Author: Ishika Sharma, Lords University
Abstract
“One Nation, One Election” envisions simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies across India. This proposal is based on the goal of reducing electoral spending, increasing administrative efficiency, and ensuring policy continuity. Although India held simultaneous elections in its early years, political instability and premature dissolutions hampered this harmony. The government’s revival of this concept, particularly through the High-Level Committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, has reignited debates about its viability and desirability. The concept has several advantages, including cost savings and less governance disruption, but it also faces significant constitutional, logistical, and federal challenges. This article examines the historical evolution, legal framework, benefits, criticisms, relevant case laws, and comparative international practices of simultaneous elections. It concludes by proposing a road map for implementation that balances democratic ideals with practical concerns.
Introduction
The debate over the synchronization of general and state elections, encapsulated by the phrase “One Nation, One Election,” has heated up in India’s political and legal circles. Proponents argue that frequent elections disrupt governance, increase public spending, and divide national attention. They argue that holding simultaneous elections would bring about stability, policy consistency, and economic prudence. However, critics warn that such a shift could jeopardize the federal structure and the principle of accountability enshrined in periodic elections. Given that India remains the world’s largest democracy, any electoral reform must be evaluated not only in terms of efficiency, but also in terms of constitutionalism and democratic vibrancy.
Historical Background
Historically, simultaneous elections were the norm in India. The first four general elections (1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967) were held concurrently for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. However, this synchronization was hampered by a number of factors, the most significant of which were political instability and the dissolution of legislatures at both the national and state levels. In the post-1967 era, the rise of coalition politics, frequent imposition of President’s Rule, and premature government collapses resulted in asynchronous electoral cycles. In its 170th Report in the late 1990s, the Law Commission advocated for the return of simultaneous elections. In recent times, in 2018, the NITI Aayog released a discussion paper in support of this reform, and the Government of India established a High-Level Committee in 2023 to investigate its viability. These developments highlight the idea’s growing institutional support.
Rationale Behind One Nation, One Election
Economic efficiency is one of the primary motivations for the proposal. Elections in India are costly undertakings. The 2019 Lok Sabha elections were reported to cost over ₹60,000 crores, making them the most expensive in Indian history. This financial burden is exacerbated by the frequency with which state elections take place throughout the year. Simultaneous elections would save money on logistics, security, and manpower deployment. Administratively, such elections would ensure that civil servants and police officers are not diverted from their developmental duties for extended periods of time.
Another compelling argument is the continuity of governance. The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is frequently enforced, which impedes policy decisions, delays development projects, and limits budgetary spending. Elections at regular intervals would allow governments to function without frequent policy stalemates.
Furthermore, electoral populism, which frequently results in irrational giveaways or short-term measures to woo voters, may be limited in a consolidated electoral environment. Another potential advantage is increased voter turnout. A single, well-publicized election cycle may result in increased turnout, especially in rural and remote areas.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
The Indian Constitution does not currently mandate simultaneous elections. However, certain provisions establish the framework within which any such reform must operate. Article 83(2) establishes a five-year term for the Lok Sabha, unless dissolved earlier. Similarly, Article 172(1) establishes the five-year term of state legislative assemblies. Article 324 empowers the Election Commission to hold free and fair elections. However, the flexibility of terms, premature dissolutions, and the federal nature of Indian politics make synchronization difficult. To implement simultaneous elections, several constitutional amendments would be required, particularly to Articles 83, 172, 356 (regarding President’s Rule), and possibly the Representation of People Act of 1951.
Furthermore, under Article 368(2), certain amendments would have to be ratified by at least half of the states because they would affect the federal structure. Thus, the constitutional path to simultaneous elections is not only procedural, but also deeply political, necessitating extensive consensus-building.
Challenges to Implementation
Running concurrent elections presents major difficulties beyond mere logistics. The first hurdle is the constitutional amendment process. Aligning the terms of various legislative bodies, some of which may be midterm, necessitates either reducing or extending their tenure, raising concerns about democratic legitimacy. Extending terms without new mandates may be perceived as undemocratic, whereas state governments may oppose curtailments. Second, concerns about federalism loom large. India’s political system is quasi-federal, with states enjoying autonomy in governance. A standardized electoral cycle could be interpreted as an infringement on their sovereignty. Political opponents frequently argue that centralized elections would lead to the nationalization of state issues, undermining regional voices.
Conducting simultaneous elections across the country would necessitate a massive deployment of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), security personnel, and polling staff. The Election Commission has expressed concerns about whether the current infrastructure can handle such a massive exercise. Furthermore, from a democratic standpoint, frequent elections provide a continuous mechanism of accountability. They keep political parties on their toes and open to public opinion. Synchronization can result in extended periods of political impunity, reducing electoral responsiveness and weakening democratic checks.
