UPPSC 2024 Prelims GS Paper-I · Question 24 of 150

Correct — D, None of the above. Every one of the three items falls outside the Election Commission's mandate. Article 324(1) vests in the Commission 'the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President'. Read that list carefully: it covers elections *to* the Houses, not elections held *inside* them, and it stops at the State level. Item 1 fails because the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha are chosen by the House from among its own members under Article 93, and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha by that Council from among its members under Article 89(2); these are internal elections run under each House's own Rules of Procedure, with the date for the Speaker's election fixed by the President and for the Deputy Speaker's by the Speaker. The Commission has no part in them. Item 2 fails because municipal elections belong to a different constitutional body altogether: Article 243ZA vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Municipalities in the State Election Commission referred to in Article 243K (which does the same job for Panchayats). Item 3 fails twice over — first because the elections in items 1 and 2 are not the Commission's to begin with, and second because the Commission does not adjudicate the validity of any election. Disputes about the election of the President or Vice-President go to the Supreme Court under Article 71; elections to Parliament and the State legislatures can be questioned only by an election petition before the High Court under Article 329(b) read with the Representation of the People Act, 1951; and local-body elections can be questioned only by an election petition to the authority prescribed by State law under Articles 243-O and 243ZG. With all three items out, 'None of the above' is the only surviving option.

• (a)2 and 3 — Municipal and Municipal Corporation elections are conducted by the State Election Commission under Article 243ZA, not by the Election Commission of India — the two are separate constitutional authorities with separate appointing powers. And the Commission does not decide election disputes in any case.
• (b)1 and 2 — Both items are wrong. The presiding officers of the two Houses are elected by the Houses themselves under Articles 93 and 89(2), and local-body elections are the State Election Commission's charge under Articles 243K and 243ZA.
• (c)1 and 3 — Neither holds. The Election Commission of India runs elections *to* Parliament, to State legislatures and to the offices of President and Vice-President — not the in-House election of a Speaker — and adjudication of election disputes is a judicial function exercised by the Supreme Court or a High Court, not by the Commission.

India runs its elections through two distinct constitutional commissions. The Election Commission of India under Article 324 handles elections to the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, every State Legislative Assembly and Council, and the offices of President and Vice-President. The State Election Commission, created by Articles 243K (Panchayats) and 243ZA (Municipalities) through the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments of 1992, handles elections to rural and urban local bodies. Neither commission decides whether a completed election was valid — that is a judicial function, exercised by the Supreme Court for the President and Vice-President and by the High Courts for the legislatures.

The paper is testing whether a student can draw two boundary lines. The first separates 'elections to a House' from 'elections within a House'. The second separates the Union commission from the State commission. A third distinction is buried in item 3: running an election is an executive job, judging one is a judicial job. Where the Commission does exercise quasi-judicial power, it is over narrow, defined matters — under Articles 103 and 192 the President or Governor decides a sitting member's disqualification 'according to the opinion of the Election Commission', and that opinion is binding, while under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 the Commission decides disputes over splits and mergers of recognised parties. Neither of those amounts to deciding the validity of an election, so item 3 stays false. A small wording note: the question says 'Election Commissioner of India', but the constitutional body is the Election Commission of India, headed by the Chief Election Commissioner.

• Article 324(1) — the ECI's charge is elections to Parliament, to every State Legislature, and to the offices of President and Vice-President, together with the preparation of the electoral rolls for them.
• Article 93 — the Lok Sabha chooses its Speaker and Deputy Speaker from among its own members; Article 89(2) — the Rajya Sabha chooses its Deputy Chairman from among its members. The Vice-President is ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha under Article 64.
• Articles 243K and 243ZA (73rd and 74th Amendments, 1992) — superintendence, direction and control of Panchayat and Municipality elections vest in a State Election Commission, whose Commissioner is appointed by the Governor.
• Article 71 — doubts and disputes arising out of the election of the President or Vice-President are decided by the Supreme Court, whose decision is final; Article 329(b) with the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — legislature elections are challenged only by an election petition to the High Court.
• Where the ECI is quasi-judicial: Articles 103 and 192 (its opinion on a sitting member's disqualification binds the President or Governor) and the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (splits and mergers of recognised parties).

• Assuming that anything called an 'election' in India is the ECI's job. Local-body elections belong to the State Election Commission, and a Speaker's election belongs to the House.
• Confusing the ECI's binding opinion on a member's disqualification (Articles 103, 192) with a power to decide election disputes — the latter belongs to the courts.
• Forgetting the Article 71 / Article 329(b) split: presidential and vice-presidential election disputes go straight to the Supreme Court, legislature election disputes go to the High Court.

Both commissions phrase this as a list of tasks and ask which belong to the ECI, or as a one-liner — 'elections to the Panchayats are conducted by …'. The recurring discriminator in every version is that adjudication of election disputes is never the Commission's function.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is elected by:

  • (a)The Election Commission of India
  • (b)The members of the Rajya Sabha from among themselves
  • (c)The members of both Houses of Parliament at a joint sitting
  • (d)The President of India on the advice of the Prime Minister

  Answer(b) The members of the Rajya Sabha from among themselves — Article 89(2). The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is not elected by the House at all; the Vice-President holds that post ex officio under Article 64.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  All doubts and disputes arising out of the election of the President of India are inquired into and decided by:

  • (a)The Election Commission of India
  • (b)A joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament
  • (c)The Supreme Court of India
  • (d)The High Court of Delhi

  Answer(c) The Supreme Court of India — Article 71(1), and its decision is final. Election petitions against members of Parliament and State legislatures, by contrast, go to the High Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.