Author : Ashwina Verma student at Banasthali Vidyapeeth
To the Point
The debate on “One Nation, One Election” has gained momentum in recent years, with proponents emphasizing efficiency and cost-cutting and critics raising concerns over federalism and democratic health. The idea, which aims to synchronize elections across the country, including for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, invites complex constitutional, administrative, and political considerations.
Use of Legal Jargon
Key legal terms and doctrines relevant to this discussion include:
– Federalism
– Constitutional Amendment
– Doctrine of Separation of Powers
– Electoral Democracy
– Legislative Competence
– Tenure of the Legislature
– Judicial Review
The Proof
India currently follows a system of periodic elections, where Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections are held independently as and when their respective terms expire or the house is dissolved. The idea of simultaneous elections was initially practiced post-independence but gradually eroded due to early dissolutions and loss of majority in several states and at the Centre.
The demand for synchronizing elections arose again due to the mounting costs, policy paralysis during frequent Model Code of Conduct enforcement, and administrative fatigue. The Law Commission of India, NITI Aayog, and the Election Commission have discussed mechanisms to implement this idea, but constitutional and legal hurdles remain significant.
Abstract
This article explores the concept of “One Nation, One Election” from a legal perspective. It evaluates constitutional requirements, historical background, arguments for and against the reform, and examines relevant case laws. While simultaneous elections may bring administrative benefits and economic savings, they also risk undermining India’s federal character and political diversity. The article concludes by suggesting a cautious approach, balancing constitutional amendments with democratic integrity.
Case Laws
1. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) – Highlighted the importance of maintaining stable governments and the complexities that arise from defections, which could affect the feasibility of fixed-term legislatures under a synchronized electoral system.
2. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Emphasized the significance of free and fair elections as a basic feature of the Constitution.
3. Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Dissolution case) – Clarified that the tenure of a legislative assembly is subject to constitutional provisions and early dissolution is legally permissible.
Legal and Constitutional Challenges
1. Amendment of the Constitution: Implementing simultaneous elections would require amending several provisions:
– Article 83(2) and Article 172: Fixing the term of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
– Article 356: Provisions regarding President’s Rule would need reconsideration.
– Article 324: Empowering the Election Commission to conduct synchronized elections.
2. Federalism Concerns: India’s federal structure gives states the autonomy to dissolve their legislatures or face dissolution. Synchronizing elections might dilute this autonomy.
3. Practical Difficulties: Issues such as mid-term dissolutions, coalition breakdowns, and the requirement for President’s Rule would disrupt a synchronized cycle.
4. Logistical Constraints: Managing elections for over 800 million voters simultaneously would place a heavy burden on security forces and election officials.
5. Judicial Review: Any constitutional amendment violating the basic structure of the Constitution could be subject to judicial scrutiny.
Arguments in Favour
– Cost Efficiency: Reduces recurring election expenses.
– Administrative Convenience: Minimizes disruption of regular government functioning.
– Policy Continuity: Avoids populist schemes during elections.
– Voter Turnout: May improve due to a singular national interest and awareness.
Arguments Against
– Undermining Federalism: Reduces states’ political autonomy.
– Diverse Political Timelines: States have varied political contexts and timelines.
– Logistical Complexity: Hard to coordinate elections in a country as vast and diverse as India.
– Risk to Regional Issues: National narratives might dominate and marginalize local concerns.
Conclusion
While the idea of “One Nation, One Election” holds merit in terms of efficiency and cost, its implementation is constitutionally and politically complex. A uniform electoral cycle may streamline governance but should not compromise India’s democratic ethos and federal structure. It requires extensive stakeholder consultation, phased implementation, and a comprehensive constitutional review to ensure it enhances rather than weakens democratic participation.
FAQS
Q1: Is simultaneous election legally allowed in India?
A1: There is no express prohibition, but it requires major constitutional amendments and political consensus.
Q2: Has India ever had simultaneous elections?
A2: Yes, from 1951–1967, simultaneous elections were held but broke down due to premature dissolutions.
Q3: What are the main legal obstacles?
A3: Amendments to Articles 83, 172, 324, and changes to the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Q4: Who supports this idea?
A4: The Law Commission, NITI Aayog, and the Election Commission have recommended exploring this option.
Q5: Can mid-term dissolutions still happen under this system?
A5: Not without constitutional amendments or a mechanism like a “constructive vote of no-confidence.”
References
1. Law Commission of India, Working Paper on Simultaneous Elections (2018).
2. Election Commission of India Reports.
3. NITI Aayog Discussion Paper on One Nation, One Election.
4. Constitution of India.
5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.
6. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651.
7. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 2299.
8. Special Reference No. 1 of 2002, AIR 2003 SC 87.
9. Representation of the People Act, 1951.
