Author: Smriti ranjan
Maharishi Markandeshwar deemed to be university Mullana ambala
To the Point
“One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) refers to the proposal for holding elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously. The idea seeks to restore a common electoral cycle and reduce the frequency of elections across the country.
The proposal gained significant constitutional momentum after the High-Level Committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind submitted its report in March 2024. Subsequently, the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 17 December 2024. The Bill proposes, among other changes, the insertion of Article 82A and amendments to Articles 83, 172 and 327.
The proposal is based on the argument that frequent elections impose substantial financial and administrative burdens, repeatedly invoke the Model Code of Conduct and divert governmental machinery towards electoral activities. However, simultaneous elections also raise serious constitutional questions concerning federalism, democratic accountability, tenure of legislatures and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Therefore, ONOE is not merely an electoral reform; it represents a significant constitutional question concerning the functioning of India’s parliamentary democracy.
Use of Legal Jargon
The existing constitutional framework does not provide for a permanent system of simultaneous elections. The terms of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies are separately governed primarily by Articles 83 and 172 respectively.
The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to introduce Article 82A, creating a constitutional framework for simultaneous elections.
Under the proposed framework, the President may issue a notification on the date of the first sitting of the Lok Sabha following a general election. That date would become the “appointed date.” The tenure of State Legislative Assemblies constituted after the appointed date would be aligned with the full term of the Lok Sabha.
An important legal issue concerns premature dissolution. The proposed framework contemplates that where the Lok Sabha or a State Legislative Assembly is dissolved before completion of its normal term, the election held thereafter would generally be for the unexpired remainder of the original term, rather than initiating a completely new five-year cycle.
The proposal therefore involves significant constitutional concepts including:
• Federalism
• Representative democracy
• Constitutional supremacy
• Parliamentary accountability
• Electoral integrity
• Basic Structure Doctrine
• Constitutional amendment
• Tenure and dissolution of legislatures
The Proof
India actually experienced simultaneous elections during the initial decades after independence. Elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies were generally conducted together in 1951–52, 1957, 1962 and 1967. The cycle was subsequently disrupted because of premature dissolution of certain State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha.
The present proposal seeks to recreate such synchronisation through constitutional and statutory amendments.
The Government introduced the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 along with the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The latter seeks consequential changes concerning Union Territories having legislatures, including Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir.
Arguments in Favour
The principal arguments supporting ONOE include:
1. Reduction in Election Expenditure
Frequent elections require considerable expenditure by political parties, candidates and public authorities. Simultaneous elections may reduce the repetitive expenditure associated with conducting separate elections.
2. Administrative Efficiency
Repeated deployment of government employees, security personnel and election machinery can disrupt ordinary administrative functions. A synchronised electoral cycle could reduce such interruptions.
3. Reduction in Model Code of Conduct Constraints
Frequent elections result in repeated enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, which can affect the announcement and implementation of certain governmental policies and programmes.
4. Policy Continuity
A fixed electoral cycle could provide governments with a relatively stable period to formulate and implement long-term policies without constant electoral considerations.
5. Voter Convenience
Holding elections simultaneously could reduce the frequency with which citizens are required to participate in elections.
Constitutional and Legal Concerns
Despite these advantages, ONOE presents substantial constitutional challenges.
1. Federalism
India follows a constitutionally structured federal system in which both the Union and States possess their own democratic mandates.
Simultaneous elections could potentially result in national political issues dominating State elections, thereby affecting the visibility of regional issues and parties.
The question therefore arises whether synchronisation could indirectly weaken the political autonomy of States.
2. Premature Dissolution
A major difficulty arises when a government loses its majority before completing its five-year term.
Under the proposed mechanism, a fresh election may be held only for the remaining period of the original electoral cycle. This creates an important constitutional question: whether such an arrangement adequately reflects the principle that voters should receive a full-term representative government.
3. Parliamentary Accountability
India’s parliamentary system is based on the principle that the Council of Ministers must continuously enjoy the confidence of the House.
If the House is dissolved prematurely, the constitutional system must still provide an effective mechanism for government formation and democratic accountability.
4. Basic Structure Doctrine
Any constitutional amendment implementing ONOE must comply with the basic structure doctrine.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not unlimited.
Therefore, the implementation of simultaneous elections cannot destroy essential constitutional features such as democracy, federalism, parliamentary government and free and fair elections.
5. Impact on Regional Parties
There is a concern that simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly elections may encourage voters to make voting decisions based primarily on national political narratives.
This could potentially create an electoral advantage for larger national parties and affect the competitiveness of regional political parties.
6. Logistical Challenges
Conducting elections across the entire country simultaneously would require enormous quantities of:
• Electronic Voting Machines;
• Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail machines;
• Security personnel;
• Polling officials;
• Transportation and storage facilities; and
• Electoral infrastructure.
Thus, constitutional reform would need to be accompanied by substantial institutional preparation.
Case Laws
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Supreme Court established the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament may amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure.
This principle becomes crucial for ONOE because any constitutional amendment must preserve fundamental constitutional features such as democracy and federalism.
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The Supreme Court recognised federalism as an important feature of the constitutional structure.
The judgment is relevant to ONOE because simultaneous elections must not undermine the constitutional autonomy of State governments.
3. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional framework concerning political defections and emphasised the importance of maintaining democratic stability while permitting judicial review of constitutional mechanisms.
The case is relevant to ONOE because political stability and legislative continuity are central concerns in determining electoral cycles.
4. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)
The Supreme Court recognised the broad constitutional responsibilities of the Election Commission under Article 324 in ensuring free and fair elections.
The judgment is relevant to ONOE because simultaneous elections would significantly increase the administrative and constitutional responsibilities of the Election Commission.
5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Supreme Court reinforced the constitutional significance of free and fair elections and democratic accountability.
Any electoral reform, including ONOE, must therefore strengthen rather than dilute these foundational principles.
Conclusion
One Nation, One Election represents one of the most significant proposed reforms to India’s electoral and constitutional framework. Its potential benefits include reducing repetitive election expenditure, minimising administrative disruption and creating greater policy continuity.
However, electoral efficiency cannot be pursued at the cost of constitutional federalism, democratic accountability and the autonomy of State governments.
The proposed constitutional framework must therefore be examined not merely from the perspective of administrative convenience but through the principles of constitutionalism, representative democracy and the basic structure doctrine.
A successful implementation would require adequate constitutional safeguards, institutional preparedness, political consensus and mechanisms for dealing with premature dissolution of legislatures.
Ultimately, the objective should not simply be to conduct elections “together”, but to ensure that simultaneous elections remain consistent with the fundamental constitutional promise of free, fair, representative and federal democracy.
FAQ
Q1. What is One Nation, One Election?
One Nation, One Election is a proposal to conduct elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously.
Q2. Is One Nation, One Election currently part of the Constitution?
No. It requires constitutional and statutory changes. The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 was introduced to create the proposed framework.
Q3. Which constitutional provision is proposed to be introduced?
The proposal seeks to introduce Article 82A, along with amendments to Articles 83, 172 and 327.
Q4. What is the major constitutional concern regarding ONOE?
The major concerns include its possible impact on federalism, State autonomy, parliamentary accountability and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Q5. What happens if a government falls before completing its term?
The proposed framework contemplates elections for the remaining or unexpired period of the original electoral cycle rather than automatically creating a fresh five-year term.
Q6. Will ONOE eliminate all elections in India?
No. It primarily seeks to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. The proposed framework also contains provisions concerning certain Union Territories.
Q7. Why is ONOE controversial?
Supporters emphasise efficiency, reduced expenditure and policy continuity, whereas critics raise concerns regarding federalism, regional representation, voter behaviour and the practical difficulties of synchronising electoral cycles.
Q8. Is ONOE legally possible?
It is legally possible only through the constitutional and statutory amendments necessary to establish the proposed framework, subject to constitutional limitations including the Basic Structure Doctrine.