Simultaneous Elections in India: Exploring the One Nation, One Election Proposal

One Nation, One Election: Decoding India's Proposal for Simultaneous Polls

India, the world's largest democracy, is a nation perpetually in election mode. With staggered elections for the Lok Sabha (Parliament), State Legislative Assemblies, and local bodies occurring almost every year, and sometimes even within a year, the demand for "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) has gained significant traction. This ambitious proposal aims to synchronize these electoral cycles, allowing voters to cast their ballots for different tiers of government on a single day or within a specific timeframe. Proponents argue it's a game-changer for governance and economic efficiency, while critics raise concerns about federalism and voter behavior.

This comprehensive blog post delves into the depths of the ONOE proposal, exploring its historical roots, constitutional implications, the arguments for and against, the recommendations of various expert committees, and the challenges of its implementation.

Introduction to "One Nation, One Election"

"One Nation, One Election" refers to the concept of holding elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously. The goal is to reduce the frequency of elections, thereby curtailing the massive expenditure incurred, minimizing disruption to governance due to the prolonged imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), and ensuring the optimal utilization of administrative and security personnel.

The idea isn't novel; India experienced simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies in its early decades post-independence.

Historical Background and the Disrupted Cycle

The tradition of simultaneous elections was the norm in India during its formative years as a republic. The first general elections to the Lok Sabha and all Vidhan Sabhas were held concurrently in 1951-52. This practice continued for three subsequent general elections in 1957, 1962, and 1967.

However, this synchronized electoral cycle was disrupted in 1968 and 1969 due to the premature dissolution of some State Legislative Assemblies. The disruption was further cemented in 1970 when the Fourth Lok Sabha itself was dissolved prematurely, leading to fresh elections in 1971. Subsequent instances of premature dissolutions and term extensions of both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies have since led to the current staggered electoral schedule across the country.

Constitutional Provisions and Required Amendments

Implementing ONOE necessitates significant constitutional amendments to realign the terms of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, which currently have a normal term of five years "unless dissolved sooner."

The key Articles of the Constitution that would require amendment include:

• Article 83 (Duration of Houses of Parliament): This article provides for the duration of the Lok Sabha. Amendments would be needed to ensure its term aligns with simultaneous elections. The proposed Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, seeks to add new clauses so that if Lok Sabha is dissolved prematurely, the next Lok Sabha will serve only for the unexpired term.
• Article 85 (Sessions of Parliament, prorogation and dissolution): Specifically Article 85(2)(b) which allows the President to dissolve the House of the People.
• Article 172 (Duration of State Legislatures): Similar to Article 83, this article dictates the term of State Legislative Assemblies and would need changes to synchronize them with the Lok Sabha elections. The proposed amendments would curtail the tenures for some State Assemblies to align with the Lok Sabha term.
• Article 174 (Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation and dissolution): Article 174(2)(b) grants the Governor the power to dissolve a State Legislative Assembly.
• Article 356 (Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State): This article, which allows for President's Rule, is also relevant as it can lead to the dissolution of a State Assembly.

Additionally, the proposed Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, seeks to insert a new Article 82A to enable simultaneous elections. This new article would outline the framework for synchronized polls. Amendments to Article 327 (Power of Parliament to make provision with respect to elections to Legislatures) are also proposed.

The Law Commission (170th Report, 1999, and 2018 draft report) and the Ram Nath Kovind Committee have emphasized that such constitutional amendments would require ratification by at least 50% of the states.

Conceptual Visuals: How Simultaneous Elections Would Work (Proposed Phased Approach)

To implement ONOE, a phased approach has been recommended by expert committees. The Ram Nath Kovind Committee, whose recommendations were accepted by the Union Cabinet, proposed a two-phase implementation:

1. Phase 1: Simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
2. Phase 2: Synchronized municipal and panchayat polls within 100 days of the general election.

This phased synchronization would require extending or curtailing the terms of some State Assemblies to align them with the Lok Sabha's term.

