Author : P. Meenatchi, Government law college, Trichy.
To the Point:
The “One Nation, One Election” proposal seeks to hold elections to the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies at the same time, once every five years. The main objective is to streamline the electoral process, reduce public expenditure, and minimize the disruption caused by frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct. While the idea appears administratively convenient, it directly intersects with constitutional principles such as federalism, democratic decentralization, and the autonomy of states.
Under the current constitutional framework, the timing of state elections depends on the tenure of each legislative assembly, which is typically five years from the date of its first sitting (Article 172). Bringing all elections under a common timeline would require either early dissolution or extension of certain assemblies, raising concerns regarding violation of democratic mandates and popular sovereignty.
Furthermore, the Election Commission of India, which holds the constitutional responsibility for conducting free and fair elections under Article 324, would face significant legal challenges in executing simultaneous elections. The proposal, therefore, demands a deeper constitutional, administrative, and legal examination before implementation.
Abstract:
The concept of “One Nation, One Election” refers to the idea of conducting simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies. While the proposal is presented as a way to improve efficiency and reduce election-related expenditure, it raises important constitutional and legal concerns. Central to the debate are issues relating to the federal structure of the Indian Constitution, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the autonomy of state governments. Additionally, the practicality of synchronising elections across a vast and diverse nation like India is questioned. This article provides a constitutional analysis of the proposal by examining relevant provisions, judicial pronouncements, and the legal implications of implementing such a reform.
Use of Legal Jargon:
The concept of “One Nation, One Election” involves re-examining key constitutional provisions. According to Article 83(2) and Article 172, both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies are meant to function for five years, unless they are dissolved before completing their term. Any attempt to synchronize elections across the Union and states may necessitate amending these provisions through a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
The idea of separation of powers and the principle of federalism—both recognised as part of the Constitution’s basic structure in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment—are especially relevant in this context.Imposing a uniform electoral cycle could dilute the federal structure by undermining the autonomy of states to dissolve their assemblies.
Moreover, frequent elections serve as a means of ensuring political accountability, a principle embedded within the democratic fabric of the Constitution. Curtailing this mechanism, even for administrative convenience, might conflict with the spirit of representative democracy.
The Election Commission, under Article 324, is empowered to supervise, direct, and control the conduct of elections. However, simultaneous elections would significantly amplify its responsibilities, requiring large-scale deployment of personnel, infrastructure, and security arrangements across the country at once.
The Proof:
The idea of conducting simultaneous elections in India isn’t entirely new. It was the norm during the initial years after independence. Between 1951–52 and 1967, elections to both the Lok Sabha and various State Legislative Assemblies were conducted simultaneously, following a common electoral cycle. However, this cycle was disrupted due to early dissolutions of some legislative assemblies and the Lok Sabha, leading to staggered elections.
In recent years, the debate was revived when the Law Commission of India, in its 170th and 255th reports, explored the feasibility of simultaneous polls. The NITI Aayog also released a discussion paper in 2017 recommending the revival of the practice, citing benefits such as reducing election-related expenditure, minimizing the burden on administrative and security forces, and avoiding frequent disruption of governance.
The Election Commission of India has also stated that simultaneous elections are “desirable” but logistically challenging. It highlighted the need for massive resources, including electronic voting machines (EVMs), Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs), and trained personnel to carry out such a large-scale exercise.
Furthermore, a High-Level Committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind was constituted in 2023 to examine the constitutional and legal changes required for implementing simultaneous elections. The committee is expected to submit its report with a roadmap, which would then be subject to parliamentary debate and, possibly, judicial scrutiny.
Case laws:
1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
This case emphasized the importance of federalism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The Court held that the autonomy of State governments cannot be undermined by the Centre. In the context of One Nation, One Election, this decision becomes important because synchronizing elections might require curtailing or extending the term of State Assemblies, which could interfere with the federal balance established in the Constitution.
2. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
This case reinforced the principle that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Any reform that affects the electoral process such as holding simultaneous elections must ensure that it does not compromise the independence of elections or the rights of voters and candidates. This case acts as a reminder that electoral reforms must not override constitutional safeguards.
Conclusion:
The debate around One Nation One Election reflects the ongoing tension between the pursuit of administrative efficiency and the preservation of democratic diversity in a federal system. While the concept offers logistical and financial advantages, its real challenge lies in aligning with the constitutional structure of India, especially the autonomy of states and the fixed tenure of legislative bodies.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs) :
1. What does ‘One Nation, One Election’ mean?
It refers to the idea of conducting elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously, across the country, once every five years.
2.Does the Indian Constitution allow simultaneous elections?
The Constitution does not specifically prohibit it. But to implement it now, several constitutional and statutory amendments will be required, especially to Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356.
3.Has the idea been supported by any committees?
Yes. The Law Commission (2018) and the NITI Aayog (2017) have studied and recommended steps for implementing the idea, with due constitutional safeguards.
4. What are some challenges to implementing it?
Some of the main obstacles are the complex process of amending the Constitution, disagreements among political parties, the potential overuse of President’s Rule under Article 356, and concerns that national issues might dominate at the cost of local and state-level matters during joint elections.
5. Are there any global examples of simultaneous elections?
Countries like South Africa and Sweden hold simultaneous elections. However, their political and constitutional structures differ from India’s federal system.
