Introduction
The idea of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) has gained significant political and public attention in recent years. This idea advocates for synchronising elections to the Lok Sabha and every State Assembly nationwide. Proponents argue that it would reduce election-related costs, ensure better governance, and minimise the disruption of development activities. However, the proposal is not without its share of constitutional, legal, and logistical challenges. This article explores the constitutional feasibility and the legal hurdles involved in implementing this ambitious reform.
Background of the Proposal
India followed the system of simultaneous elections in the first two decades after independence. The first general elections in 1951–52 witnessed both Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections conducted together. This practice continued till 1967. However, due to political instability, premature dissolutions of assemblies and the Lok Sabha caused the electoral cycles to go out of sync.
The push to revive the system gained momentum in recent years, particularly after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Law Commission of India highlighted the potential benefits of the ONOE model. The idea has also been examined by parliamentary committees and various expert panels.
Benefits of One Nation, One Election
1. Cost Efficiency: Holding separate elections for different states and the centre involves enormous expenditure by the Election Commission, political parties, and the government. A simultaneous election can drastically cut down these costs.
2. Reduced Administrative Burden: Frequent elections divert the administration and security forces from their regular duties to electoral duties. ONOE can ensure smoother governance and administrative continuity.
3. Policy Continuity and Governance: With elections spread throughout the year, governments often adopt populist measures or remain in “election mode.” Simultaneous elections can reduce this cycle and allow for more focused governance.
4. Minimising Political Polarisation: Continuous elections often lead to a highly politicised environment. A consolidated election process could result in more stable political discourse.
Constitutional Feasibility
Implementing ONOE is not merely an administrative change but involves deep-rooted constitutional implications. India’s federal structure ensures that both the central and state governments derive their legitimacy from separate electoral mandates. The following constitutional provisions come into play:
1. Article 83(2) and Article 172
• Article 83(2) states that the Lok Sabha has a five-year term unless dissolved earlier.
• The duration of State Assemblies is also fixed at five years, as stipulated under Article 172.
To synchronise elections, the terms of some assemblies or the Lok Sabha would have to be either extended or curtailed — a move requiring constitutional amendments.
2. Article 356 (President’s Rule)
In case a government falls before completing its term, the usual procedure is to impose President’s Rule and hold fresh elections. Under ONOE, this would disturb the electoral cycle again unless mid-term elections are avoided or temporary arrangements are made.
3. Amendment Requirement
To implement ONOE effectively, amendments will be required in:
• Articles 83 and 172 (to alter terms of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies)
• Article 85 and 174 (regarding dissolution of houses)
• Possibly Article 356 (in case of early dissolution)
Because Article 368(2) demands ratification by a majority of states, securing the necessary backing would be politically demanding.
Legal Challenges
1. Federalism Concerns
India is a Union of States, and states have equal constitutional status with their own elected governments. Imposing a uniform electoral schedule may be seen as an infringement on the autonomy of states, raising questions under the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution.
2. Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court, in cases like SR Bommai v. Union of India and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, has emphasized democratic governance and the federal structure as part of the basic structure. Any drastic change that affects these core values could face judicial scrutiny.
3. Dissolution Scenarios
What happens if a state government or the central government loses its majority midway? Should elections be held immediately or deferred to maintain synchronization? Such uncertainty could lead to legal disputes and challenges before courts.
Administrative and Logistical Hurdles
Even if the constitutional and legal issues are addressed, several logistical challenges remain:
• Deployment of Security Forces: Conducting a nationwide election at once will require massive deployment of security personnel, which may not be feasible.
• Availability of EVMs and VVPATs: Sufficient electronic voting machines and verification units must be available across all constituencies simultaneously.
• Voter Awareness and Complexity: Voters may be confused when casting votes for both state and national elections at the same time, particularly in rural and less literate areas.
• Election Commission’s Capacity: The Election Commission will have to make structural changes to its functioning and planning. It will also need legal empowerment to enforce synchronisation and handle related disputes.
Proposed Solutions and Alternatives
Various committees and think tanks have suggested transitional models to implement ONOE:
1. Phased Synchronisation: Aligning the elections of a few states with the Lok Sabha over two or three election cycles.
2. Fixed Term Legislature: Adopting a fixed term system, as followed in the U.S., to ensure elections happen at fixed intervals regardless of mid-term crises.
3. Constructive Vote of No-Confidence: Introducing this German model, where a government can only be removed if there is a majority to elect a successor, preventing early dissolutions.
4. Use of President’s Rule Sparingly: Encouraging political stability and avoiding premature dissolution of assemblies through coalition-building incentives.
Conclusion
The concept of One Nation, One Election reflects a vision for streamlined governance, cost-effectiveness, and electoral efficiency. However, the Indian constitutional framework is inherently federal and diverse, posing serious challenges to uniform election scheduling. Implementing ONOE will require a broad political consensus, legal reforms, constitutional amendments, and careful planning to respect the spirit of federalism and democracy.
While the goal is laudable, any move toward simultaneous elections must be guided by legal prudence, democratic ethics, must be guided by legal prudence, democratic ethics, and the principle of cooperative federalism. Without a balanced approach, ONOE could lead to more confusion than clarity, and more centralisation than coordination.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India