Recently on 2nd September, an 8-member committee was appointed by the centre under the chairmanship of former president Ram Nath Kovind to consider the feasibility of one election across the nation. The lone opposition member included in the committee was Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, the Congress MP from West Bengal. He withdrew from it with a note to Home Minister Amit Shah saying that the move is a “total eyewash”[1]. This has reignited debates about its impact on the constitutional framework, the position of regional parties and how it strikes at the very idea of federalism.
Historical background
In fact, from the elections held in 1952, 1957 and 1962 (during the tenure of our first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru) and later in 1967 (under Indira Gandhi) India had simultaneous elections[2]. Till 1967 simultaneous elections used to happen in the country. However, its subsequent misuse and dissolution of some state assemblies led to the beginning of separate elections. In 1960 some state government machinery failed and presidential rule was imposed. In some states like Assam, Haryana, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab emergency was imposed which created difficulties in implementing the ideas of simultaneous elections failing to create synchronisation between centre and state.
Urge to switch back to simultaneous elections
Simultaneous elections do not necessarily mean that all of the State Assemblies and the House of the People are chosen on the same day. General elections can only be held in stages, therefore if and when it is agreed to have simultaneous elections, voters in a certain seat will cast their votes for both the State Assembly and Lok Sabha on the same day. Elections to the House of the People and State Assemblies are the simultaneous elections mentioned in the current law commission report. The Supreme Court in S. Subramaniam Balaji v Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.[3] held that our political heritage is more focused on individual voters than interest groups. Frequent elections force the political parties in power to adopt populist policies rather than nationalist ones. Simultaneous elections will boost voter turnout and highlight the dynamism of political citizenship and civic engagement. Voter turnout increased in states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Kerala when their elections coincided with the national ones.
In 1983 the Election Commission of India[4] suggested going back to simultaneous elections.
The Law Commission of India in 1999[5] headed by BP Jeevan Reddy also pushed for the same. In 2004 this idea was suggested by the Election Commission of India headed by T.S Krishnamurthy, arguing that it would be cost-effective, save resources and provide a more stable government.
In 2014 when our Prime Minister came to power in the centre it was a part of their manifesto to bring back simultaneous election in India for which NITI Aayog was assigned with the responsibility to explore the possibilities further. It also reinforced its view in, “Analysis of Simultaneous Elections: The ‘What’, ‘Why’, and ‘How'”[6]. NITI Aayog recommended the development of an integrated, technology-driven platform for efficient voter registration and management of election-related data. To ensure stability, the report suggested that a no-confidence motion against the government could only be moved if it included a confidence motion for an alternative government, reducing the chances of frequent disruptions which would mean no hanging governments. It also proposed that the central government provide financial support to states for the transition to one nation one election model to address any additional costs incurred. The Law Commission recommended that elections for legislative assemblies with mandates of ending six months after the general election for the Lok Sabha could be merged, but the results shouldn’t be announced until the conclusion of each assembly’s separate term. The 2018 draft report on simultaneous elections from the 21st Law Commission[7] strengthened the support for concurrent elections. Sushil Chandra who was the chief Election Commissioner at that time held that the Election Commission is fully prepared and capable of conducting simultaneous elections in the country. The current Chief Election Commissioner held that it would lead to extra funds to create infrastructure and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) for conducting simultaneous elections in 2029.
benefits:
Any deviation from the norm will inevitably cause some unease, but this is not always a negative thing, as the Supreme Court noted in the case of Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors[8]. The existence of a few freakish examples of suffering on either side cannot render an order or policy illegal after the principle has been determined to be reasonable.
The idea behind this as argued by the government is every 6 months elections in some state or the other kick in which puts governance and policy decisions on hold and diverts a lot of attention and resources of the politicians towards campaigning. During the entire process, the main purpose which is law-making and implementation of developmental projects at the grassroots level takes a back seat. This would ensure the smooth and efficient functioning of government departments because frequent elections and imposition of model code of conduct also require staff from government departments for election duties because of which there is slackness in the office work thereby affecting the common people. This would also certify a unified regulating mechanism to prevent frequent disruptions of polls, and rigging during elections and to deal with other unfair practices to ensure fair elections. This will also save resources, lower costs and ensure more fair and efficient elections in the country. Not to forget that the 2019 general elections were one of the costliest entailing an expenditure of around 60,000 crore. This ensures that they will not spend again and again on freebies, this will shift the focus of political parties from short-term material gains to long-term developmental policies. This will reduce polarisation communal violence and politics revolving around elections and will eventually increase the voter turnout.
constitutional challenges :
But implementing this idea will entail a lot of amendments to the constitution like Article 83[9](Duration of Houses of Parliament), 85[10](Sessions of Parliament, prorogation and dissolution), 172[11](Duration of State Legislatures), 173[12](Qualification for membership of the State Legislature), 174[13](Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation and dissolution), and 356[14](Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States). the Representation of the People Act of 1951, and the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies would all need to be appropriately amended to put into effect this model of elections. This process is easier said than done as its implementation will lead to a lot of practical problems like lack of awareness among the masses about the new pattern of elections, dearth of infrastructure, Electronic Voting Machines, army and police staff at the polling booths to ensure smooth implementation of the process.
