Opposition Rages as Centre Advances 'One Nation, One Election' Report; Federalism Under Scrutiny

New Delhi, March 21, 2024 – Opposition parties across India have launched a vehement assault on the central government's alleged haste in considering the recommendations of a high-level committee on 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE), branding the move an attack on India's federal structure and a cynical attempt to consolidate power.

The high-stakes proposal, which seeks to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies, has ignited a fierce political debate, with critics warning of existential threats to regional parties and the vibrant diversity of Indian democracy.

Critics argue that the ONOE concept, while superficially appealing for its promise of reduced expenditure and administrative efficiency, fundamentally undermines the principles of federalism and parliamentary accountability enshrined in the Constitution.

The government, however, steadfastly defends the initiative, citing the enormous costs and disruptions caused by the incessant cycle of elections across the country.

Key points

* Opposition parties across the spectrum have unanimously rejected the ONOE proposal, labelling it a dangerous infringement on federal autonomy and parliamentary democracy.

* Legal scholars and constitutional experts have highlighted significant hurdles, including the necessity for extensive constitutional amendments requiring broad consensus and state ratification.

* The government asserts that simultaneous polls will lead to substantial savings in public funds and allow for sustained focus on governance and development.

* Civil society organisations express deep concerns that ONOE could diminish voter accountability, sideline regional issues, and concentrate power at the Centre.

* The controversy is set to intensify, becoming a dominant electoral plank and a major point of contention in upcoming parliamentary sessions and potentially leading to legal challenges.

The recently submitted report by the high-level committee, chaired by former President Shri Ram Nath Kovind, has reignited the contentious debate.

While the full contents of the report are yet to be made public in their entirety, preliminary leaks and official statements suggest a roadmap for simultaneous elections, including proposed amendments to key constitutional provisions and a unified electoral roll for all polls.

Speaking to reporters in Mumbai, Smt.

Priyanka Reddy, President of the Rastriya Jan Dal, vehemently stated, “This ‘One Nation, One Election’ idea is nothing but a thinly veiled plot to dismantle India’s federal character.

It will reduce state elections to mere by-elections, subsuming crucial regional issues under a national narrative dictated from Delhi.

We will resist this with every democratic tool at our disposal.” Her sentiments were echoed by leaders of several other opposition parties, forming a rare moment of unified pushback against a central government initiative.

Dr.

Arun Viswanathan, a distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, underscored the immense constitutional challenges. “To implement ONOE, the government would need to amend at least five articles of the Constitution – Article 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament), Article 85 (dissolution of Lok Sabha), Article 172 (duration of state legislatures), Article 174 (dissolution of state assemblies), and potentially Article 356 (President’s Rule).

Such fundamental changes require not just a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament but also ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.

This is an extraordinarily high bar, reflecting the framers’ intent to protect the basic structure of the Constitution and federal principles.”

He further explained, “The concept also presumes a fixed term for all legislative bodies, which runs counter to the parliamentary system where governments can fall due to no-confidence motions.

How would mid-term dissolutions or hung assemblies be handled under an ONOE framework without resorting to prolonged President’s Rule or highly complex legal mechanisms that might compromise democratic representation?”

The Union government, through its various spokespersons, has consistently argued that ONOE is a necessary reform.

Union Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, Shri Rajesh Thakur, addressing a press conference in Chennai, reiterated the government’s stance. “The constant cycle of elections leads to enormous expenditure of public funds, diversion of administrative machinery, and frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct, which stalls development work.

Our proposal aims to streamline this process, save taxpayer money, and allow for uninterrupted focus on governance and welfare schemes.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) itself has, in the past, acknowledged the potential benefits of simultaneous polls and has repeatedly stated its readiness to conduct them, provided the legal and constitutional framework is in place.”

Indeed, past ECI estimates have pegged the cost of conducting a single Lok Sabha election at over ₹5,000 crore, with state assembly elections adding significantly to this figure annually.

Proponents argue that combining these would dramatically reduce logistics, security deployment, and overall administrative burdens, potentially saving thousands of crores of rupees over a five-year cycle.

Background

The idea of simultaneous elections is not new to India.

In the initial decades after independence, India successfully conducted simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies in 1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967.

