Part V: The Union

Chapter I: The Executive

Article 67: Term of Office of Vice-President

--- Original Article ---

The Vice-President shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office:
Provided that—

• (a) A Vice-President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;
• (b) A Vice-President may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council and agreed to by the House of the People; but no resolution for the purpose of this clause shall be moved unless at least fourteen days' notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution;
• (c) A Vice-President shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.

Article 67 of the Constitution of India

Article 67 outlines the term of office for the Vice-President, which is set for a fixed duration of five years. However, this provision allows for flexibility in extraordinary circumstances, such as resignation, removal, or continuation in office beyond the expiration of the term. The article safeguards the stability and continuity of the office by ensuring a seamless transition of responsibilities.

Clause Headings and Explanation:

1. Term of Office – Five Years

The Vice-President shall hold office for a term of five years from the date of entering office. This fixed term is intended to provide stability to the office and ensure that the Vice-President can perform their constitutional duties without frequent interruptions.

2. Resignation of Vice-President (Clause a)

The Vice-President may resign from office by submitting a written resignation to the President of India. This provision provides the Vice-President with the autonomy to voluntarily vacate the position when they deem it appropriate, recognizing the need for personal discretion in extraordinary situations.

3. Removal of Vice-President (Clause b)

The Constitution allows for the removal of the Vice-President by a resolution passed by the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) with a majority of all its members. This resolution must also be agreed to by the House of the People (Lok Sabha). Furthermore, a notice of at least fourteen days is required before the resolution is moved. This procedure ensures that the removal process is not taken lightly and involves a considered decision by both houses of Parliament.

4. Continuation Beyond Expiration of Term (Clause c)

Even if the Vice-President’s five-year term has expired, they are required to continue holding office until their successor assumes the role. This provision ensures there is no vacuum in the office, facilitating smooth governance and avoiding any disruption in the executive structure.

Amendments and Legislative Evolution:

There have been no specific amendments to Article 67. However, its importance has remained relevant over the years as it establishes a key aspect of India’s political stability.

Real-Life Example:

In 1967, Vice-President Zakir Husain’s term expired, but due to delays in electing a new Vice-President, he continued in office beyond his five-year term, as provided under Clause (c). This demonstrated how the article helps maintain continuity during transitional periods.

In 2007, Vice-President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat’s term ended. However, due to procedural delays, he continued to perform his duties until the newly elected Vice-President, Mohammad Hamid Ansari, took office. This real-world application highlights how Clause (c) ensures that no administrative vacuum exists during transitions.

Historical Significance

The drafting of Article 67 was influenced by the need to balance stability in executive positions while providing mechanisms for accountability. The procedure for the removal of the Vice-President mirrors the removal of other constitutional officers, ensuring that checks and balances remain in place in India’s parliamentary democracy.

References:

• Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VIII
• Cases related to constitutional offices, particularly the Rajya Sabha chairman’s role during transitions

Legislative History:

Article 67 of the Indian Constitution was extensively deliberated as Article 57 and was incorporated into the Indian Constitution on 29th December 1948.

Debates and Deliberations:

During the debates on Article 67, originally Article 57, members extensively discussed provisions for the Vice-President’s office. Prof. K. T. Shah proposed three clauses to enhance the role’s dignity: providing an official residence to shield the Vice-President from undue influence, securing a salary and allowances by law, and ensuring a retirement pension to avoid financial dependence on personal wealth. Shah emphasized that these measures would enable the Vice-President to fulfill duties without external pressures. He also advocated for defining the grounds for removal, citing constitutional violations, criminal convictions, incapacity, or corruption as justifications.

Shri H. V. Kamath pointed out ambiguities in the removal process, recommending a clearer majority requirement. He argued for replacing vague language with a specific phrase detailing the majority needed in both houses. Mr. Mohd. Tahir echoed this concern, suggesting that the resolution should reflect the active participation of those present in the Council of States. Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur proposed a two-thirds majority for removal, asserting that the Vice-President’s dual role as Rajya Sabha Chairperson and potential acting President necessitates a stringent removal process akin to that of the President.

Shri R. K. Sidhwa opposed Shah’s salary-related amendments, contending that parliamentary oversight was sufficient and warning that salary levels alone do not deter corruption. Mr. Tajamul Husain supported Shah, advocating for a stable salary, official residence, and pension, comparing the role’s dignity with that of the Lord Chancellor in England. Husain also endorsed broader grounds for removal, including reasons beyond incapacity.

Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava suggested mirroring the Speaker’s impeachment process for the Vice-President. However, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar opposed these amendments, noting that such specific provisions need not be enshrined in the Constitution. He emphasized that “want of confidence” adequately covered various misconducts, and he found the two-thirds majority unnecessary. Ambedkar underscored that current language sufficiently addresses any casual vacancies, urging acceptance of the article as drafted.

In these deliberations, members sought to clarify and enhance the Vice-President’s role, while Ambedkar maintained that flexibility and general language were essential to the office's stability and governance.