Author: Arpita Kamble, a student at HVPS College of Law, Mumbai University.
LinkedIn Profile Link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/arpita-kamble-2953a1334
To the Point
“One Nation, One Election” refers to the proposal of holding elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously. India followed a similar electoral cycle during the early years after independence, with elections being held together from 1951 to 1967. This cycle was later disrupted due to the premature dissolution of some State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha.
The proposal has again gained importance as a possible electoral reform aimed at reducing the frequency, cost and administrative burden associated with repeated elections. The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 were introduced in Parliament in December 2024 and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed examination. As of 2026, the Committee continues to examine the proposed framework.
The proposal, however, raises important constitutional and political questions. These include the impact on federalism, the tenure of elected governments, the role of the Election Commission of India, parliamentary accountability and the possibility of constitutional amendments affecting the basic structure of the Constitution.
The concept of One Nation, One Election involves several important constitutional principles, including federalism, parliamentary democracy, constitutionalism, electoral representation, legislative tenure, separation of powers and the basic structure doctrine.
Under the existing constitutional framework, the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies generally have a five-year term, subject to earlier dissolution. Articles 83 and 172 deal with the duration of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies respectively. The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to create a framework under which elections to these bodies can be synchronised.
The proposal also raises the issue of constitutional amendmentunder Article 368. Although Parliament possesses the power to amend the Constitution, such power is subject to the basic structure doctrine. Parliament cannot use its amending power to destroy or fundamentally alter the basic features of the Constitution.
Another important concept is federalism, under which legislative and executive powers are distributed between the Union and the States. Critics of simultaneous elections argue that synchronising elections could affect the political independence and electoral priorities of State Governments.
The concept of parliamentary accountability is equally important. In a parliamentary system, a government remains in office as long as it enjoys the confidence of the elected House. Therefore, the possibility of premature dissolution is an important consideration while designing a fixed electoral cycle.
Constitutional and Legislative Framework
The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 seeks to provide a constitutional framework for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. The proposed framework would allow the President to notify the commencement of the simultaneous election cycle after a general election to the Lok Sabha.
Under the proposal, State Assemblies constituted after such notification would have their terms aligned with the term of the Lok Sabha. If the Lok Sabha or a State Assembly is dissolved before completing its full term, an election would be held for the remaining period of that term rather than beginning a completely new five-year cycle.
The proposal also contemplates situations where an election to a particular State Assembly cannot be held simultaneously. In such circumstances, the Election Commission may recommend to the President that the election to that State Assembly be held at a later date, subject to the proposed constitutional framework.
One of the principal arguments in favour of simultaneous elections is the reduction of the financial and administrative burden associated with frequent elections. Repeated elections require substantial deployment of security personnel, government employees and election machinery.
Another argument concerns the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). Frequent elections result in repeated periods during which the MCC applies to the concerned electoral areas. Supporters of One Nation, One Election argue that reducing the frequency of elections could minimise interruptions to governance and policy implementation.
Simultaneous elections may also allow political parties and governments to focus more consistently on governance instead of remaining in a continuous election cycle. Supporters further argue that it may reduce election expenditure and improve administrative efficiency.
Constitutional and Political Challenges
Despite these possible advantages, simultaneous elections present several constitutional challenges.
The first major concern is federalism. State elections allow voters to separately evaluate State Governments on issues relating specifically to their State. If Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections are held together, there is a concern that national political issues may dominate the electoral campaign and influence voting patterns in State elections.
The second issue relates to political accountability. The parliamentary system is based not only on stability but also on accountability. A government may lose its majority before completing five years. Therefore, maintaining synchronisation after a premature dissolution creates a difficult constitutional question.
The proposed system attempts to address this by limiting the term of a newly elected government to the remaining period of the original electoral cycle. However, this could result in some governments having relatively short terms, which may raise questions regarding effective governance and democratic representation.
Another concern relates to the powers of the Election Commission of India. The proposed framework gives the Election Commission an important role in determining whether elections to a particular State Assembly can be conducted simultaneously. This raises questions about the scope of its constitutional authority and the safeguards required when an election is postponed.
Therefore, the success of One Nation, One Election would depend upon creating a framework that balances electoral efficiency with constitutional principles, federal autonomy and democratic accountability.
One Nation, One Election is an important proposal for reforming India’s electoral system by synchronising elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. Although simultaneous elections were conducted in India during the period from 1951 to 1967, the electoral cycle was subsequently disrupted due to premature dissolutions of legislatures.
