India has been debating the idea of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) as a transformative electoral reform aimed at improving governance and reducing costs. The proposal seeks to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies, with the broader objective of reducing frequent disruptions caused by staggered election cycles.

A Joint Committee of Parliament is currently examining the draft Bill. Former Chief Justices of India recently appeared before this committee to offer constitutional insights, setting off an important debate about whether the proposal respects the spirit and structure of India’s Constitution.

Background and Rationale

Synchronized elections were India’s original practice. In the first two decades after Independence, elections to Parliament and State Assemblies were held together. This continued until 1967, when political instability and premature dissolution of several state governments led to desynchronized election cycles.

Since then, frequent elections have become a feature of India’s democracy, bringing several challenges:

·         The Model Code of Conduct is enforced repeatedly, halting development projects and delaying decisions.

·         Election expenses have increased tremendously, with huge administrative and security costs.

·         Policymakers are often compelled to focus on short-term populist measures instead of long-term reforms.

·         Voters experience fatigue due to frequent polling.

The idea of ONOE is to consolidate elections into a single electoral cycle to reduce these inefficiencies.

Key Observations by Former Chief Justices

During their presentations to the Joint Committee, former Chief Justices offered nuanced perspectives.

1. Basic Structure Doctrine: Both Justices agreed that the Bill in principle does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. They clarified that asynchronous elections are not an essential requirement for free and fair elections. In fact, holding simultaneous elections was India’s original electoral model.

2. Powers of the Election Commission of India: One significant concern related to the extensive powers proposed for the Election Commission of India (ECI). The Justices cautioned that the Bill remains silent on important scenarios, including:

·         How elections would be managed during the imposition of Emergency in a state.

·         Whether an Assembly nearing the end of its term would still face elections or be allowed to continue.

They suggested that these gaps need to be addressed through clearer drafting to avoid legal challenges.

3. Article 82A and Tenure of Legislatures: The Bill proposes introducing Article 82A(1) to fix an appointed date for simultaneous elections. One Justice observed that this clause only sets a starting date and does not itself alter the election process or Assembly tenure, making it constitutionally permissible. Another Justice noted that the Constitution only specifies a maximum five-year term for legislatures, not a minimum, and that early dissolution is permitted if voters are informed.

4. No-Confidence Motion: To ensure stability, it was proposed that rules governing no-confidence motions could be revised. Such revisions could be implemented through changes in House rules, rather than requiring constitutional amendments, simplifying the process.

Recommendations of Expert Committees

Over the years, various commissions and expert panels have recommended versions of simultaneous elections:

·         The Election Commission of India (1983) suggested holding Lok Sabha and Assembly elections together.

·         The Law Commission (1999) proposed simultaneous polls with a provision to delay counting of votes until the Assembly’s term expired.

·         The Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and Justice recommended a two-phase model.

·         The NITI Aayog Discussion Paper (2017) supported gradual synchronization.

·         The Law Commission Draft Report (2018) outlined options like advancing or postponing elections to bring them into alignment.

More recently, a High-Level Committee led by a former President proposed a two-step implementation:

1.      First phase: Synchronizing Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections.

2.      Second phase: Aligning municipal and panchayat elections within 100 days, which would require ratification by half of India’s states.

Potential Benefits of ONOE

Supporters of the proposal cite several advantages:

·         Reducing Policy Paralysis: The Model Code of Conduct would only be enforced once every five years, allowing governments to implement policies without frequent interruptions.

·         Lowering Election Costs: A synchronized system could save resources by combining logistics, security deployment, and administrative planning.

·         Discouraging Populism: With fewer elections, governments may focus more on long-term development instead of announcing short-term welfare schemes for electoral gains.

·         Improving Governance Efficiency: Election-related offences and disputes could be reduced, easing pressure on courts and law enforcement agencies.

·         Reducing Politicization of Governance: Parliamentary and Assembly proceedings would be less frequently disrupted by election-related strategies.

International Experiences

Other democracies have successfully conducted synchronized elections. For example:

·         Sweden holds elections for its national legislature, provincial councils, and municipal assemblies on a fixed date every four years.

·         South Africa organizes national and provincial elections together every five years.

These examples show that with clear legal frameworks and strong institutions, synchronised elections are possible.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite potential benefits, significant challenges remain:

Constitutional and Legal Issues

·         Synchronization requires amendments to Articles 83, 172, 327, and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

·         Questions have been raised about whether state Assemblies’ terms can be curtailed or extended without undermining federalism.

·         The no-confidence motion provision allows early dissolutions, which contradicts the idea of fixed terms.

Operational and Logistical Challenges

·         India has over 96 crore voters and more than a million polling booths.

·         Conducting elections across all levels simultaneously requires vast resources and complex coordination.

Federalism and Political Representation

·         Local issues risk being overshadowed by national narratives, weakening the role of regional parties.

·         Voters might prioritize national parties, reducing diversity in representation.

Reduced Accountability

·         Frequent elections keep politicians engaged with public issues.

·         A single election cycle every five years may lower political responsiveness and public engagement.

Way Forward

To address these issues, a phased and consultative approach is essential:

·         Building Consensus: Political parties, constitutional experts, and the Election Commission must agree on the roadmap.

·         Phase-wise Implementation: Gradual synchronization can help adapt systems and address challenges incrementally.

·         Legal Safeguards: Clear provisions must be drafted to protect federal principles and clarify procedures for emergencies or early dissolutions.

·         Comprehensive Electoral Reforms: Simultaneous elections should be accompanied by reforms in funding transparency, regulation of election expenses, and fair representation.

Conclusion

One Nation, One Election offers a bold vision to streamline India’s electoral process and strengthen governance. However, it also brings complex legal, political, and logistical questions that cannot be ignored. Thoughtful planning, clear laws, and wide consensus will be critical to ensuring any reform strengthens India’s democratic foundations while preserving its federal character.