One Nation, One Election: Exploring the constitutional and legal perspective

Author-Vaishali Tomar, a 4th year law student at Faculty of Law, AMU, Aligarh

Abstract:

The Indian government’s proposal for “One Nation, One Election” aims to hold simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. This article examines the constitutional and legal challenges associated with implementing this proposal. We analyze the potential impact on federalism, the role of the Election Commission, and the required constitutional amendments. While simultaneous elections may reduce costs and minimize disruptions, they also raise concerns about state autonomy and democratic representation. This article provides a balanced analysis of the pros and cons, highlighting the legal complexities and potential consequences of this significant electoral reform.

Keywords: One Nation, One Election, constitutional law, electoral reform, democracy.

Introduction

The concept of “One Nation, One Election” has gained significant attention in India’s political and legal discourse, presenting a vision to align the election cycles of the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and state legislative assemblies. The idea is rooted in the desire to streamline the democratic process, reduce the financial burden of repeated elections, and minimize administrative disruptions that frequently affect governance. While the proposal promises efficiency, it raises complex legal and constitutional issues that must be carefully considered.

At the heart of this debate lies the Indian Constitution, which governs the terms, dissolution, and functions of both Parliament and state legislatures. Any move toward synchronized elections requires amendments to key constitutional provisions, notably Articles 83, 85, 172, and 174, which dictate the tenure of legislatures and the powers of the President and Governors to dissolve these bodies. Additionally, the Election Commission of India’s role in managing the logistics of simultaneous elections would need recalibration.

The legal framework surrounding the “One Nation, One Election” proposal, exploring the constitutional amendments required, potential challenges to India’s federal structure, and the implications for electoral democracy. It also evaluates whether such a sweeping reform aligns with the principles of representative governance and political accountability, offering a critical perspective on the legal viability of this ambitious electoral reform.

Background 

The concept of simultaneous elections has existed since 1983, when the Election Commission initially proposed it. However, simultaneous elections were standard practice in India until 1967. The first General Elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies were conducted together in 1951-52, a practice that continued in the subsequent General Elections of 1957, 1962, and 1967. The disruption occurred in 1968 and 1969 when some Legislative Assemblies were dissolved prematurely. In 1970, the Lok Sabha itself was dissolved early, leading to fresh elections in 1971. As a result, only the First, Second, and Third Lok Sabha completed their full five-year terms.

Constitutional Positions and Provisions

1. Article 83(2) – Term of Lok Sabha:

   Article 83(2) of the Indian Constitution stipulates that the duration of the Lok Sabha is five years unless dissolved earlier. Simultaneous elections would require mechanisms to synchronize the terms of the Lok Sabha and the various state assemblies, which may necessitate amendments to accommodate situations where the Lok Sabha or an assembly is dissolved prematurely.

2. Article 85 – Dissolution of the Lok Sabha:

   Article 85 gives the President of India the power to dissolve the Lok Sabha on the advice of the Prime Minister. This poses a challenge to simultaneous elections, as premature dissolution disrupts the election cycle. A fixed-term Parliament, like in other countries, would likely need constitutional amendments to ensure synchronization of elections.

3. Article 172 – Term of State Legislative Assemblies:

   Article 172 governs the tenure of state legislative assemblies, which is also five years, unless dissolved sooner. Simultaneous elections would require that the terms of all state legislative assemblies align with that of the Lok Sabha, presenting the need for adjustments in case of premature dissolution of assemblies.

4. Article 356 – President’s Rule:

   Article 356, which deals with the imposition of President’s Rule in states, allows for the dissolution of state assemblies or keeping them under suspended animation. This provision could complicate efforts to synchronize state elections with the Lok Sabha, as the imposition of President’s Rule in a state would disrupt the electoral timeline.

5. Article 324 – Powers of Election Commission:

   Article 324 vests the power of superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission of India. While the Commission can oversee elections, it does not have the power to unilaterally synchronize them. Implementing simultaneous elections would require extensive consultation with the Election Commission to ensure logistical feasibility.

6. Amendments to the Constitution and Laws:

   For ‘One Nation, One Election’ to become a reality, several constitutional amendments would be required. Reports suggest that as many as 18 existing laws, including the Representation of the People Act (1951), would need to be amended to bring the terms of state assemblies and the Lok Sabha into alignment. 

7. Representation of the People Act, 1951:

   This Act lays down the process for the conduct of elections in India, including provisions for scheduling elections after dissolution of either the Lok Sabha or state assemblies. The Act would need to be amended to accommodate simultaneous elections and possibly fixed-term legislatures.

Challenges in Constitutional Implementation:

• Federalism: India’s Constitution embodies a federal structure, granting autonomy to both the Union and state governments. One of the major concerns raised by regional parties is that simultaneous elections could undermine the federal spirit by diminishing the importance of state-specific issues in the face of national political narratives.

• Premature Dissolution: The Constitution allows for the dissolution of both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies before the completion of their full term. If elections were to be held simultaneously, provisions would need to be made for handling premature dissolutions without disrupting the overall election cycle.

• Judicial Intervention: The Supreme Court of India has played a key role in interpreting electoral laws and provisions of the Constitution. It would likely weigh in on any proposed amendments aimed at introducing simultaneous elections, particularly with respect to federalism and democratic principles.

