Author: Bhavika Dhuria, Chandigarh University
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bhavika-dhuria-6b20b7340?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
To the Point
The concept of “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE), also referred to as simultaneous elections, is a bold proposal aimed at restructuring India’s electoral calendar. It envisions conducting elections to the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and all the State Legislative Assemblies at the same time, every five years. This means that instead of having different states going to polls in different years, the entire country would vote once in a fixed cycle.
At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward and efficient idea. The logic is compelling: it will save public money, reduce the workload on security forces and election officials, and allow the elected governments to focus on governance instead of being in perpetual election mode. However, like most major democratic reforms, this proposal has sparked a heated debate across the political and legal spectrum.
Currently, India is almost always in election mode. With 28 states and 8 Union Territories, elections are held somewhere or the other every few months. This recurring cycle of elections causes several problems: the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) stalls development work, there’s overuse of administrative machinery, and vast sums of money are spent by both the government and political parties. The ONOE concept tries to solve these issues by proposing one synchronized electoral event every five years.
But critics argue that such synchronization goes against the spirit of Indian federalism. In a country as diverse as India, every state has its own political context, socio-economic conditions, and regional concerns. Clubbing state and national elections could drown local issues in national narratives, potentially harming regional parties and weakening local democracy. Moreover, there are significant legal and constitutional challenges, as elections are currently linked to the term of each elected assembly or the Lok Sabha.
Despite being pitched as an administrative reform, ONOE is deeply political. It requires not just logistical preparedness, but also a fundamental rethinking of how India views democracy—not just as an event, but as a continuous process of engagement, representation, and accountability.
So, while ONOE seems like an efficient model on paper, whether it strengthens democracy or dilutes its foundational principles is the real question. It’s this question—boon or bane—that drives the heart of the debate.
Abstract
India, being the world’s largest democracy, conducts elections almost every year in some part of the country. The continuous cycle of elections disrupts governance, burdens the exchequer, and strains manpower and resources. The proposal of “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) is not entirely new—it was practiced during the first two decades post-Independence until it was disrupted in 1967. The idea aims to synchronize elections for both the central and state governments.
However, this proposal invites critical examination. Would it uphold the constitutional values of democratic decentralization, or does it infringe upon the autonomy of states? Can this large-scale electoral reform maintain the basic structure of the Constitution, or will it tip the balance toward unitary governance? This article critically analyzes the ONOE model from legal, constitutional, practical, and political lenses while weighing its potential as a “boon” or a “bane.”
Use of Legal Jargon
Before diving deep, let’s familiarize ourselves with some legal terms relevant to this debate:
Federalism: A system of governance where power is constitutionally divided between a central authority and regional units (states).
Electoral Roll: A list of eligible voters prepared by the Election Commission under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Dissolution of Assembly: Termination of a state legislative assembly either on completion of term or earlier due to loss of majority.
Proclamation under Article 356: President’s rule imposed in a state when constitutional machinery fails.
Tenable under Constitutional Scheme: Legally valid and sustainable within the framework and spirit of the Constitution.
Basic Structure Doctrine: A judicial principle that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered even by constitutional amendment (Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973).
The Proof
When we talk about any big reform, it’s important to look beyond opinions and into actual evidence and reasoning. In the case of One Nation, One Election, the arguments on both sides—supporters and critics—are rooted in real concerns. Let’s break down the proof for and against this idea.
Why Some Believe It’s a Good Idea (The Boon Side)
First off, money matters. Every time we hold an election—whether it’s at the state level or national—it costs the government thousands of crores. For example, the 2019 Lok Sabha elections cost more than ₹60,000 crore, which includes spending on security, staff, equipment, and other logistics. Multiply that by the number of states that go into elections separately, and the cost skyrockets. So, combining all elections could save a big chunk of taxpayers’ money.
Then there’s the issue of governance. When the election code of conduct kicks in, governments are barred from announcing or launching new policies. This halts development work—not once, but multiple times in a five-year term, as different states go to polls. With synchronized elections, governments can work without these constant interruptions.
Another point supporters raise is about public participation. Voter fatigue is real—especially in rural areas where people might have to travel long distances to vote. Holding all elections together could mean fewer trips to the polling booth, potentially improving voter turnout.
Why Others Think It’s Risky (The Bane Side)
Now, see at the other side of the coin. One of the biggest fear is about federalism. India isn’t a single-layered democracy—it’s made up of states with their own governments. If all elections are held together, it might shift the focus away from local issues. People could end up voting based on national sentiments, ignoring what’s happening in their own backyard. This could hurt smaller or regional parties that depend on localized campaigning.
Also, synchronizing terms means you’d have to cut short some governments and extend the terms of others, which raises big constitutional and ethical questions. Can we really force a state government to stay longer or leave earlier just to align with the election calendar?
And practically speaking, pulling off a single election for over 900 million voters in one go would be a massive logistical challenge. From manpower and machines to managing law and order—it’s easier said than done.