Comparative analysis with foreign countries:
In countries like Sweden and South Africa governments are elected simultaneously by the citizens.
Sweden is a parliamentary democracy with a multi-tiered system of government which conducts simultaneous elections for the national parliament known as the Riksdag and local governments at the municipal and county levels. It holds general elections to the Riksdag every four years. These elections determine the composition of the national legislature. Simultaneous elections in Sweden would involve electing members of the Riksdag and municipal councils (kommunfullmäktige) or county councils (landstingsfullmäktige) on the same day. Municipal and county council elections are typically held every four years as well, but not necessarily at the same time as general elections. Simultaneous elections would mean conducting these elections alongside general elections for the Riksdag.
South Africa is a democratic republic with a national parliament known as the National Assembly and provincial legislatures which also conducts simultaneous elections. It holds national elections every five years to elect members of the National Assembly. Simultaneous elections in South Africa would involve conducting these national elections alongside provincial elections. South Africa is divided into nine provinces, each with its own legislature. Provincial elections are also held every five years. Simultaneous elections mean synchronizing these provincial elections with the national ones. Local government elections are held separately, and they determine the composition of municipal councils.
In both Sweden and South Africa, the idea of simultaneous elections is a topic for political and logistical consideration. It aims to enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and engage more citizens in the electoral process while also posing challenges related to governance and representation that need to be carefully addressed. The decision to implement simultaneous elections would depend on the respective countries’ political systems, legal frameworks, and the will of their governments and citizens. But whether this model will be feasible for India remains a point of contention because the population of Sweden is 1.4 crore and the population of Delhi alone is around 2 crore. In addition to this these countries at the same time have adopted the system of proportional representation unlike First Past the Post System adopted by India.
So the large population of the country might pose infrastructural, management and security challenges for the Election Commission.
Other challenges:
Democracy can be of dual types, substantial and procedural. India is a procedural democracy where indirect democracy is followed – people rule through their representatives making elections the core of such democracies. Hence would fewer elections mean less democracy? Would it mean less accountability on the part of the leaders making them less answerable to people in the mean years? Then how will a country like India ensure accountability of its leaders as India does not even have the provision of recall to administer liability on its leaders during the mean years. Obtaining consensus of the states for this model will also be an uphill task. It will also entail procedural challenges because Article 368[15](Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure) also requires ratification of one- half of the states. It also raises several other questions like what will be the implications for the state governments if the central government fails or if the other way round happens. By either extending or shortening their tenure, by a one-time constitutional amendment, the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies’ election cycles will be synchronized. This puts the government in dilemma about how to handle the circumstances that may arise during concurrent elections, such as no-confidence motions, early dissolution of assemblies, hung parliaments, etc. If presidential rule through Article 356 is imposed in any state it continues till the time the next elections are conducted for the entire country? This might give undue powers to the centre and the current implications of misuse of presidential rule cannot be unremembered. It might also overshadow regional issues over national issues. It might also tilt elections in favour of dominant political parties making it difficult for smaller parties to gain representation.
conclusion:
The idea of implementing a “one nation, one election” model in India has been a subject of debate and discussion for some time. This model envisions holding simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies to reduce the frequency of elections and streamline the electoral process. It has potential advantages in terms of cost savings, better voter turnout, reduced administrative burden and political stability, it also raises significant constitutional and procedural challenges, logistical, and federalism-related concerns adding to the complexities. While adopting this model the diverse political landscape and the potential consequences for its democratic institutions and federal structure should be considered. Public debate, consensus-building, and legal and constitutional reforms would be essential in determining the feasibility of such a significant change in India’s electoral system. Although it’s a challenging endeavour with potential pitfalls, it appears we’re willing to accept the challenge.
[1] https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/bjp-renews-one-nation-one-election-pitch-ahead-of-2024-lok-sabha-election/Article67288434.ece
[2] https://indianexpress.com/Article/opinion/columns/m-venkaiah-naidu-writes-one-election-many-solutions-8950583/
[3] S. Subramaniam Balaji v Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 5130 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 21455 of 2008].
[4] Election Commisssion of India First Annual Report 1983
[5] Law Commission of India One Hundred Seventieth Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws May 1999
[6] Analysis of Simultaneous Elections: The ‘What’, ‘Why’, and ‘How’, 2017
[7] 21st Law Commission Draft Report, 2018
[8] Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. LAWS(SC)-1979-10-51
[9] Article 83 in the Constitution of India1949
[10] Article 85 in the Constitution of India 1949
[11] Article 172 in the Constitution of India 1949
[12] Article 173 in the Constitution of India 1949
[13] Article 174 in the Constitution of India 1949
[14] Article 356 in the Constitution of India 1949
[15] Article 368 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Author: Charmi Khamesra
Juris Centre 