Here's a simplified flowchart of the proposed synchronization:

graph TD
    A[Current Staggered Election Cycle] --> B{Political Consensus & Legal Amendments};
    B --> C[Fixed Terms for Lok Sabha & State Assemblies];
    C --> D[Phase 1: Lok Sabha & State Assembly Elections Synchronized];
    D --> E[Mechanism for Mid-Term Dissolution/Hung Houses];
    E --> F[Phase 2: Local Body Elections within 100 Days];
    F --> G[New Electoral Cycle: Elections once every 5 years];

    style A fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style B fill:#bfb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style C fill:#ccf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style D fill:#afa,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style E fill:#fcf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style F fill:#add,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style G fill:#fdd,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px

Explanation of Flowchart: The current system of staggered elections (A) would transition to a synchronized model (G) through political consensus and essential legal and constitutional amendments (B). This involves establishing fixed terms for legislative bodies (C), followed by the first phase of simultaneous Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections (D). A crucial aspect is developing mechanisms to handle premature dissolutions or hung houses without disrupting the synchronized cycle (E). The second phase would then integrate local body elections (F), leading to a new, regular five-year electoral cycle (G).

Key Institutions and Roles

The implementation and ongoing management of simultaneous elections would involve several key institutions:

• Election Commission of India (ECI): As the constitutional body responsible for conducting elections, the ECI would play a pivotal role in planning, executing, and overseeing the synchronized polls. This would involve significant logistical challenges related to EVMs, VVPATs, and manpower. The ECI had, as early as 1983, recommended evolving a system for simultaneous elections.
• Parliament: Parliament is central to passing the necessary constitutional amendments and legislative changes (e.g., to the Representation of the People Act, 1951). The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, has already been introduced in the Lok Sabha and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
• State Legislatures: Ratification by at least 50% of the state assemblies is required for constitutional amendments.
• Union and State Governments: Governments would need to ensure legislative and administrative support for the transition and manage the period of Model Code of Conduct application.

Arguments For "One Nation, One Election"

Proponents of ONOE cite numerous benefits for India's governance and economy:

Arguments Against "One Nation, One Election"

Critics, including several opposition parties, raise significant concerns about the ONOE proposal:

Landmark Cases and Constitutional Interpretations

The debate around ONOE often touches upon fundamental constitutional principles and landmark judicial pronouncements:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This seminal Supreme Court judgment established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', stipulating that certain core principles of the Constitution are so fundamental that they cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by Parliament. Opponents of ONOE argue that aspects like federalism and parliamentary democracy, being part of the basic structure, could be undermined by the proposal. However, proponents argue that the flexibility in legislative tenures is already enshrined in the Constitution ("unless dissolved sooner") and does not violate the basic structure.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This judgment significantly curbed the arbitrary use of Article 356 (President's Rule) by the Union government to dismiss state governments. Implementing ONOE would require careful consideration of how premature dissolutions and subsequent elections would be managed without violating the spirit of this judgment and ensuring stability in state assemblies. The Law Commission's 2018 draft report recommended that any new Lok Sabha/Assembly formed after mid-term elections would serve only for the remainder of the previous term to maintain synchronization.

Contemporary Developments and Committee Recommendations

The idea of ONOE has been consistently deliberated by various bodies:

• Election Commission of India (1983): Recommended that a system should be evolved for simultaneous elections.
• Law Commission of India (170th Report, 1999): Stated that India should revert to the past practice of holding simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and all Vidhan Sabhas. Its 2018 draft report also explored various options for synchronization and suggested constitutional amendments, R.P. Act changes, and ratification by states.
• Parliamentary Standing Committee (79th Report, 2015): Favored the idea of simultaneous elections, reiterating reasons such as cost reduction and better governance.
• NITI Aayog (2017): Published a working paper titled "Analysis of Simultaneous Elections: The What, Why and How," exploring the prospect and framework for concurrent elections.
• Ram Nath Kovind High-Level Committee (2023-2024): Constituted in September 2023 under former President Ram Nath Kovind, this committee was tasked with examining and recommending for holding simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, Municipalities, and Panchayats. The committee submitted its comprehensive report in March 2024, recommending simultaneous elections in a phased manner. The Union Cabinet accepted these recommendations on September 18, 2024. The committee also studied international models from South Africa, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan.

The government's intent to push for ONOE became evident with the introduction of The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, in the Lok Sabha on December 17, 2024. This bill proposes specific amendments to enable simultaneous polls and has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed examination.