The proposal has gained renewed importance through the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. These Bills seek to establish a constitutional and legislative framework for conducting simultaneous elections. They are presently under examination by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
This article examines the constitutional and political challenges associated with the proposal, including federalism, parliamentary accountability, legislative tenure, the role of the Election Commission and the basic structure doctrine. While simultaneous elections may reduce expenditure and administrative disruption, the reform must ensure that electoral efficiency does not come at the cost of democratic accountability and the constitutional balance between the Union and the States.
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225, is one of the most significant constitutional judgments in India. The Supreme Court established the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that although Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure.
The case is relevant to One Nation, One Election because the proposal involves constitutional amendments concerning the tenure and electoral cycle of legislatures. Any constitutional amendment introducing simultaneous elections must therefore operate within the limitations imposed by the basic structure doctrine.
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court recognised the importance of federalism as a significant feature of the Indian constitutional system. The judgment placed constitutional limitations on the misuse of Article 356 and emphasised the importance of democratic and federal principles.
The judgment is relevant to the One Nation, One Election debate because synchronisation of elections must preserve the constitutional position and democratic autonomy of State Governments. Any electoral reform should maintain the federal balance between the Union and the States.
3. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)
In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651, the Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of the Anti-Defection Law. The Court recognised the importance of maintaining the stability of parliamentary democracy while also subjecting constitutional authorities to judicial review.
The case is relevant because One Nation, One Election also attempts to address the relationship between political stability and democratic accountability. Electoral stability cannot be achieved at the expense of constitutional safeguards and democratic principles.
4. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)
In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Supreme Court examined the powers of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution. The Court recognised the broad constitutional responsibility of the Election Commission in ensuring free and fair elections.
The judgment becomes relevant to simultaneous elections because the Election Commission would have a significant administrative and constitutional role in implementing a synchronised electoral cycle. Any expansion or modification of its responsibilities must remain consistent with constitutional safeguards.
One Nation, One Election represents an important proposal for electoral reform in India. The idea has potential advantages, including reduction in election expenditure, efficient use of administrative resources and fewer disruptions caused by repeated elections.
However, electoral efficiency cannot be considered in isolation from constitutional principles. The proposal raises important questions concerning federalism, parliamentary accountability, legislative tenure, the powers of the Election Commission and the basic structure of the Constitution.
The central challenge is therefore to create a system that provides greater electoral stability without weakening the democratic accountability of elected governments. Any constitutional amendment must preserve the federal character of the Constitution and respect the independent electoral mandate of the people.
One Nation, One Election should consequently be viewed not merely as an administrative reform, but as a significant constitutional and political reform requiring careful legislative scrutiny, broad political consultation and appropriate constitutional safeguards. The objective should be to improve the efficiency of elections while preserving the fundamental principles of Indian parliamentary democracy.
1. What is One Nation, One Election?
One Nation, One Election refers to the proposal to hold elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously rather than conducting them at different times.
2. Has India previously held simultaneous elections?
Yes. Elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously from 1951 to 1967. The cycle was later disrupted due to premature dissolution of some legislatures.
3. What are the main advantages of simultaneous elections?
The major proposed advantages include reducing election expenditure, administrative burden, repeated deployment of security personnel and disruptions caused by frequent elections.
4. What are the major concerns regarding One Nation, One Election?
The major concerns include its impact on federalism, State political autonomy, parliamentary accountability, legislative tenure and the possibility of national issues overshadowing State-specific issues.
5. Does One Nation, One Election require constitutional amendments?
Yes. The current proposal involves constitutional amendments to establish the legal framework for synchronising elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 was introduced for this purpose and is under examination by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
6. Will simultaneous elections mean voting on exactly the same day?
Not necessarily. The proposal is aimed at synchronising the electoral cycle rather than requiring every vote to be cast on exactly the same day. Elections may be conducted in phases as required by the Election Commission, while maintaining the proposed simultaneous electoral cycle. The Joint Parliamentary Committee has also clarified that “One Nation, One Election” does not necessarily mean voting everywhere on a single day.
7. Why is federalism important in this debate?
India follows a federal constitutional structure in which powers are distributed between the Union and the States. Any electoral reform must therefore ensure that State Governments continue to have democratic legitimacy and constitutional autonomy.
8. Can the proposal be challenged on the basis of the Basic Structure Doctrine?
A constitutional amendment introducing simultaneous elections would remain subject to the limitations imposed by the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala established that Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution
