Author: Akhilendra Singh, Symbiosis Law School, Noida
To the Point
The enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct has single-handedly changed the shape of India’s election calendar. This has sparked a cycle of multiple elections that strain resources and raise costs while frequently obstructing governance. The objective of One Nation One Election is to restore sync, which was last seen in 1967 when several assembly dissolutions led to the staggered polling. Supporters believe it will enable stable governance, reduced election spending, and shift the focus from campaigning to actual governance. Those against it argue that imposing uniform schedules on states with disparate political scenarios and goals threatens the Federal structure of India. For the ONOE to work, it needs to balance the political objectives with constitutional democracy that India is built upon.
Abstract
Designed to reduce policy gridlock and control government spending, “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) seeks to align the election schedule for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies for a unified voting period. Despite garnering some political support, the concept faces severe constitutional and legal challenges regarding the basic structure doctrine, chief constitutional features of the country, the federal structure, and the tenure of the legislature. This essay analyzes the viability of ONOE and India’s democratic integrity through a historical lens that includes constitutional provisions, legal principles, pivotal case law, and political debates to answer whether this bold reform is a strengthening fortification or a weakening threat to India’s federal framework.
Use of Legal Jargon
One Nation, One Election controversy is centered on core constitutional principles and provisions necessary to India’s democracy. Federalism, recognized as a core part of the Constitution in SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), guarantees the states the autonomy to operate their legislatures. It would require amending the terms of state assemblies or Lok Sabha, as directed by Article 172(1) and Article 83(2), respectively, to align elections. If the articles are amended to coincide with the elections, assemblies would be prematurely dissolved or the terms would be prolonged, both of which have the potential of violating constitutional mandates. These articles prescribe the five-year term of the respective houses unless earlier dissolved.In addition to this, the procedure for amendment of the Constitution is laid down in Article 368. Any reform that alters federalism or legislative tenures must be approved by at least half of the states and passed by both chambers of parliament with a special majority, according to Article 368(2). This rigorous approach highlights the legal hurdles of implementing ONOE.
Reforms to election timetables and procedures would also require substantial alterations to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), the legislation regulating election conduct. Synchronization of elections that disregards these provisions can be challenged constitutionally for violating the doctrine of separation of powers, which prohibits the government from interfering in legislative matters without justification.
India’s successful record of holding simultaneous elections between 1951 and 1967 is evidence in support of ONOE. But the collapse of this system due to events like the Kerala Assembly’s premature dissolution in 1959 and the political instability that followed in other states during the 1960s illustrates how fragile synchronization can be. The enormous economic cost of a number of elections is indicated in the 2019 Lok Sabha election itself, which had exceeded ₹60,000 crores spent by stakeholders, as per recent figures released by the Election Commission of India. Besides, the reports of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice (2015) and the Law Commission of India (2018) refer to the potential benefits of ONOE but clearly mention that it would require exceptional political will and properly drafted legal frameworks to apply it without contravening constitutional norms.
The Proof
The argument for One Nation, One Election (ONOE) is well-supported by administrative, economic, and historical data. From 1951 to 1967, India held simultaneous elections for the first time. This system reduced the strain on administrative resources while maintaining electoral harmony. However, the synchronized electoral period sustained by contiguous terms came to an end due to the premature dissolution of state assembly constituencies like Kerala in 1959 and later politically chaotic events in other states during the late 1960’s. Given India’s shift to a near perennial elections system, states and the central government often find themselves in perpetual election mode. As noted by the ECI, the 2019 Lok Sabha election alone cost the exchequer and stakeholders close to ₹60,000 crores, drawing significant attention towards the excessively high expenditure incurred due to frequent elections. Additionally, the ECI states that every major election in India sidelines almost 10% of the country’s security personnel, diverting them from critical functions such as border patrol and the maintenance of internal security. The frequent enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which restricts governments from announcing new plans or policy decisions during election periods, compounding these mobilizations strain the administrative system and suspend developmental initiatives.
As per the 2015 report published by Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, it was suggested that ONOE could greatly reduce election costs while allowing governments to focus on administration unimpeded by incessant interruptions. Another point of concern by the committee was the strain placed on local governance, societal violence, as well as the multiservice mobility of security personnel as a result of repetitive election cycles as chronic social disturbances. In its 2018 draft report, the 21st Law Commission of India recognized the benefits of holding simultaneous elections while also emphasizing the significant legal and logistical challenges involved. The commission observed that to align the elections, some assemblies would have to either have their terms lengthened or shortened, which could not be done without amending Articles 83 and 172 of the Constitution.