Challenges of Implementation

Despite the strong arguments in its favor and the government's push, implementing ONOE presents formidable challenges:

• Constitutional Amendments: As discussed, numerous constitutional articles require amendment, and many would necessitate ratification by at least half of the state assemblies, which requires broad political consensus.
• Logistical Hurdles: The sheer scale of elections in India, with nearly a billion eligible voters and millions of polling stations, requires massive logistical planning. Procuring sufficient EVMs and VVPATs, deploying security forces, and managing election officials for a single, simultaneous event across the country would be an unprecedented challenge.
• Scenario Management (Mid-Term Dissolutions): One of the biggest challenges is how to handle situations where a government loses a no-confidence motion or a hung assembly emerges, leading to premature dissolution. If elections are held for the remainder of the term, it could lead to frequent "mini-elections," defeating the purpose of synchronization. If entire terms are restarted, synchronization would again be lost. The Law Commission recommended a new Lok Sabha/Assembly formed after mid-term elections would be constituted only for the remainder of the previous term.
• Political Consensus: Achieving widespread political consensus among all major parties, including regional parties, is crucial but difficult, as the proposal has clear political implications for different party structures and electoral strategies.

Comparison with Global Systems

The Ram Nath Kovind Committee's study of international models provides valuable insights:

• South Africa: Conducts simultaneous elections for its National Assembly and Provincial Legislatures every five years, with municipal elections held separately.
• Sweden: Elections for Parliament (Riksdag), County Councils, and Municipal Councils all take place simultaneously every four years.
• Germany: Parliamentary democracy with a 'constructive vote of no-confidence' mechanism, meaning a Chancellor can only be removed if a successor is elected simultaneously, promoting stability.
• Indonesia: Successfully conducted simultaneous elections in 2019 and 2024 for President, Vice-President, and members of national and regional legislative bodies, considered the world's largest single-day elections.
• Japan & Philippines: Also follow models of synchronized elections.

These examples demonstrate that simultaneous elections are feasible in parliamentary democracies, often supported by mechanisms like fixed terms or constructive votes of no-confidence to maintain stability.

Conclusion

The "One Nation, One Election" proposal is a complex and transformative electoral reform. While it promises significant benefits in terms of cost savings, improved governance, and reduced administrative burden, it also raises fundamental questions about India's federal structure, regional representation, and the dynamics of voter behavior. The ongoing deliberations by the Joint Parliamentary Committee and the need for broad political consensus underscore the gravity and potential implications of this change. A careful, phased, and consultative approach, addressing constitutional safeguards and logistical challenges, will be crucial for successfully implementing such a significant electoral reform in the world's largest and most diverse democracy.

Interactive Q&A / Practice Exercises

I. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. Which of the following constitutional articles are most directly relevant to the duration and dissolution of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, and thus would require amendment for "One Nation, One Election"? a) Articles 14, 19, 21 b) Articles 83, 172, 327 c) Articles 352, 356, 360 d) Articles 53, 74, 163

   Explanation: b) Articles 83, 172, 327.

   • Article 83 deals with the duration of Houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha).
   • Article 172 deals with the duration of State Legislatures (Assemblies).
   • Article 327 grants Parliament the power to make provisions with respect to elections to Legislatures. These are directly related to the tenure of legislative bodies and electoral processes. The proposed Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, specifically seeks to amend these articles and introduce a new Article 82A.

2. The practice of simultaneous elections in India was disrupted after which period? a) 1951-52 b) 1967 c) 1975 d) 1991

   Explanation: b) 1967. Simultaneous elections were held from 1951-52 until 1967. The cycle was broken in 1968 and 1969 due to premature dissolution of some State Legislative Assemblies, and further disrupted by the premature dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1970.

3. Which of the following committees/bodies has not recommended the concept of simultaneous elections in India? a) Law Commission of India b) NITI Aayog c) Ram Nath Kovind High-Level Committee d) National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

   Explanation: d) National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The Election Commission (1983), Law Commission (170th Report 1999, and 2018 draft), Parliamentary Standing Committee (2015), NITI Aayog (2017), and the Ram Nath Kovind Committee (2024) have all recommended or favored the idea of simultaneous elections. The NHRC's mandate is human rights, not electoral reforms.