In short, both sides bring solid points to the table. The idea looks promising, but the proof suggests that the road to implementing it is full of legal, logistical, and democratic hurdles.
Case Laws
When it comes to a major electoral reform like One Nation, One Election, legal backing plays a vital role. Our Constitution is not just a set of rules—it’s the soul of our democracy. Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has shaped the way we interpret democratic principles through landmark judgments. Let’s look at some key cases that are relevant to the ONOE debate.
1. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The application being filed refers to a very famous constitutional case in Indian jurisprudence. The SC held that while Parliament may amend the constitution, it cannot alter its “basic structure.” Included therein are democracy, federalism, free and fair elections, and separation of powers. The basic structure could be held violated if simultaneous elections are being forced through such a way that impinges on the rights of state governments or interferes with free choice. This decision acts as a constitutional safeguard.
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
This case reaffirmed the principle of federalism. It made it clear that states are not mere extensions of the Centre—they have their own independent constitutional status. So, if the ONOE model requires dissolving or extending the tenure of state assemblies just to align with national elections, it could be seen as overriding state autonomy, which this case strongly protects.
3. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
This case stress upon the importance of free and fair elections. Any electoral reform, including simultaneous polls, must ensure that it does not compromise voters’ ability to make informed and independent decisions at both the state and national level.
4. Election Commission of India v. State of Haryana (1984)
Here, the Court stressed the constitutional independence of the Election Commission. Since the EC is responsible for conducting elections, ONOE cannot be implemented without considering its preparedness and practical challenges.
5. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Though centered on privacy, this case reinforced the idea of constitutional morality—that laws must uphold individual rights and democratic values. For ONOE to succeed legally, it must align with these higher constitutional ideals.
In short, the courts have already laid the foundation: any change must protect federalism, ensure fairness, and uphold the democratic spirit. These cases serve as a legal compass, reminding us that reforms must never come at the cost of our constitutional identity.
Conclusion
The idea of One Nation, One Election sounds like a dream solution for a country constantly in election mode. On paper, it promises many benefits—less disruption to governance, reduced election costs, and more focused public policy. But in practice, it’s far more complicated than it appears.
Let’s be honest—India is not just one nation in the political sense; it is a union of diverse states, each with its own culture, political climate, and pressing issues. Holding all elections together might look neat from the top, but on the ground, it could blur the lines between state and national concerns. There’s a genuine fear that regional issues will be overshadowed by national narratives, especially when both elections are held at once.
This could end up weakening regional parties and hurting the principle of democratic decentralization. From a constitutional point of view, ONOE isn’t impossible—but it’s not a simple switch either. Multiple constitutional amendments would be required, and these changes must not violate the basic structure doctrine, which protects the federal character of the Constitution. And even if those legal hurdles are crossed, practical issues remain. Managing a nationwide election involving over 900 million voters in one go is a logistical mountain.
Still, the core idea—reducing the frequency of elections and allowing governments to function without constant electoral interruptions—is not without merit. Maybe instead of full-scale implementation, a phased or hybrid model could be tried out. For example, elections in a few states could be synchronized gradually, allowing time to study the impact and make necessary adjustments.
In the end, reforms like this should not be rushed or imposed top-down. They must be discussed thoroughly, debated in Parliament, examined by legal experts, and, most importantly, supported by the states. After all, democracy is not just about efficiency—it’s about inclusiveness, fairness, and balance.
So, is One Nation, One Election a boon or a bane? The answer isn’t black or white. It lies in how we choose to implement it—whether we value convenience more than constitutional spirit, or whether we can strike a thoughtful balance between the two.
FAQS
Q1. What is the idea behind One Nation, One Election?
It proposes that elections to the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies be held at the same time, rather than on different dates and years.
Q2. Was this ever practiced in India?
Yes. Simultaneous elections were held in India until 1967. They were disrupted due to premature dissolution of various assemblies.
Q3. What constitutional amendments will be needed to implement it?
Amendments to Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and possibly changes to the Representation of the People Acts will be required.
Q4. Will this affect the powers of state governments?
Yes, many believe it could weaken federal autonomy, as it may require state governments to curtail or extend their terms.
Q5. What are the logistical challenges?
India would need massive infrastructure—EVMs, security, manpower, and electoral logistics—to manage a nationwide simultaneous election.
Q6. What does the Election Commission think about it?
The Election Commission has expressed that it is technically feasible, but implementation would require political consensus and constitutional amendments.
Q7. Will this change the voting pattern of the people?
Possibly. Studies suggest that simultaneous elections could lead to voter confusion and vote alignment, where voters pick the same party for both state and national elections.
Q8. Has any committee been formed on this issue?
Yes, the Law Commission of India (2018) and a High-Level Committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind (2023) have explored this proposal.
Q9. Do other countries follow simultaneous elections?
Many countries, like South Africa and Sweden, hold simultaneous elections. However, their political and constitutional structures differ from India’s.
Q10. Is it possible to implement ONOE partially?
Some suggest a phased approach, where elections are synchronized in batches, eventually leading to full implementation.
