Author : M.Gomathi, Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Pudupakkam.
To the point
The idea of One Nation, One Election seeks to synchronize the electoral process for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. Currently, elections are held frequently across states, which leads to excessive expenditure, governance delays, and heavy use of administrative machinery. A common election cycle could help in saving public funds, lessen the pressure on security forces, and allow leaders to concentrate more on governance and policy-making instead of continuous campaigning. It may also enhance voter participation and bring greater stability to the democratic process. On the other hand, certain hurdles remain. Constitutional amendments are necessary to match the tenure of Parliament and State Assemblies. Situations like mid-term dissolutions may create legal and political complications. Critics further caution that the system could weaken regional representation and centralize authority. In sum, One Nation, One Election promises efficiency and stability but requires legal changes, political consensus, and protection of federal values.
Use of legal jargon
The principle of One Nation, One Election advocates conducting simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies. Its objective is to curb escalating electoral expenditure, reduce the institutional and administrative strain, and secure uninterrupted governance. This reform is also projected to restrict the misuse of state apparatus during recurring polls, thereby safeguarding the spirit of free and fair elections. Yet, its realization calls for major constitutional restructuring, particularly concerning Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356. The initiative has invited debate on its implications for federalism, multiparty democracy, and possible concentration of power. Hence, while the reform aspires to achieve efficiency and stability, it requires parliamentary consensus and adequate legal protections to maintain democratic equilibrium.
The proof
The concept of One Nation, One Election derives legitimacy from multiple authoritative reports and institutional recommendations. The Law Commission of India (2018), in its draft working paper, observed that staggered elections result in “excessive financial outflow, overutilization of security forces, and governance slowdown.” Along similar lines, the NITI Aayog Discussion Paper (2017) underlined that synchronized polls could substantially reduce public expenditure by cutting down costs on logistics, personnel deployment, and administrative arrangements. Further, the Election Commission of India has consistently maintained that back-to-back elections overburden central armed police forces and interrupt governance due to frequent enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. Parliamentary deliberations also indicate that a uniform electoral cycle could prevent misuse of state resources, discourage short-term populist schemes, and encourage greater voter engagement. From a constitutional perspective, provisions under Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356 regulate legislative tenure. With appropriate amendments, these articles can be harmonized to enable concurrent elections. Hence, both institutional findings and constitutional mechanisms reinforce the practicability of this electoral reform.
Abstract
The concept of One Nation, One Election seeks to bring about a major shift in India’s electoral framework by aligning the election schedules of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. At present, the practice of holding elections at different times places a heavy burden on public finances, stretches administrative resources, and repeatedly interrupts governance due to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. A unified electoral cycle is projected to lower costs, ensure efficient deployment of security forces, improve voter engagement, and allow governments to function without frequent disruptions.
Nonetheless, the proposal encounters serious hurdles. It would require wide-ranging constitutional revisions under Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356, along with consensus among political stakeholders. Detractors argue that such synchronization may weaken federal principles, marginalize regional parties, and create uncertainty in situations of premature dissolutions.
Therefore, One Nation, One Election embodies both promise and challenge. While it offers efficiency and stability, its success rests on legal safeguards and cooperative political will.
Case laws
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is regarded as a turning point in Indian constitutional history. A bench of 13 judges, the largest ever, examined whether Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 was absolute. By a narrow 7–6 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that although Parliament possesses extensive authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot modify or abolish its basic structure. Fundamental principles such as judicial review, federal balance, rule of law, and separation of powers were held to be beyond alteration. The decision established the Basic Structure Doctrine, creating a safeguard against constitutional misuse. This precedent continues to guide constitutional reforms in India and is highly relevant to evaluating proposals like One Nation, One Election.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The S.R. Bommai judgment is a seminal case on the use of Article 356, which permits the imposition of President’s Rule in states. The matter arose after several state governments were dismissed, raising questions about potential misuse of central authority. A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the President’s proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial scrutiny and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The Court affirmed that federalism is a core feature of the Constitution, protecting the autonomy of elected state governments. It established that state governments cannot be dismissed without valid constitutional grounds. This ruling placed significant limits on central intervention, ensuring the balance of power between the Union and States and safeguarding democratic governance at the state level.
Conclusion
The vision of One Nation, One Election reflects an ambitious attempt to transform India’s electoral process. By merging the election timelines of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, the proposal seeks to curb rising electoral expenditure, streamline the use of administrative and security machinery, and provide governments with greater continuity to implement long-term policies. It also promises to reduce the frequent interruptions of governance caused by the Model Code of Conduct and could enhance voter participation across the country. However, its implementation remains challenging. The reform would require comprehensive constitutional amendments, consensus among diverse political stakeholders, and clear mechanisms to deal with premature dissolutions or unstable governments. Detractors caution that simultaneous elections may weaken regional representation and tilt the balance of power toward the Centre. In essence, while the reform aspires to bring efficiency, stability, and democratic strength, its success depends on inclusive dialogue, strong legal safeguards, and respect for federal principles before it can become a practical reality.
FAQS
1. What does One Nation, One Election signify?
It refers to the idea of conducting elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies at the same time.
2. Why has this idea been suggested?
The aim is to reduce election-related expenditure, ease the workload on administrative machinery, and allow smoother governance without repeated interruptions.
3. What constitutional steps are necessary?
Amendments to provisions such as Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356 would be required, along with parliamentary approval.
4. What obstacles stand in its way?
Issues like premature dissolution of legislatures, safeguarding federal principles, and building political consensus pose significant challenges.
5. How might it affect federalism?
Some critics believe it could dilute the influence of regional parties and tilt power toward the Centre.
6. What advantages could voters see?
It may boost voter turnout, minimize election fatigue, and strengthen democratic efficiency.
