Author – Manyata sisodia student at guru gobind singh indraprastha university
To the Point
The idea of synchronizing elections across India is not merely administrative but deeply constitutional. This article delves into the feasibility, legality, and implications of the “One Nation, One Election” proposal in India.
Use of Legal Jargon
Electoral synchronisation, constitutional mandate, legislative competence, federalism, democratic mandate, electoral jurisprudence, doctrine of basic structure, legislative assembly dissolution, Lok Sabha tenure, constitutional amendment, Article 83(2), Article 172(1), and repugnancy.
Abstract
India conducts elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies separately. The idea of “One Nation, One Election” seeks to hold simultaneous elections throughout the country. Proponents argue it will save time, money, and administrative effort, while critics warn it could undermine the federal structure and create democratic disparities. This article analyses the constitutional, legal, and practical challenges of implementing this electoral reform. It also explores relevant case laws, the constitutional amendments needed, and global practices to provide a holistic legal insight.
The Proof
- Historical Context
India initially followed a synchronized electoral schedule during the first four general elections: 1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967. This alignment was disrupted due to premature dissolutions of several State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha, beginning in 1968-69. Since then, independent electoral cycles have been the norm.
- Constitutional Provisions
Article 83(2): Sets the term of the Lok Sabha at five years unless dissolved earlier.
Article 172(1): Sets the term of State Legislative Assemblies at five years unless dissolved earlier.
Article 85 & 174: Empower the President and Governors, respectively, to dissolve the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
These provisions inherently allow elections to occur at different times, following premature dissolutions or the natural end of terms.
- Proposal for Synchronisation
The central idea behind “One Nation, One Election” is to synchronize elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. This would necessitate:
Amendment of Articles 83 and 172 to unify the term periods.
Amendment of Articles 85 and 174 to limit the discretionary power of dissolution.
Amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to enable phased implementation.
Legal and Constitutional Challenges
- Doctrine of Basic Structure
Any constitutional amendment must adhere to the Basic Structure Doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). If synchronised elections undermine democracy or federalism, the proposal could be invalidated.
- Legislative Competence
While Parliament can legislate on elections under Entry 72, List I, state elections involve Entry 37, List II. Hence, states must consent through a special majority under Article 368(2) for relevant constitutional amendments.
- Federalism Concerns
India’s federal structure allows states independent mandates and autonomy. Forcing simultaneous elections may infringe upon their sovereign functioning and autonomy.
- Logistical Hurdles
Conducting simultaneous elections requires:
Doubling the number of EVMs/VVPATs.
Deployment of massive security forces.
Training of election staff on an unprecedented scale.
Case Laws
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Established that constitutional amendments cannot violate the “basic structure” which includes federalism and democracy.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Held federalism to be a basic structure and restricted arbitrary dismissals of State Governments under Article 356.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Asserted the sanctity of free and fair elections as a component of the basic structure.
Arguments in Favour
- Reduced Election Expenditure 💰
Multiple elections cost the exchequer thousands of crores. Synchronisation reduces public spending.
- Increased Governance Efficiency 📈
Frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct disrupts development projects. A single election period ensures uninterrupted governance.
- Strengthened National Focus
A single electoral season may foster a unified national vision, promoting long-term policymaking over short-term populism.
- Administrative Ease 🛡️
Reduces repeated stress on law enforcement, polling personnel, and public institutions.
Arguments Against
- Federalism at Risk 🏫
Synchronisation could centralize political control, weakening state-specific mandates.
- Logistical Burden ♻️
Organising simultaneous elections for over 900 million voters is a massive administrative task.
- Diminished Regional Discourse
National issues could overshadow local needs and voices during elections.
- Arbitrary Term Extensions or Curtailments
Aligning tenures may involve undemocratic practices of delaying or prematurely ending legislative terms.
Global Comparisons
Countries like Sweden and South Africa conduct simultaneous elections successfully, but their smaller size and less diverse federations make them unsuitable benchmarks. In contrast, the United States employs a staggered electoral model despite having a federal structure.
Conclusion
“One Nation, One Election” is an ambitious electoral reform with potential benefits in cost and efficiency. However, its implementation must be constitutionally sound, democratically viable, and logistically feasible. Only a collaborative federal approach, respecting the Constitution’s spirit, can make this reform a legitimate success.
FAQs
- Is “One Nation, One Election” constitutionally viable?
No, not under the current framework. It requires multiple constitutional amendments and support from at least half the states.
- Can legislative terms be altered?
Yes, but only via a constitutional amendment. Arbitrary changes can violate the basic structure.
- What is the role of the Election Commission of India?
The ECI would oversee the execution, requiring massive logistical planning and public outreach.
- Has any authority supported the idea?
Yes, the Law Commission (2018), NITI Aayog, and Parliamentary Standing Committees have suggested phased implementation.
- Does this benefit national parties more?
Possibly. Simultaneous elections might disproportionately favor national parties, marginalizing regional players.