4. A key argument against "One Nation, One Election" is the potential for: a) Increased focus on local issues b) Strengthening of regional political parties c) Erosion of federalism and overshadowing of local concerns d) Reduction in election expenditure

   Explanation: c) Erosion of federalism and overshadowing of local concerns. Critics argue that simultaneous elections could undermine India's federal structure by centralizing power and lead to national issues overshadowing distinct local and regional concerns, thus disadvantaging regional parties.

5. Which country, among those studied by the Kovind panel, recently conducted what was termed the "world's largest single-day elections" for multiple levels of government? a) South Africa b) Sweden c) Germany d) Indonesia

   Explanation: d) Indonesia. The Ram Nath Kovind Committee noted that Indonesia successfully conducted simultaneous elections on February 14, 2024, for President, Vice-President, and members of both national and regional legislative bodies, involving nearly 200 million voters.

II. Scenario-Based Question

Scenario: Suppose a State Legislative Assembly, whose term was synchronized with the Lok Sabha under the "One Nation, One Election" framework, faces a situation where the ruling coalition collapses due to widespread defections, leading to a vote of no-confidence against the government. The Chief Minister resigns, and no stable alternative government can be formed.

Question: Under the proposed "One Nation, One Election" framework, what are the likely implications for this State Assembly's electoral cycle, considering the need to maintain synchronization? Discuss how the Law Commission's 2018 draft report suggested addressing such a situation.

Detailed Explanation:

The scenario highlights one of the most critical challenges to maintaining simultaneous elections: premature dissolution of a legislature.

1. Implications for the State Assembly's Electoral Cycle:

   • Disruption of Synchronization: A premature dissolution would inherently break the synchronized cycle for that specific state. If fresh elections for a full five-year term were held, that state's election would again be out of sync with the Lok Sabha.
   • Need for a New Election: A new election would be necessary to constitute a fresh government.
   • Potential for "Mini-Elections": If a full five-year term is granted to the newly elected assembly, it would lead to staggered elections again, defeating the very purpose of ONOE.

2. Law Commission's 2018 Draft Report Recommendation:

   • To address such scenarios and maintain synchronization, the Law Commission's 2018 draft report (and echoed in proposals by NITI Aayog and the Kovind Committee) recommended that any new Lok Sabha or State Assembly formed after a mid-term election should be constituted only for the remainder of the previous term, and not for an entire five-year term.
   • Constructive Vote of No-Confidence: Furthermore, to prevent premature dissolutions, the Law Commission and NITI Aayog also recommended the adoption of a "constructive vote of no-confidence." Unlike a traditional no-confidence motion where a government can be simply voted out, a constructive vote requires that the motion to dissolve the existing government must simultaneously propose and express confidence in an alternative government/leader. This mechanism aims to ensure stability and avoid political stalemates that lead to frequent elections.

In essence, the proposed framework aims to absorb the impact of premature dissolutions by making the subsequent assembly's term co-terminus with the original synchronized term, and by introducing mechanisms like a constructive vote of no-confidence to minimize such dissolutions in the first place.

III. Match the Following

Match the committee/report with its key contribution to the "One Nation, One Election" debate:

Answers:

1. 1 - c: The Law Commission's 170th Report (1999) stated India should revert to simultaneous elections, and its 2018 draft proposed amendments to the Constitution and R.P. Act.
2. 2 - d: NITI Aayog (2017) formulated a working paper titled "Analysis of Simultaneous Elections: The What, Why and How."
3. 3 - b: The Election Commission in its 1983 annual report had recommended evolving a system for simultaneous elections.
4. 4 - a: The Ram Nath Kovind Committee submitted its report recommending a phased approach (Lok Sabha & State Assemblies first, then local bodies), and its recommendations were accepted by the Union Cabinet on September 18, 2024.

Recommended Books

You can explore these highly recommended resources for a deeper understanding.

• Indian Polity (English) by M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE 2025 | 7th edition (latest) | Civil Services Exam - Prelims, Mains and Interview | State PSCs exams/ PCS exams - by M Laxmikanth
• Oswaal NCERT One For All Book for UPSC & State PSCs | Indian Polity Classes 6-12 - by Oswaal Editorial Board
• Bharat Ki Rajvyavastha (भारत की राजव्यवस्था) - M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE