Author: Eshika Sahay, Netaji Subhas University
To the Point
The conception of One Nation, One Election( ONOE) envisions a accompanied electoral process wherein choices to the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies are held contemporaneously. This reform seeks to reduce the frequence of choices, cut down on public expenditure, and insure smoother governance. While the idea appears administratively sound and economically feasible, it raises significant indigenous, civil, and practical challenges. The converse around ONOE is complex, involving legal interpretation, popular principles, electoral reform, and the delicate balance of Centre- State relations.
On the political front, ONOE’s viability is just as controversial. multitudinous opposition and indigenous parties worry that holding choices at the same time could weaken state sovereignty and weaken indigenous enterprises by elevating public stories too much. This might reduce the influence of indigenous players and cock election results in favor of public parties. also, holding choices nationwide at the same time presents enormous logistical challenges, including the rallying of advancing outfit, election officers, and security labor force. There are also enterprises over the process for handling circumstances in which a government fails in the middle of its term. Delaying choices until the following accompanied cycle or assessing President’s Rule may be viewed as unjust and indigenous.
Use of Legal Jargon
Simultaneous choices Conducting choices to both Union and State houses at the same time. Cooperative Federalism A governance frame where the Union and States work in tandem while esteeming each other’s places. Dissolution of Assemblies unseasonable termination of a council before its term ends. Vote of No Confidence A administrative instrument used to remove the ruling government if it loses the maturity. indigenous Correction A formal change to the Constitution taking a special procedure under Composition 368. Model Code of Conduct( MCC) Guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India( ECI) to regulate conduct during choices. The Proof literal Background India originally followed the model of contemporaneous choices. In the first four general choices( 1951- 52, 1957, 1962, and 1967), choices for both the Centre and the countries were conducted together. still, this pattern was disintegrated due to unseasonable dissolutions of state assemblies and the Lok Sabha itself, particularly in 1970, thereby desynchronizing the electoral cycle. profitable and executive confines The Law Commission of India estimated in its 2018 report that conducting separate Lok Sabha and Assembly choices costs the bankroll over ₹ 60,000 crore per election cycle. In addition to the fiscal burden, the frequent duty of the MCC hampers long- term policy planning and detainments ongoing experimental work. Institutional Recommendations The 170th and 255th Law Commission Reports and the 2017 NITI Aayog discussion paper stressed that contemporaneous pates could Cut election- related charges, Ameliorate executive effectiveness, Reduce deployment pressure on security forces. still, these institutions also advised that ONOE would bear far- reaching indigenous emendations and agreement among political stakeholders.
Abstract
The offer for One Nation, One Election seeks to attend electoral timelines across the public and state situations. It aims to reduce costs, check policy palsy, and enhance executive effectiveness. Though seductive in principle, it presents legal, indigenous, and political complications. For ONOE to come a reality,multi-level electoral reforms, indigenous emendations, and broad political agreement are essential. Its feasibility depends not only on legal engineering but also on the nation’s capability to uphold the popular morality and civil balance.
Case Laws
1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India( 1994) Citation( 1994) 3 SCC 1 This corner verdict underlined the inviolability of federalism and advised against the abuse of Composition 356. In the ONOE environment, administering fixed terms might circumscribe this indigenous safeguard.
2. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors.( 1992) Citation 1992 Supp( 2) SCC 651 The judgment upheld theanti-defection law, promoting political stability — an essential element for accompanied choices to serve withoutmid-term dislocations.
3. Union of India v. Association for Popular Reforms( 2002) Citation( 2002) 5 SCC 294 Reaffirmed the right of citizens to make informed choices during choices. contemporaneous choices could adulterate issue- grounded voting, therefore impacting electoral mindfulness.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain( 1975) Citation AIR 1975 SC 2299 Reinforced that free and fair choices are part of the introductory structure of the Constitution a principle which ONOE must admire while aligning popular practices.
