Author: Prajwal G Karamallappanavar, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
To The Point
The concept of one nation, one election ONOE which proposes simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, State assemblies, and local bodies, has sparked intense debate about its constitutional validity in India. Advocates argue that ONOE enhances electoral efficiency, reduces cost, and minimizes governance disruption, while criticizing that it undermines federalism, voters’ autonomy, and the election and constitutional structure under articles 83, 172, and 324. The legal article examines the constitutional validity of ONOE within India’s existence framework, analysing its alignment with basic structured doctrine for federal principles and electoral autonomy by exploring the relevant constitutional provisions, including judicial presidents, and from a global perspective, it evaluates the legal challenges and implementation of India’s Democratic frameworks.
Abstract
One nation, one election, ONOE seeks to synchronize elections across India’s national and state legislatures to streamline the electoral process and enhance governance efficiency. However, its constitutional validity raises complex questions under Article 83, Lok Sabha duration, 172 State assembly duration, and 324 Election Commission provisions, as well as the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). Argue that ONOE could erode federalism, and a cornerstone of India’s constitution, by centralizing electoral processes and marginalizing regional issues. This article analysed the legal framework surrounding ONOE, focusing on constitutional provisions, statutory election loss, and judicial interpretations. It explores potential conflict with federalism, voting rights, and democratic principles, drawing on the global model of simultaneous election and its relevance to India. The article enhances the assessment of the viability of ONOE within the existing constitutional framework and its implementations for India’s Democratic polity.
Use of legal jargon
Let it score on one nation, one election engages core constitutional principles under Article 83, 172, 324, all the basic structure doctrine. Terms such as Federalism, Electoral autonomy, basic structure, reasonable clarification, and proportionality are the central analysis concepts like separation of power democratic accountability legislative competency frame the debates, reflecting the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional values first off the article also invoke statutory provisions under representation of people’s act, 1951, and principle of electoral fairness, highlighting the tense between administrative efficiency and constitutional mandates in Indians federal structure.
Background:
One nation, one election ONOE proposes holding simultaneous election for Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies and local bodies every 5 years to reduce the frequency of elections, lower cost estimated at 4500 crores per general election, and minimize disruption to governance historically, India conducts simultaneous election from 1951 to 1967, but asynchronous state assembly resolution descripted by practice. Viewed as a policy proposal in 2014, ONOE has been debated through reports by the Laws Commission (170th Report, 1999; 255th Report, 2015) and the parliamentary standing committee 79th Report, 2015 with the Union government forming a high-level committee under former President Ram Nath Kovind in 2023 to study its feasibility.
Proponents argue that ONOE enhances efficiency reduce voters fatigue and allows government to focus on governance rather than perpetual campaigning critics, however raise constitutional concern or giving that synchronizing election may request premature dissolution of State Assembly violating article 172, or fixed terms, undermining Democratic accountability could also centralize electoral process, potentially marginalizing regional issues and weakening federalism a basic structure of constitution.
The legal framework includes articles 83 and 172, which govern the duration of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, respectively, and article 324, which establishes the Election Commission with Superintendents over elections. Representation of the People Act 1951 regulates electoral processes, while the basic sector doctrine protests federalism and democracy. No Supreme Court case directly addresses ONOE, but regulatory precedents on federalism and electoral autonomy provide guidance. The article examines ONOE’s constitutional validity within India’s existing legal frameworks.
The Proof
India’s constitution establishes a federal structure with a distinct role for the Union and the states. Article 83(2) sets a five-year term for the Lok Sabha, extendable during emergencies, while Article 172(1) provides a similar term for state assemblies. Premature dissolution or extension of these terms to synchronize the election raises constitutional questions. Article 324 grants the Election Commission autonomy to conduct free and fair elections, which ONOE could challenge by imposing logistical constraints. The basic structure doctrine articulated in Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala 1973 protects federalism, democracy, and judicial review, making any major undermining of this principle a constitutional suspect.
The Representation of the People Act 1951 governs elections conducted, but does not address simultaneous elections. Implementing ONOE may require legislative changes, such as synchronizing terms under articles 83 and 172, or consistency measures for midterm government collapses, potentially through statutory rules and article three nought nine or 327 electoral loss. Critics argue that such measures could centralize powers, violating federalism as state laws’ autonomy over their electoral cycles. Proponents of centres believe that ONOE is a procedural form permissible within a parliament’s legislative competency and serves the Public Interest by reducing costs and disruptions.
Globally, countries like Germany and South Africa conduct simultaneous elections, but their inventory and hybrid federal system differ from India’s robust federalism. The absence of specific ONOE cases in India necessitates reliance on precedents like S. R Bommai vs Union of India 1994 which emphasized federalism to assess constitutional validity.
The legal analysis:
The constitutional validity of one nation, one election involves several legal challenges:
Federalism and state autonomy. Federalism, a basic structure of a constitution, ensures state autonomy over their legislative terms Article 172. Election may require premature delusion or extension of a state assembly, potentially infringing on states’ rights. S. R Bommai vs Union of India (1994) held that the arbitrary resolution of the state government violates federalism, a principle applicable to the ONOE’s impact on the state electoral cycle.
