th & 25th Amendments Original provision: The US Vice-President succeeds the President; vacancy-filling evolved via the 25th Amendment (1967). What India kept: The concept of a Vice-President as presidential successor and the need for timely filling of VP vacancies. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — General framework of executive continuity provisions. What India kept: Procedural mechanisms ensuring no vacuum in executive authority. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Full five-year term for casual-vacancy VP — Unlike the US (where VP-successor serves only the remainder), India grants a completely fresh term to ensure stability. 2. No fixed statutory deadline — Art. 62 (President) specifies 'within 6 months'; Art. 68 uses only 'as soon as possible', reflecting the VP's comparatively limited executive role. 3. VP's primary role as Rajya Sabha Chairman — The Indian VP's main function is legislative (chairing Rajya Sabha), unlike the US VP's more integrated executive role, so the urgency calculus differs.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 28-29 December 1948 and 13 October 1949 (CAD Volume VII and Volume X) NOTE: Article 68 was originally part of Draft Article 55, clauses (5) and (6). The Drafting Committee later separated it into a standalone article. KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Explained that the VP's primary role is to preside over the Council of States; therefore, state legislatures need not participate in VP election, unlike the President. 2. Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras) — Questioned the use of the term 'proportional representation' for a single-candidate election under Draft Article 55. 3. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) — Moved amendment to delete 'proportional representation' from the VP election clause; argued it was a misnomer for single-seat elections. 4. Shri Mahavir Tyagi — Attempted to exclude the VP election from the purview of the Election Commission; was overruled by the President of the Assembly. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Electoral college composition — Some members wanted state legislatures included in VP election; Ambedkar opposed this, stating the VP's role is primarily legislative (Rajya Sabha Chairman), not executive. 2. Proportional representation terminology — Naziruddin Ahmad argued the term is inapplicable for single-seat elections; the Drafting Committee retained it. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 55(5)-(6) relating to VP vacancy was adopted without specific debate on those sub-clauses; the Drafting Committee later carved them out as Article 68. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: "The Vice-President's normal functions are merely 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 a President."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. N.B. Khare v. Election Commission of India (1957) — SC held that Art. 71(1) merely prescribes the forum (Supreme Court) for election disputes of President/VP; procedural conditions under the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 must still be satisfied. 2. In re Presidential Election (1974) — SC held that elections to fill vacancies caused by expiry of term must be completed before term ends, even if a state legislative assembly stands dissolved; vacancies in electoral college do not invalidate the election. 3. K. Prabhakaran v. Union of India (2008) — SC reaffirmed exclusive jurisdiction under Art. 71 to adjudicate Presidential and VP election disputes; no other authority can intervene. NOTABLE OBSERVATIONS: 1. Article 68(2) uses 'as soon as possible' without a fixed deadline — unlike Art. 62(2) which mandates 'within six months' for Presidential vacancies. This constitutional asymmetry has been noted by scholars and the NCRWC. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC, 2000-2002) — Reviewed election processes for high constitutional offices and recommended timely and efficient procedures. 2. D.D. Basu — Noted that the absence of a fixed timeline in Art. 68(2) gives the Election Commission necessary flexibility but creates potential for delay in filling the VP's office.