Author: Anshika Kumari, Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University
TO THE POINT
Definition:
A proposal to hold Lok Sabha and all State Assembly elections simultaneously, once every five years
Arguments in Favour (Boon)
1. Cost-Effective: Reduces massive expenditure on frequent elections.
2. Administrative Ease: Frees officials and security forces from constant election duties.
3. Policy Stability: Enables long-term governance plans without election disruptions.
4. Higher Turnout: Reduces voter fatigue; encourages more participation.
Arguments Against (Bane)
1. Hurts Federalism: May undermine regional parties and state autonomy.
2. Logistical Challenges: Huge scale makes simultaneous polling complex.
3. Skews Voter Behaviour: Voters may choose same party at state and national levels.
4. Mid-Term Instability: No clear plan if a state government collapses before term.
5. Dilution of Regional Issues: National topics could overshadow local concerns.
Conclusion:
A potential boon if implemented gradually with broad political consensus, but a bane if rushed without resolving federal and constitutional concerns.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Arguments in Favour (Boon)
1. Doctrine of Fiscal Prudence:
Recurrent elections impose an exorbitant financial burden on the Consolidated Fund of India and respective states. ONOE promotes economy of electoral expenditure.
2. Continuity of Executive Function:
Frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) leads to an administrative standstill. Simultaneous elections uphold the principle of uninterrupted governance and executive efficiency.
3. Minimization of Electoral Fatigue:
Voters and political parties alike experience election fatigue, which undermines electoral participation and the vibrancy of democracy.
4. Optimal Utilization of State Machinery:
Repeated deployment of security personnel, judicial officers, and civil servants under election requisition hampers the normal functioning of public administration.
5. Doctrine of Harmonization:
Synchronized polls ensure coherence between Centre and State policy frameworks, enhancing cooperative federalism.
Arguments Against (Bane)
1. Violation of Federal Supremacy Doctrine:
ONOE may infringe upon the autonomy of States, thereby tilting the federal balance in favor of the Union, contrary to Article 1 and the basic structure doctrine as interpreted in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India.
2. Constitutional Infirmity:
The terms of legislative assemblies under Article 172 and Lok Sabha under Article 83 are not uniform. Aligning them would require amendments to Articles 83, 172, 356, 85, and 174 — invoking the procedure under Article 368 (either by simple or special majority depending on provisions).
3. Doctrine of Free and Fair Elections:
Simultaneous elections may create coattail effects, wherein voters are influenced by national issues and personalities, distorting state-level electoral mandates and violating the principle of electoral autonomy.
4. Challenge of Mid-Term Dissolutions:
No viable framework exists to address premature dissolution of state legislatures or the Lok Sabha under Article 356 or due to loss of majority, raising questions on constitutional continuity.
5. Erosion of Regional Representation:
ONOE may suppress localized discourse, marginalize regional parties and undermine the pluralism enshrined in the Preamble and Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution.
THE PROOF
Amendments Required:
Articles 83, 172, 174, 356, and 324 must be amended—triggering Article 368 (Special Majority with States’ Ratification).
• Supreme Court Doctrines Referenced:
• Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973)
• Federal Supremacy Doctrine (S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994)
• Free and Fair Elections (PUCL v. Union of India, 2003)
• Election Commission’s Role:
Bound by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, cannot unilaterally alter election cycles.
ABSTRACT
The proposal of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) aims to synchronize elections to the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies in India. Advocates argue it would enhance governance efficiency, reduce electoral expenditure, and promote policy continuity. However, the proposal raises profound constitutional, legal, and federalist concerns, including potential violations of the Basic Structure Doctrine, challenges under Articles 83, 172, 174, and 356, and implications for voter behavior and democratic decentralization. This article critically evaluates the legal feasibility of ONOE through judicial precedents, constitutional provisions, and scholarly commentary. While ONOE may offer administrative advantages, its implementation requires bipartisan consensus, extensive constitutional amendments, and safeguards to preserve India’s pluralistic and federal democratic ethos. The paper concludes that ONOE, though administratively alluring, remains constitutionally contentious unless executed through a cautious, inclusive, and phased legal process.
