The recent discussions at the India Today Conclave in Mumbai have brought to light the BJP’s aggressive push for the controversial concept of ‘One Nation, One Election.’ This proposal, which emerged just ahead of the elections, has ignited significant debate within the political landscape. Introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi a few years back, the initiative aims to reduce the frequency of elections and streamline governance. Proponents argue that the constant cycle of state elections distracts the Prime Minister and other leaders from addressing pressing national issues, thereby justifying the call for simultaneous elections across the country. However, many view this rationale as a weak excuse to divert attention from more pressing matters. In this article, we will explore why the idea of holding simultaneous elections is fundamentally flawed.
Formation of a High-Level Committee
In response to the proposal, a high-level committee was formed to assess the feasibility of simultaneous elections. This committee, led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, included notable figures such as Home Minister Amit Shah, former Leader of the Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad, former Chairman of the Fifteenth Finance Commission N.K. Singh, and senior advocate Harish Salve. Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal was also invited as a special member. The committee submitted its detailed report to the President of India in March of this year.
The ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal is also part of the BJP’s manifesto for the upcoming 2024 general elections. If the ruling party had secured a clear majority, it could have claimed that the electorate endorsed this idea. However, without a decisive mandate, it becomes challenging to assert broad support for the concept. Nevertheless, with the Union Cabinet’s approval, the proposal is moving closer to implementation. The initial phase envisions simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, followed by local body elections within 100 days.
The Constitutional Amendment and Its Challenges
Implementing simultaneous elections would necessitate amendments to several key articles of the Constitution, particularly those concerning the fixed tenures of State Assemblies. Currently, Article 172 stipulates that State Assemblies have a fixed five-year term, which would need to be altered to align their tenures with that of the Lok Sabha. The fate of this constitutional amendment bill remains uncertain. Once introduced in the 18th Lok Sabha, it must undergo consideration and general debate before a vote can take place. Passing the bill requires a special majority—specifically, the support of two-thirds of members present and voting, as well as a majority of the total membership of the House. With 543 members in the Lok Sabha, this means the bill would need 362 votes to pass.
Currently, the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) holds around 292 seats, leaving a significant gap to achieve the required special majority. Given that opposition parties largely oppose the ‘One Nation, One Election’ concept, garnering the necessary support will be a formidable challenge. The bill’s fate may be determined during the initial consideration stage, highlighting the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment without bipartisan backing.
Evaluating the Arguments for Simultaneous Elections
The high-level committee advocating for simultaneous elections cites two main reasons: cost savings and minimizing disruptions to governance caused by frequent elections.
- Cost: The committee argues that conducting all elections every five years would lead to substantial cost savings, given the significant expenditures associated with each election cycle. However, this assertion warrants closer examination. The Election Commission of India (ECI) oversees all elections to Parliament and State legislatures, with funding approved by Parliament. For the financial year 2023-24, Parliament allocated ₹466 crore to the ECI, primarily for the upcoming general election. While state governments also incur some logistical costs, the overall expenditure on elections cannot be deemed excessive. Political parties, on the other hand, spend vast sums during elections. Yet, there is little evidence to suggest that any savings from simultaneous elections would be redirected toward infrastructure development, such as building roads, bridges, or hospitals. Simultaneous elections were held from 1951-52 to 1967, but there is no proof that political parties invested any savings from fewer elections into public works.
- Disruptions: Another argument in favour of simultaneous elections is that frequent elections disrupt developmental plans and government projects due to the model code of conduct being in effect most of the time. However, this claim also lacks empirical support. Periodic elections have been held since 1967, but there is no clear evidence that they have hindered the government’s developmental momentum. For instance, in 2016, the Indian government implemented demonetization—one of the most disruptive economic decisions in recent history—just before the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election.
The Impact on Federalism
Perhaps the most significant concern regarding simultaneous elections is their potential impact on federalism. State Assemblies are autonomous legislative bodies under the Constitution, operating independently of the central government. Synchronising their tenures with that of the Lok Sabha would undermine their autonomy, violating the principle of federalism enshrined in India’s Constitution. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case established that federalism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, which cannot be altered by Parliament.
If simultaneous elections are implemented, some State Assemblies may face shortened terms of just two or three years, while others may have extended terms. This restructuring would represent a significant shift in India’s federal setup and could weaken the country’s democratic institutions.
Final Thoughts
While the notion of simultaneous elections may appear appealing from a cost-saving and efficiency standpoint, it poses serious challenges to India’s federal structure and democratic processes. The potential disruption to the autonomy of State Assemblies and the lack of compelling evidence supporting the claimed benefits make this a contentious issue. For many ordinary Indians, simultaneous elections may not be a priority, and the risks could outweigh the perceived advantages.
(Mohd Ziyauallah Khan is a freelance content writer based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, co-founder of the group TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media.)