Indigenous and Political Feasibility
Crucial indigenous vittles Composition 83( 2) – Fixes the term of the Lok Sabha at five times. Composition 172( 1) – Governs the duration of State Legislative Assemblies. Composition 356 – Allows the duty of President’s Rule in case of indigenous breakdown in a state. Composition 324 – Empowers the Election Commission to oversee choices needed emendations for ONOE to be indigenous, at least five major emendations would be demanded.
1. Coinciding tours Articles 83 and 172 would need correction to align the terms of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
2. President’s Rule Limitations Article 356 must be redefined to help arbitrary dissolutions.
3. Formative No- Confidence stir analogous to Germany’s model, a government may be suggested out only when a successor is proposed, icing political stability.
Political Roadblocks
1. Lack of Political Consensus numerous indigenous parties oppose ONOE, stewing their original narratives will be drowned out by public juggernauts.
2. Trouble to Federalism State-specific enterprises might be overshadowed in a accompanied election model, thereby weakening indigenous autonomy.
3. Logistical Load Managing contemporaneous choices in a country as vast and different as India would place unknown demands on electoral structure and labor force.
4. Unlooked-for dislocations still, the accompanied cycle breaks rendering the entire exercise ineffective unless fixed- term governance is executed naturally, If a council is dissolvedmid-term due to desertions or no- confidence.
Pros and Cons
Advantages Reduced Expenditure Common choices will drastically cut the recreating costs of separate pates.
Improved Governance Governments can concentrate on long- term development rather than remaining in perpetual election mode.
Effective Bureaucracy executive and police labor force won’t be constantly redeployed for election duty.
Smaller MCC dislocations Reduces policy palsy caused by the frequent duty of the Model Code of Conduct.
Drawbacks
Undermining of Local Issues
Voters may prioritize national concerns over state-specific matters, weakening democratic choice.
Federal Structure at Risk
The centralization of election timelines may dilute the spirit of federalism.
Legal and Constitutional Complications
Requires special majority amendments and state ratifications, making the process highly complex.
Mid-Term Uncertainties
The fall of any state or central government would require separate elections, negating the goal of synchronization.
Conclusion
The vision of One Nation, One Election is both transformative and pragmatic, promising economic efficiency and better governance. However, its implementation is fraught with constitutional intricacies, political apprehensions, and administrative complexities. The idea must not come at the cost of India’s democratic fabric or federal autonomy, both of which are foundational to our polity.
Rather than a blanket imposition, a phased or pilot approach—starting with clubbing elections in select states or holding elections in two synchronised cycles—might offer a realistic path forward. Genuine multi-party dialogue, public consultation, and institutional readiness are critical for making ONOE a workable reality.
FAQS
Q1. What does One Nation, One Election mean?
It refers to holding elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies simultaneously to ensure continuity in governance and reduce election-related costs and disruptions.
Q2. Did India ever have simultaneous elections in the past?
Yes. India followed this model from 1951 to 1967, until the pattern broke due to early dissolution of legislative bodies.
Q3. What changes are necessary to implement ONOE?
It would require constitutional amendments to Articles 83, 172, 356, and others, alongside new legal mechanisms like a constructive vote of no-confidence.
Q4. What are the major challenges?
These include:
Constitutional amendments requiring state ratification,
Political opposition, especially from regional parties,
Logistical hurdles in organizing nationwide polls simultaneously,
Threat to federal balance and local representation.
Q5. Can ONOE be implemented without constitutional amendments?
No. It would not be legally tenable without amending several core provisions of the Constitution and ensuring widespread political agreement.
Q6. Are there any viable alternatives to complete ONOE implementation?
Yes. Alternatives include:
Clubbing elections of select states with Lok Sabha polls,
Organizing elections in two fixed phases across the country,
Legislative term adjustments within permissible constitutional limits.
Q7. What would be the role of the Election Commission?
The ECI would be at the helm of planning and executing ONOE, necessitating major capacity upgrades in personnel, logistics, and technology.
Q8. How might ONOE affect regional parties?
Regional parties fear marginalization, as national-level narratives could eclipse state-specific concerns, potentially diluting local representation in governance.