The research also pointed out that the logistics of conducting simultaneous elections in a country with over 900 million voters and more than 4,000 assembly constituencies would require unparalleled administrative coordination. Established in 2023, the Kovind Committee compiled the views and insights from several political leaders, former election commissioners, and constitutional law experts. While there was consensus on the theoretical advantages posed by ONOE, overwhelming state-level party and constitutional expert opposition was noted.
Moreover, studies done by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) disclose to some extent how the staggered elections and their associated political campaigning costs surge due to rampant corruption, illicit funding, and corporate sponsor overreach. These findings reinforce the idea that reducing campaign finance necessities would make synchronized elections less exploitable.Therefore, there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that while there may be an opportunity for administrative and financial efficiency, there are also constitutional and practical considerations that should be called ONOE’s core issues. Such evidence encompasses historical election schedule records, economic data from the ECI, findings from parliamentary committees and legal bodies like the Law Commission.
Case Laws
S.R Bommai V. Union of India (1994)
Established that the Constitution’s fundamental framework of federalism limits Parliament’s ability to weaken state authority.
2. Union of India V. Association of Democratic Reforms (2002)
Highlighted how free and fair elections depend on the right to know about candidates, a value that ONOE must respect.
3. Indira Nehru Gandhi V. Raj Narain (1975)
Urged against changes that compromise electoral integrity and acknowledged free and fair elections as a fundamental component of democracy.
Conclusion
While One Nation, One Election intends to streamline governance by reducing election-related expenses and their frequency, it runs into significant legal and constitutional hurdles. The core of India’s constitutional framework rests on a federal equilibrium, allowing states the discretion to activate or deactivate their legislatures based on their unique political context. Attempts at imposing synchronized schedules risk breaching Articles 83 and 172, which grant fixed legislative tenures, compress diverse electoral cycles, and erode regional representation. Additionally, a considerable challenge lies in the need to change the Constitution under Article 368 which requires an approval from half the states along with special majorities in Parliament. The potential ONOE legal disputes threaten the very democratic principles it seeks to bolster, aims to achieve if there’s no consensus among political parties and state administrations. To safeguard the fundamentals of India’s political architecture from being altered due to ONOE, any steps taken must prioritize the core tenets of the Constitution which include federalism, democracy, as well as free and fair elections.India may regard synchronizing elections as a legitimate democratic revolution rather than a possible constitutional overreach if it engages in candid discussions, transparent debate, and respect for constitutional values.
FAQS
1. Why did India cease staging simultaneous elections after 1967?
From 1951 until 1967, simultaneous elections were commonplace; however, the alignment was broken by the early dissolution of several state assemblies, such as Kerala’s in 1959. The staggered electoral system that exists now is the result of political instability in the late 1960s that caused assemblies and the Lok Sabha to become out of sync. Successive governments were unable to restore the original schedule.
2. What constitutional amendments are necessary to implement One Nation, One Election?
It would be necessary to change Article 83(2) and Article 172(1) to modify the tenure of legislatures in order to bring the terms of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies into alignment. According to Article 368, such revisions must be approved by at least half of India’s state legislatures and have a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. In order to update election schedules and processes, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, would also need to be amended.
3. Could simultaneous elections be implemented without amending the constitution?
It would be necessary to change Article 83(2) and Article 172(1) to modify the tenure of legislatures in order to bring the terms of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies into alignment. According to Article 368, such revisions must be approved by at least half of India’s state legislatures and have a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. In order to update election schedules and processes, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, would also need to be amended.
4. Would One Nation, One Election violate the federal structure of the constitution?
Critics contend that ONOE runs the potential of weakening India’s federal system, which is a fundamental aspect acknowledged in SR Bommai. Since every state may have different political circumstances that call for different election schedules, forcing states to follow a single electoral calendar could reduce their autonomy. The spirit of cooperative federalism could be undermined by any attempt to coordinate elections without taking these distinctions into account.
5. What practical challenges exist even if legal amendments are made?
Even with constitutional changes, there are still practical difficulties, such as handling logistical issues like making sure security personnel are available in every state at the same time, addressing regional issues without letting national campaigns overshadow them, and developing strong administrative systems to hold simultaneous elections for more than 4,000 assembly constituencies and 543 Lok Sabha seats. A major barrier is still the lack of political agreement among the many regional parties, who frequently reject ONOE out of concern for their dominance.
