Compare the presidential succession mechanisms of the USA and India. Does the Indian model better safeguard democratic legitimacy?

In 1974, after Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford became the first US President to reach office through appointment. He had never been elected President or Vice-President [1]. India's Constitution rules this out because it treats a vacancy as a short bridge to a fresh election. The two designs weigh continuity against mandate differently.

Comparing the Succession Mechanisms

Aspect	USA	India
Successor	Vice-President becomes President (25th Amendment, s.1) [2]	Vice-President only acts as President (Art. 65) [3][4]
Duration	Rest of the four-year term	Until a new President is elected, within six months (Art. 62) [3]
VP vacancy	President nominates and both Houses confirm (s.2) [2]	Filled by election [3]
Double vacancy	Speaker, then President pro tempore (3 U.S.C. §19) [5]	Chief Justice of India, then senior-most SC judge (1969 Act, under Art. 70) [6]
New incumbent's term	Rest of predecessor's term	Full five years (Art. 62(2)) [3]

Does the Indian Model Better Safeguard Legitimacy?

Largely yes:

• No unelected President: from 1974 to 1977 the US had a President and a Vice-President (Rockefeller) whom no electorate had chosen for those offices [1][7]. In India, every full President comes from the electoral college, so this cannot happen [3].
• Short interim period: the six-month limit keeps acting arrangements brief [3].
• Neutral caretaker: in a double vacancy the CJI acts, not a partisan Speaker [5][6].

But there are qualifications:

• Inherited mandate: the US Vice-President is elected on the same ticket as the President. Congress's role in confirming a nominated Vice-President adds a representative check. Ford was confirmed 92–3 in the Senate and 387–35 in the House [7].
• Different stakes: the US President is the real executive, so seamless continuity matters. India's President acts on ministerial aid and advice (Art. 74), so a six-month interim carries little risk [3].
• Indirect choice: even India's "fresh mandate" comes from legislators, not directly from the people [3].

Overall, India puts a renewed mandate first and the US puts continuity first, and each choice suits its executive. The Indian model protects the office's democratic legitimacy better because it never lets an appointee serve out a full term. Pairing it with clear timelines and neutral caretakers reflects the Preamble's commitment to popular sovereignty.