Democratic accountability fixed election cycles under ONOE could undermine Democratic accountability by preventing midterm elections when the government loses confidence. 356 president rule provides for such contingencies, but its overuse is centralization over, as cautioned in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977).
Electoral Autonomy and Article 324 the Election Commission’s autonomy under article 324 ensures free and fair elections ONOE logistical demands, such as conducting National wide poll simultaneously could strain resource and probe compromise electoral integrity, especially for regional parties with localized issues for shop Kuldeep Nair versus unit of India 2006 emphasized the Commission role in ensuring fairness, as a principal ONOE must uphold.
Basic Structure Doctrine any legislative or executive action implementing ONOE must comply with the basic structure doctrine, protecting federalism, democracy, and judicial review. 1973 provides the framework for assessing whether ONOE implements these principles.
Public Interest and Efficiency ONOE proponents argue it serves the public interest by reducing costs and governance deception. The Supreme Court emphasized proportionality in the modern dental college versus the state of Madhya Pradesh, requiring that such measures be balanced against constitutional rights.
Case laws:
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973): This case established the basis structure doctrine, protecting federalism and democracy, critically for assessing the ONOEs constitutional validity.
S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court emphasized the federalism holding that arbitrary state government dismissals are unconstitutional, relevant to the ONOES’ impact on state autonomy.
State of Rajasthan vs Union of India (1977): The case sanctioned against misuse of article 356 concerned for ONOE’s potential to centralize electoral control.
Kuldeep Nayar vs Union of India (2006): The court upheld the Election Commission’s autonomy under article 324, a principle that ONOE must respect to ensure fair elections.
Modern dental college vs state of Madhya Pradesh (2016): The case emphasized proportionality in legislative images, guiding the assessment of ONOE’s valence between efficiency and constitutional rights.
Global perspective:
Countries like Germany conduct simultaneous federal and state elections, but its federal system is more decentralized than India’s. Africa’s unitary system allows synchronized pools, minimizing federal conflicts. Didn’t fix the term election offer efficiency, but limits midterm accountability, a concern for India. These models suggest ONOE is flexible but highlight India’s eating-related challenges, requiring a tailored solution within the constitutional framework.
Implications
The constitutional validity of One Nation, One Election hinges on its alignment with federalism, democracy, and electoral autonomy. While ONOE promises efficiency, its implications are this centralizing power, marginalizing regional issues, and straining the Election Commission’s resources. Judicial scrutiny, guided by the Kesavananda Bharati and S.R. Bommai, would likely demand that ONOE respect the state attorney and voters’ rights.
The policy could enhance governance by reducing election costs and disruption, benefiting India’s 1.4 billion citizens and 28 states. it may be disadvantages, whose localized issues could be overshadowed by the national campaigns. The Election Commission’s capacity to manage simultaneous polls with over 90 crore voters requires significant logistical upgrades to address the absence of specific ONOE cases, underscoring the need for pre-emptive legal clarity, potentially through a Supreme Court reference under Article 143.
Four policymakers, ONOE, need consensus-building with states, as federalism in non-negotiable strengthening the representation of people’s act, 1951, to address contingencies like midterm collapses could support ONOE without constitutional overreach. Policy success depends on balancing efficiency with India’s diverse democratic ethos.
FAQS
What is one nation, one election ONOE?
ONOE proposes simultaneous selection for Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and local bodies to announce efficiency and reduce cost.
Why is ONOE’s constitutional validity debated?
It may conflict with federalism Article 172, democratic accountability, and the Election Commission’s autonomy Article 324.
How do constitutional provisions apply?
Articles 83, 172, and 324 govern election terms and processes, while the basic structured document protects federalism and democracy.
Which president is relevant?
Cases like Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and S.R. Bhoomai (1994) emphasize federalism and democracy, guiding the ONOE in its assessment.
What are the implications of ONOE?
ONOE could streamline the election but risk centralizing powers and marginalizing regional issues, requiring careful legal implementation.
Conclusion:
The concept of one nation, one election presents a complex challenge to India’s constitutional framework, balancing electoral efficiency with federalism and democratic principles. Articles 83, 172, and 324, alongside the basic structured doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), established fatalism and electoral autonomy as non-negotiable. One of the potential benefits of ONOEs is that it could synchronize elections, reducing cost and disruptions, but premature dissolution of state assemblies or fixed terms risks undermining the state, as questioned in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).
The implications of the policies are significant, affecting India’s diverse electorate and federal structure, while global models like Germany’s simultaneous elections offer insights; India’s robust federalism demands a tailored approach. Judicial scrutiny would likely emphasize proportionality to ensure ONOE aligns with constitutional mandates. Policymakers must engage states and strengthen the tertiary framework, like the Representation of the People’s Act 1951, to implement ONOE without eroding democratic values. The debate underscored the judiciary’s role in safeguarding India’s federal democracy, ensuring that electoral reform is enhanced rather than companies compromising the nation’s constitutional ethos.
