Federal Faultlines Emerge: States Push Back Against 'One Nation, One Election' Proposal

New Delhi, Delhi – A groundswell of opposition is mounting against the central government's renewed push for the 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) proposal, with several state governments and prominent political parties raising serious constitutional, logistical, and federalism concerns.

The Centre’s argument for ONOE — primarily centered on saving public funds and streamlining governance by synchronising Lok Sabha and state assembly elections — is being met with fierce resistance from a diverse group of stakeholders who contend it fundamentally undermines India's federal polity and the essence of parliamentary democracy.

Key points

* Opposition parties and regional outfits argue that ONOE profoundly undermines India's federal structure and state autonomy.

* Concerns are being raised about the potential for national issues to overshadow regional concerns, diminishing the mandate of state-specific polls.

* Legal and constitutional experts question the feasibility of amendments required and the unprecedented practical implementation challenges.

* The government maintains ONOE will save the exchequer billions of rupees and ensure uninterrupted policy focus by ending the perpetual election cycle.

* A high-level committee's report is keenly awaited amidst the deepening political divide, promising to ignite further debate.

For months, the discussion around ONOE has simmered, but it gained fresh momentum with the formation of a high-level committee, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, tasked with examining the feasibility of the proposal.

The committee’s mandate includes a deep dive into constitutional amendments, legal frameworks, and logistical hurdles required to achieve simultaneous elections across the nation.

Proponents of ONOE, largely from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), argue that continuous elections — with various state polls occurring every few months — lead to policy paralysis, excessive expenditure, and diversion of administrative and security personnel.

They claim that simultaneous elections would free up resources for development work and foster greater electoral stability.

However, the counter-arguments are robust and varied. "This is a direct assault on the federal spirit of our Constitution, which is a fundamental aspect of our republic," stated M.K.

Stalin, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and President of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), during a recent press conference in Chennai. "States have distinct electoral cycles for a reason – to address local aspirations without being overshadowed by a singular national narrative.

Forcing simultaneous elections will dilute the voice of the states and regional parties, reducing state polls to mere by-elections dictated by national mood swings." His sentiments have been echoed by leaders from the Congress, Trinamool Congress (TMC), Samajwadi Party (SP), and several other regional forces.

Legal experts highlight the monumental constitutional changes required. "Implementing ONOE would necessitate significant amendments to Articles 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament), 85 (sessions of Parliament, prorogation and dissolution), 172 (duration of State Legislatures), 174 (sessions of State Legislature, prorogation and dissolution), and 356 (provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States), among others," explained Dr.

Alok Prasad, a distinguished constitutional law expert and former Law Secretary. "These amendments, particularly those related to the duration of legislative bodies, would touch upon the basic structure of the Constitution.

Moreover, any such changes would require ratification by at least half of the state assemblies, which is far from guaranteed given the current political landscape."

The logistical challenges are equally daunting.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has previously indicated the need for a massive overhaul of its infrastructure.

Currently, India possesses approximately 1.4 million Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and an equal number of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) units.

For simultaneous elections across all 28 states and 8 Union Territories alongside the Lok Sabha, officials estimate the requirement could surge to over 3 million EVMs and VVPATs, representing an astronomical procurement cost and logistical nightmare for storage, transport, and deployment.

"The scale of EVMs, VVPATs, and security personnel required would be monumental," a senior ECI official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, told Toofan Express News. "We would need a multi-year phased approach to even consider such an undertaking, alongside a dramatic increase in personnel for training, election management, and security deployments.

Current capacities are simply not geared for such a massive, simultaneous exercise."

Official data suggests that the expenditure on Lok Sabha elections in 2019 was approximately ₹6,000 crore, while state assembly elections collectively cost several thousand crores more over the past five years.

While the government projects substantial savings, critics argue that the initial capital expenditure for new EVMs and security apparatus, coupled with the inherent complexities, might offset these projected savings in the short to medium term.

Background

The idea of simultaneous elections is not entirely new to India.

From 1952 to 1967, Lok Sabha and state assembly elections were largely held concurrently.

However, this practice was disrupted due to premature dissolutions of some state assemblies and the Lok Sabha itself, leading to staggered election cycles.

The Law Commission of India, in its 170th Report in 1999 and again in a working paper in 2018, recommended a return to simultaneous polls, citing benefits like reduced expenditure and administrative burden.

The current government has consistently championed this proposal since coming to power in 2014, making it a key aspect of its governance reform agenda.

What it means

The push for ONOE carries profound implications for India's democratic fabric.

If implemented, it could fundamentally alter the dynamics of electoral politics.

Regional parties, which often thrive on local issues and sentiments, fear being subsumed by dominant national narratives during a joint election.

This could potentially weaken regional representation and diversity in policymaking.

Furthermore, it raises questions about the democratic accountability of state governments.

If a state government falls due to a no-confidence motion, new elections might not be possible until the next scheduled simultaneous poll, potentially leading to prolonged periods of President's Rule or an unstable coalition, thereby undermining the mandate of the state electorate.

Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, while addressing a recent event, reiterated the Centre's commitment to the proposal. "The government's intention is solely to ensure efficient governance, save the exchequer billions, and allow our nation to focus on consistent development," he stated. "This is not about one party benefiting; it is about national interest and bringing stability to our democratic processes.

Discussions are ongoing, and all concerns will be addressed through due process."

Reactions

The reactions from various quarters have been sharp and polarized.

Beyond political parties, civil society organizations and academic circles have also weighed in. "The 'one nation, one election' slogan, while appearing attractive on the surface, glosses over deep complexities," noted Dr.

Priya Sharma, a political science professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. "It assumes a homogeneity of voter behaviour and political priorities across a diverse nation like India, which is far from reality.

Regional aspirations and distinct state-specific challenges might find less space in a nationally dominated electoral discourse."

Several former Election Commissioners and bureaucrats have expressed reservations, primarily concerning the practicalities and the potential for a constitutional crisis if a government falls midway through its term.

Farmer unions and trade bodies have largely remained cautious, expressing concerns that their localized issues could be overshadowed in a mega-election scenario.

What happens next

The immediate future hinges on the report of the high-level committee.

Once submitted, its recommendations will likely trigger a robust debate in Parliament.

Should the government decide to proceed, it would need to introduce constitutional amendment bills, which require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament.

Furthermore, as many of the proposed changes would affect the federal structure, they would also necessitate ratification by the legislatures of at least half the states.

Given the current political fragmentation and strong opposition from non-BJP ruled states, this path is fraught with significant hurdles.

Legal challenges are also a certainty, with the Supreme Court likely to be petitioned on the constitutionality of any proposed amendments, particularly concerning the basic structure doctrine.

The entire process, if initiated, is expected to be protracted and contentious, making the prospect of simultaneous elections a litmus test for India's federal cooperative and competitive spirit.