The Union Cabinet has cleared the proposal to implement One Nation One Election, synchronising the General and Assembly elections. But can India’s current infrastructure and laws support this ambitious endeavour?
The Union Cabinet of the NDA government on September 18, cleared the implementation of the One Nation, One Election model. Earlier this month, reports had emerged that the BJP-led government will implement the proposal before 2029. The idea to once again hold simultaneous general and state Assembly elections is an old one, but one which faces many obstacles, including the Opposition's objection that it is unconstitutional.
In March, 2024, a High-level Committee on Simultaneous Elections, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, submitted its report to President Droupadi Murmu. Here is a brief overview of the report:
The Kovind-led Committee recommended bringing state, local, and general elections under one phase by 2029. The report also said amendments to Articles of the Constitution would be required.
The report said the elections would be synced in two phases. To begin with, it suggests syncing the Lok Sabha and state Assembly elections. After that, the Panchayat and Municipality elections should be held within 100 days of the Lok Sabha and State elections, it added. The Committee has also said there needs to be a single electoral roll and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) for General, state and local elections.
In a press release dated March 14, 2024, the PIB said the “Committee has crafted its recommendations in such a way that they are in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution of India and would require bare minimum amendments to the Constitution.”
The Committee said that the following changes are required:
Insertion of Article 82A and Article 324A
The proposed Article 82A(2) allows “all the Legislative Assemblies constituted in any general election held after the appointed date shall end on the expiry of the full term of the House of the People.” The Committee report said that the President should issue a notification to effect the amendment “on the date of the first sitting of the House of the People after a general election.”
The Election Commission of India (ECI), under Article 82A(3), would have to hold General and State Legislative Assembly elections simultaneously. If the ECI cannot conduct simultaneous polls, Article 82A(4) authorises it to “make a recommendation to the President, to declare by an Order, that the election to that Legislative Assembly may be conducted at a later date.”
Article 324A would allow for municipality and panchayat elections be held alongside General Elections.
Amendment to Article 327
Article 327 of the Constitution gives the Parliament power to make election-related laws.
Amendments to Articles 83 and 172
The Committee recommends amending Articles 83 and 172, dealing with the five-year terms of Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies, respectively. The five-year term would, after the amendment, be called a “full term”. If either Houses are dissolved before the full term, the remaining time would be the “unexpired term.”
“In this manner, at the end of five years, the House of the People and all the State Legislative Assemblies would reach the end of their tenure simultaneously and be ready for a General election held simultaneously,” the Committee report said.
Many political parties have taken umbrage at this provision. The amendment could potentially curb no-confidence motions because challenging the government in power would only mean that the next government would be in power for the “unexpired term.”
Miscellaneous Amendments
To hold simultaneous elections, the statutes governing India’s Union Territories need to be amended. Finally, States must ratify these changes as per Article 368 of the Constitution.
The Opposition has said that several Articles of the Constitution will have to be amended for holding simultaneous elections. Four national-level political parties have objected to the One Nation, One Election scheme saying it was unconstitutional. The Aam Aadmi Party said it would “institutionalise a Presidential form of government, which cannot be dislodged by a vote of no confidence,” while the Congress said this would require “substantial changes to the basic structure of the Constitution.”