High-Level Committee and Recommendations:

   The idea of simultaneous elections was first proposed by the Election Commission in 1983, and several government bodies, including the Law Commission of India, have since explored its feasibility. In 2023, a high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind was tasked with examining the proposal. The committee has suggested the need for 15 constitutional amendments, highlighting the complexity and scale of changes required to implement ‘One Nation, One Election’.

Arguments in Favor of ‘One Nation One Election’: 

1. Reduction in Financial Burden on the State Exchequer: Continuous election cycles impose a heavy financial strain on the state exchequer. Implementing ‘One Nation One Election’ would lower the overall expenses associated with conducting elections by the Election Commission of India (ECI). For instance, the 2014 Lok Sabha elections cost the exchequer ₹3,870 crore, while the 2015 Bihar state elections alone cost ₹300 crore. ECI estimates that simultaneous elections would cost around ₹4,500 crore.

2. More Efficient Use of Financial Resources by Political Parties: Holding simultaneous elections would reduce the campaign costs for political parties and candidates, allowing smaller regional parties to better manage their financial resources.

3. Shorter Duration of the Model Code of Conduct: The frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) during elections halts development projects for extended periods. Simultaneous elections would minimize the policy paralysis caused by the MCC.

4. Focus on Governance Instead of Constantly Being in ‘Election Mode’: Simultaneous elections would ensure the continuity of government policies and programs at both the central and state levels, reducing the disruption of normal life and limiting political rallies. This would enhance the delivery of essential services to the public.

5. Increased Administrative Efficiency: During elections, state machinery and high-ranking officers from other states are often deployed as poll observers. Conducting simultaneous elections would improve the overall efficiency of the administrative system.

6. Reduction in the Use of Black Money: Elections often involve large expenditures by candidates, much of which comes from unaccounted black money. Conducting all elections at once would reduce the circulation of black money in the economy.

Arguments Against ‘One Nation One Election’: 

1. Reduced Accountability: Regular elections ensure that governments remain responsive to the people’s will. State elections act as a feedback mechanism for political parties. Critics argue that if governments are guaranteed a fixed term, it could lead to autocratic tendencies and reduce their accountability to voters.

2. Undermining Federal Power: In recent years, regional issues have gained importance, with many regional parties, like the DMK in Tamil Nadu, TDP in Andhra Pradesh, and Biju Janata Dal in Odisha, forming state governments. Simultaneous elections could lead to national issues overshadowing state concerns, diminishing the relevance of local issues in state elections.

3. Disadvantage for Regional Parties: Critics argue that simultaneous elections would hurt regional parties, as national issues would dominate the discourse, leaving local matters sidelined. Regional parties may struggle to compete with national parties in terms of campaign resources and strategies.

4. Contrary to the Spirit of Democracy: Opponents claim that enforcing simultaneous elections undermines democratic principles. It imposes an artificial election cycle and restricts voter choice, limiting the natural democratic process of regular elections.

5. Influence on Voter Choices and Behaviour: Simultaneous elections could cause voters to support the same party at both national and state levels, disadvantaging regional parties. According to research by the IDFC Institute, when elections are held simultaneously, there is a 77% likelihood of voters choosing the same party for both state assemblies and the Lok Sabha. This likelihood decreases to 61% when elections are held six months apart.

Recent development 

The Union Cabinet has recently accepted the recommendations of the High-Level Committee led by Ram Nath Kovind on the One Nation, One Election initiative. The committee proposed that simultaneous Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections should be the initial step, followed by municipal and panchayat elections within 100 days of the general election. To implement this plan, the roadmap outlined by the committee, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, calls for 18 amendments to existing laws, including 15 amendments to the Constitution.

Conclusion

While the idea of simultaneous elections offers many potential benefits, such as cost savings and administrative efficiency, it raises significant constitutional challenges, particularly with respect to the federal structure, the dissolution of legislatures, and logistical coordination. Implementing ‘One Nation, One Election’ would require extensive constitutional amendments, legislative reforms, and a consensus among political parties, especially regional ones, to ensure that such a system preserves the democratic and federal principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Major reforms often involve short-term challenges, making their implementation politically risky. A balanced strategy, incorporating stakeholder consultations and a phased rollout, could help address these challenges while achieving the benefits of holding elections concurrently across India.

FAQs

1. Why is One Nation, One Election being considered?

   -The primary reasons for considering this proposal are to reduce the financial burden of frequent elections, improve governance by minimizing political disruptions, and enhance administrative efficiency.

2. Has India ever held simultaneous elections before?

   -Yes, India held simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies from 1951-52 until 1967. The cycle was disrupted in 1968-69 due to premature dissolution of some assemblies and the Lok Sabha.

3. How will One Nation, One Election affect regional parties?

   – Critics argue that regional parties may face disadvantages because national issues may overshadow local concerns, making it harder for these parties to highlight their agendas in a simultaneous election setting.

4. Which countries conduct simultaneous elections?

   – Countries like Belgium, Sweden, and South Africa conduct simultaneous elections for different levels of government. If implemented, India would become the fourth country to adopt this model.

5. How can One Nation, One Election impact governance?

   -By reducing the frequency of elections, governments can focus more on governance rather than being in constant election mode, leading to improved continuity of policies and programs. 

6. How does One Nation, One Election impact voter turnout?

   -Simultaneous elections may increase voter turnout as citizens can cast their votes for national, state, and local bodies on the same day, reducing the need for multiple voting days.

                                                  _____________