CASE LAWS
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
Key Principle: Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine
Relevance: ONOE may violate the basic structure by disturbing the federal character, free and fair elections, and democratic governance, which cannot be altered even by a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Citation: AIR 1994 SC 1918
Key Principle: Reaffirmed Federalism as part of the Basic Structure
Relevance: Synchronizing state elections with national elections may undermine the autonomy of states, violating the federal principle.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)
Citation: AIR 2003 SC 2363
Key Principle: Right to vote includes right to information and independent electoral choice
Relevance: ONOE could lead to a coattail effect where national narratives overpower state-level choices, violating electoral autonomy.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Citation: AIR 1975 SC 2299
Key Principle: Judiciary must ensure electoral integrity and separation of powers
Relevance: Any attempt to restructure electoral timelines through statute or executive action (as in ONOE) is subject to judicial review.
“Electoral processes are part of constitutional governance and must follow due process.”
5. T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995)
Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1211
Key Principle: Empowered the Election Commission of India under Article 324
Relevance: Although the ECI supervises elections, it cannot alter or synchronize terms of legislatures — such actions require constitutional amendment.
“ECI is a constitutional authority but not above constitutional limitations.”
6. R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (1994)
Citation: AIR 1994 SC 963
Key Principle: Representation and electoral mechanisms must respect regional identities
Relevance: ONOE could suppress regional issues in favor of national narratives, which contradicts the constitutional principle of democratic diversity.
“Unity must not come at the cost of diversity in representation.”
7. Union of India v. Harish Chandra Rawat (2016)
Citation: (2016) 7 SCC 340
Key Principle: Preservation of state legislative stability
Relevance: ONOE must consider mid-term dissolutions and ensure that state assemblies cannot be held hostage to national timelines.
CONCLUSION
The concept of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) presents an ambitious electoral reform with potential administrative and financial benefits, such as cost savings, streamlined governance, and reduced electoral fatigue. However, its implementation raises serious constitutional, legal, and federal concerns. It necessitates multiple constitutional amendments, particularly to Articles 83, 172, 174, 356, and 324, and must withstand scrutiny under the Basic Structure Doctrine as laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
The Election Commission of India lacks the constitutional authority to align electoral cycles independently, and voter behavior may be unduly influenced, compromising electoral fairness as emphasized in PUCL v. Union of India.
Therefore, while ONOE may be a boon in principle, its execution without broad-based political consensus and judicial endorsement could render it a constitutional bane. A phased or partially synchronized model, supported by stakeholder consultation, judicial safeguards, and respect for India’s federal structure, is the only viable path forward.
FAQS
1. What is ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE)?
It is a proposed electoral reform aiming to hold simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies across India. The objective is to reduce election frequency, expenses, and administrative disruptions
2. Is ‘One Nation, One Election’ constitutionally permissible?
Not without constitutional amendments. Articles 83, 172, 174, 356, and others would require modification through Article 368.
3. What are the benefits of ONOE?
• Reduces electoral expenditure
• Minimizes disruption due to Model Code of Conduct
• Enables stable governance
• Streamlines public administration
• May increase voter turnout.
4. What are the risks or criticisms of ONOE?
• Undermines federalism (as held in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India)
• Difficult to handle mid-term dissolutions
• May influence voter behavior unfairly (PUCL v. Union of India, 2003)
• Requires massive logistical infrastructure
• Suppresses regional issues in favor of national agenda
5. What constitutional provisions are most affected by ONOE?
• Article 83 & 172 – Duration of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies
• Article 356 – President’s Rule and its electoral implications
• Article 324 – Powers of Election Commission
• Article 368 – Amendment process required
6. How would ONOE impact regional parties?
ONOE may marginalize regional voices by overemphasizing national issues and personalities, which could distort electoral choices at the state level. This weakens India’s pluralistic democracy.
7. Is there a middle path between status quo and full ONOE?
Yes. Experts suggest phased or cluster-based synchronization, where elections are aligned regionally over 2–3 cycles, maintaining federal balance while reducing election load.
8. What is the current legal status of ONOE?
The government has formed high-level committees (e.g., headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind) to examine feasibility. However, no Bill has been passed, and no constitutional amendment has occurred as of now.