Relevant Case Laws
Judicial interpretations of democratic and federal principles in India shed light on how simultaneous elections could be legally scrutinized.
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court established that federalism is an essential feature of the Constitution. Any attempt to impose uniform electoral cycles on states must meet the basic structure test.
In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651, the Supreme Court upheld the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection legislation), emphasizing the significance of stable governments. This judgment is relevant to the proposal’s goal of ensuring political stability.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975 Supp SCC 1, the Supreme Court established free and fair elections as part of the fundamental structure, stating that electoral reforms must be consistent with democratic values.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399 emphasized the importance of voter empowerment and transparency, stating that any electoral reform must ensure informed and participatory voting.
These decisions collectively demonstrate that, while electoral reforms are permissible, they must not violate federalism or the core democratic ethos.
Comparative Analysis with Other Countries
Several countries around the world hold synchronized elections, despite having different political structures. South Africa, for example, holds national and provincial elections concurrently every five years. Sweden uses a similar model, holding general and local elections concurrently. Germany, while not fully synchronized, aligns the majority of its state (Länder) elections with federal elections. In contrast to India’s federal system, these countries use centralized or unitary governance models. Furthermore, countries such as the United States have separate electoral cycles for federal and state legislatures, which respects state autonomy. As a result, while international models provide useful reference points, they cannot be fully implemented in the Indian context. India’s diversity, size, and political pluralism necessitate a tailored response.
Proposed Framework for Implementation
A phased approach could be used to achieve synchronized elections without jeopardizing constitutional values. One model involves dividing the country into two groups of states, with one group holding elections in one cycle and the other in another, effectively reducing the number of election cycles to two every five years.
Another option is to have fixed terms for legislatures, with mid-term elections only permitted in exceptional circumstances such as a no-confidence vote or a constitutional breakdown. However, such a model would necessitate legal safeguards, as well as possible constitutional amendments. Assembly terms could also be synchronized by extending or shortening current terms in a single transitional adjustment. The transition requires political consensus and public consultation. Mechanisms to protect state autonomy, such as shielding state subjects from the influence of central electoral mandates, must also be implemented. The Election Commission must be empowered and prepared to handle the increased scale of operations. Adequate public awareness campaigns, EVM procurement, personnel training, and security arrangements must all be carefully planned ahead of time.
Role of Election Commission and Law Commission
Both the Law Commission and the Election Commission have been key advocates for electoral reform. The 170th Law Commission Report (1999) recommended simultaneous elections, subject to constitutional amendments and consensus. In its 2016 Status Paper, the Election Commission recognized the benefits of synchronization while cautioning against logistical and legal challenges. It also emphasized the importance of political consensus and parliamentary debates. The NITI Aayog discussion paper (2018) echoed these sentiments, proposing a gradual transition and a legal road map for implementation. Thus, while institutional support exists, its realization necessitates legislative and executive action.
Political and Public Discourse
The political debate surrounding One Nation, One Election is extremely polarized. The ruling party sees it as a revolutionary step toward greater electoral efficiency, national integration, and policy continuity. They argue that it would allow governments to focus on governance rather than constant campaigning. Opposition parties, on the other hand, claim that the proposal is a veiled attempt to consolidate power at the national level while weakening regional parties. They warn that synchronized elections may result in a preference for national issues over regional concerns, reducing the voice of smaller states and parties. Civil society is still divided. Some commentators believe that the reform will increase political maturity and reduce divisive electoral rhetoric. Others believe it will reduce dissent and democratic dynamism.
Conclusion
“One Nation, One Election” is a bold proposal to restructure India’s electoral system for greater efficiency, stability, and governance quality. However, the road to its realization is fraught with constitutional, administrative, and political obstacles. While the idea is not inherently anti-democratic, its implementation must adhere to India’s federal structure and democratic principles. A phased approach, pilot testing, widespread stakeholder consultation, and bipartisan agreement are required. The ultimate goal must be to strengthen India’s democratic fabric through well-reasoned, inclusive reforms, rather than to achieve uniformity for its own sake. Simultaneous elections, if done correctly, could usher in a new chapter in India’s democratic journey.
FAQS
What is the concept behind One Nation, One Election?
It refers to holding elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies at the same time, once every five years, rather than conducting separate elections throughout the year.
Is One Nation, One Election still practiced in India?
No, India currently has separate election cycles for the Lok Sabha and each State Assembly. The country did, however, hold simultaneous elections for the first two decades after its independence.
What are the primary challenges to implementing One Nation, One Election?
The most significant challenges include the need for constitutional amendments, achieving political consensus, logistical readiness, and concerns about undermining federalism and regional representation.
