Author:- Nenavath. Shiva
College:- Keshav memorial college of law
To the Point
The concept of “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE), also known as simultaneous elections, proposes aligning the election cycles of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies so that elections are conducted together. Under this system, voters would cast their ballots for both levels of government on the same day in their respective constituencies, although polling may still be conducted in phases across the country.
According to NITI Aayog, “In the last 30 years, there has not been a single year without an election to either a State Assembly or Lok Sabha or both.” Frequent elections result in the repeated enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, preventing governments from announcing new projects, development works, or policy decisions until elections are completed. Proponents of ONOE argue that this creates policy paralysis and interrupts governance.
India successfully conducted simultaneous elections from 1951–52 until 1967. However, premature dissolution of State Legislative Assemblies during 1968 and 1969, followed by the early dissolution and extension of Lok Sabha terms, disrupted the electoral cycle. To restore synchronized elections, the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 proposes constitutional amendments and alignment of the tenure of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
Use of Legal Jargon
The proposal involves constitutional amendments affecting Articles 83(2), 172, 75(3), 164(2), 356, 324A and 325 of the Constitution of India. It concerns constitutional supremacy, parliamentary democracy, collective responsibility, federalism, basic structure doctrine, legislative tenure, premature dissolution, constitutional amendment, Model Code of Conduct, Election Commission of India, President’s Rule, equality before law under Article 14, electoral synchronization, legislative assemblies, constitutional governance, democratic accountability, and federal balance.
The Proof
The Constitution provides under Article 83(2) that the LokSabha shall continue for five years unless dissolved earlier. Similarly, Article 172 provides that every State Legislative Assembly shall continue for five years unless dissolved earlier. Article 75(3) states that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People, while Article 164(2) extends the same principle to the State Legislative Assemblies.
The concept of simultaneous elections is not new to India. Following the adoption of the Constitution, elections to the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies were conducted simultaneously in 1951–52, 1957, 1962 and 1967.
The synchronized electoral cycle was disrupted after the premature dissolution of several State Assemblies during 1968 and 1969. Subsequently, the Fourth Lok Sabha was dissolved early, while the Fifth Lok Sabha’s tenure was extended until 1977 during the Emergency proclaimed under Article 352. Since then, only a few Lok Sabhas have completed their full five-year tenure, while several others have been dissolved before completing their constitutional term. Similar premature dissolutions also affected State Legislative Assemblies, resulting in staggered elections across the country.
The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 seeks to restore simultaneous elections. The Bill empowers the President to notify an appointed date after the first sitting of the Lok Sabha following a general election. The tenure of State Assemblies constituted thereafter shall expire with the expiry of that Lok Sabha, thereby synchronizing electoral cycles.
To examine the feasibility of ONOE, the Government constituted a High-Level Committee under the chairmanship of former President Ram Nath Kovind. Other members included Amit Shah, Arjun Ram Meghwal, Ghulam NabiAzad, N.K. Singh, Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap, Harish Salve, and Sanjay Kothari. The Committee submitted its reportcontaining pages of 18,626 to President Droupadi Murmu on 14 March 2024.
The Committee recommended fixing an “Appointed Date” after the upcoming general elections to begin a synchronized electoral cycle from 2029. It recommended eighteen constitutional amendments, particularly amendments to Articles 83 and 172. It further proposed amendments to Articles 324A and 325 for simultaneous elections to Panchayats and Municipalities and for preparation of a common electoral roll with the assistance of State Election Commissions.
The Committee also obtained legal opinions from four former Chief Justices of India, three former Chief Justices of High Courts, and one former Chief Election Commissioner. According to the Law Ministry, approximately eighty-one percent of the 21,558 public responses supported the proposal. Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar stated that the Election Commission is prepared to conduct simultaneous elections subject to legal provisions.
