2.4.4. Critical Analysis

The system of indirect election was criticized by some as falling short of the democratic ideal underlying universal franchise. But indirect election was supported by the framers of the Constitution, on the following grounds:

♤ Direct election by an electorate as large as in India, would mean a tremendous loss of time, energy and money.

♤ Under the system of responsible Government introduced by the Constitution, real power would vest in the Prime Minister, who heads the Council of Minister; so it would be anomalous to elect the President directly by the people without giving him real powers.

Some members of the Constituent Assembly suggested that the President should be elected by the members of the two Houses of Parliament alone. The makers of the Constitution did not prefer this as the Parliament, dominated by one political party, would have invariably chosen a candidate from that party and such a President could not represent the States of the Indian Union. The present system, on the other hand, makes the President a representative of the Union and the States equally.

Further, it was pointed out in the Constituent Assembly that the expression ‘proportional representation’ in the case of Presidential election is a misnomer. Proportional representation takes place where two or more seats are to be filled. In case of the President, the vacancy is only one. It could be better called a preferential or alternative vote system. Similarly, the expression ‘single transferable vote’ was also objected on the ground that no voter has a single vote; every voter has plural votes.