Supporters argue that simultaneous elections would significantly reduce election expenditure, minimize administrative burden, reduce deployment of security forces, improve governance by limiting interruptions caused by the Model Code of Conduct, prevent policy paralysis, reduce voter fatigue, increase administrative efficiency, reduce judicial disputes arising from frequent elections, and allow governments to devote greater attention to governance and development.
However, several constitutional and practical challenges remain. Aligning the tenure of all State Assemblies with the Lok Sabha requires either extension or curtailment of existing legislative terms. If a government loses a vote of confidence before completion of its tenure, conducting fresh elections without disturbing the synchronized cycle presents a major constitutional challenge. Furthermore, dissolving State Assemblies merely to synchronize elections may conflict with constitutional provisions governing legislative tenure.
Several opposition parties have opposed the proposal, arguing that it would adversely affect regional political parties, reduce governmental accountability, weaken India’s federal structure, and encourage excessive concentration of power. Critics have also argued that repeated opportunities for public accountability through periodic elections are an essential feature of parliamentary democracy.
Former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has expressed constitutional concerns before the Joint Parliamentary Committee examining the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill. He observed that Clause 5 of proposed Article 82A grants the Election Commission of India unfettered discretion to postpone State Assembly elections even where general elections are scheduled. According to him, such provisions may undermine federalism, violate Article 14 guaranteeing equality before law, and indirectly facilitate the imposition of President’s Rule, thereby permitting the Union Government to exercise greater control over State Governments.
Similar constitutional concerns have also been expressed by former Chief Justices of India including U.U. Lalit, J.S. Khehar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ranjan Gogoi regarding the need to preserve constitutional safeguards, democratic accountability and the federal balance while considering electoral reforms.
Abstract
One Nation, One Election seeks to conduct simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies throughout India. The proposal aims to reduce election expenditure, improve governance, eliminate repeated enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, and ensure administrative efficiency. The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 provides the constitutional framework for implementing synchronized elections through amendments to Articles 83, 172 and other related provisions. The proposal is supported on grounds of efficiency, financial savings and policy continuity. At the same time, it raises significant constitutional concerns relating to federalism, legislative tenure, democratic accountability, equality before law and the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, any implementation of simultaneous elections must ensure that constitutional principles are preserved while pursuing electoral reform.
Case Laws
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
The Supreme Court held that although Parliament possesses wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure. Principles such as democracy, federalism, constitutional supremacy and free and fair elections form part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Any constitutional amendment implementing One Nation, One Election must therefore satisfy the Basic Structure Doctrine.
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
The Supreme Court held that federalism forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that Article 356 cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The judgment emphasized constitutional governance and democratic accountability. The decision is relevant because synchronization of State Assembly terms must remain consistent with federal principles and constitutional limitations.
Conclusion
One Nation, One Election represents one of the most significant constitutional reform proposals in contemporary India. While simultaneous elections may reduce expenditure, improve administrative efficiency and minimize policy paralysis caused by frequent elections, implementation requires substantial constitutional amendments and careful protection of India’s federal structure and parliamentary democracy. The proposal must balance efficiency with constitutional values, legislative autonomy, democratic accountability and the basic structure of the Constitution. Any reform should strengthen rather than weaken constitutional governance and public confidence in the democratic process.
FAQ
Q1. What is One Nation, One Election?
A. It is the proposal to conduct elections to the Lok Sabhaand all State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously.
Q2. Why was the system discontinued after 1967?
A. The cycle was disrupted because several State Legislative Assemblies were dissolved prematurely during 1968 and 1969, followed by the early dissolution and extension of Lok Sabha terms.
Q3. Which constitutional provisions are primarily affected?
A. Articles 83(2), 172, 75(3), 164(2), 324A, 325 and related constitutional provisions.
Q4. What are the major advantages of ONOE?
A. Reduced election expenditure, uninterrupted governance, reduced administrative burden, avoidance of repeated Model Code of Conduct restrictions and greater policy continuity.
Q5. What are the principal constitutional concerns?
A. Federalism, equality under Article 14, democratic accountability, legislative tenure, premature dissolution of Assemblies and preservation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