However, this synchronicity was disrupted due to early dissolutions of some state assemblies and the Lok Sabha in 1971.

The concept resurfaced periodically, with the Law Commission of India examining it multiple times, including in its 170th report in 1999 and more comprehensively in its 2018 draft report, both of which endorsed the idea with caveats.

The current push gained momentum after Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi publicly advocated for the idea on several occasions, emphasizing its potential benefits for good governance.

In September 2023, the Union government constituted a high-level committee, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, to explore the feasibility and suggest a framework for implementing ONOE.

The committee comprised eminent personalities, including Union Home Minister Shri Amit Shah, former Lok Sabha Secretary General Shri Subhash C.

Kashyap, and former Chief Vigilance Commissioner Shri Sanjay Kothari.

Its recent submission of the report to the President has accelerated the political temperature around the issue.

What it means

The implementation of ONOE would fundamentally alter India's electoral landscape and political dynamics.

For regional parties, it could mean a significant disadvantage as national issues and charisma often overshadow local concerns during combined polls.

This might force smaller parties into alliances with national behemoths, potentially eroding their distinct identity and regional voice.

For voters, the implications are complex.

While some argue that it simplifies the electoral process, critics contend that it could lead to 'voter fatigue' or an oversimplification of complex issues, where state-specific concerns might be overshadowed by national narratives, or vice-versa.

Accountability could also diminish, as governments would only face the electorate once every five years, potentially reducing their responsiveness to public sentiment between cycles.

The most profound implications are for India’s federal structure.

The constant threat of state assembly dissolutions to align with the Lok Sabha election cycle, or the possibility of prolonged President’s Rule in states facing hung verdicts, could significantly centralize power and reduce the autonomy of state governments.

Such a move, if enacted, would represent one of the most substantial shifts in India's constitutional architecture since its inception, potentially reshaping the very nature of its parliamentary democracy.

Reactions

The political landscape is sharply divided over the ONOE proposal.

**Opposition Parties:** The INDIA bloc, the grand alliance of opposition parties, has been vociferous in its condemnation.

Shri G.

Sundararaman, a senior leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and Tamil Nadu’s Finance Minister, asserted, “The Centre is attempting to bypass the will of the states.

Our state’s unique linguistic and cultural identity, and the issues that matter most to our people, cannot be relegated to a footnote in a national election.

This is an attack on states’ rights and an affront to Article 1 of our Constitution which defines India as a Union of States.”

Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge called it an “assault on the democratic spirit” and a tactic to “distract from real issues like inflation and unemployment.”

**Ruling Alliance (NDA):** Leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies have strongly backed the proposal, emphasizing its benefits for development and stability.

Union Minister of Home Affairs, Shri Amit Shah, a member of the Kovind committee, has previously stated, “This is about good governance.

Every few months, our forces are deployed for elections, our teachers are put on election duty.

Development work suffers.

ONOE is a reform for the nation’s progress.”

**Civil Society and Academia:** Public intellectuals and civil society groups have expressed grave concerns.

Smt.

Radha Menon, Director of the Centre for Democratic Studies, Delhi, cautioned, “If elections are held simultaneously, the electorate will be forced to vote on a single set of issues, blurring the lines between national and regional concerns.

This diminishes the power of the vote and can lead to a less representative democracy.” Retired Chief Election Commissioner, Shri N.

Gopalaswami, while acknowledging the logistical benefits, has also pointed to the massive statutory and constitutional amendments required, emphasizing the need for broad political consensus rather than simple majority imposition.

What happens next

The immediate next step for the government would be to officially table the Kovind committee report in Parliament, likely during an upcoming session.

This would formally initiate the legislative process.

Given the extensive constitutional amendments required, the government might propose a 'White Paper' or engage in wider consultations, though the current political climate suggests a more direct approach.

Drafting and passing the necessary constitutional amendment bills will be a monumental task, requiring the government to secure a two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, followed by ratification from at least 14 state assemblies.

This process is fraught with political challenges, particularly in the Rajya Sabha where the government does not always command a comfortable majority, and in opposition-ruled states.

Legal challenges in the Supreme Court are almost certain, with various petitioners likely to question the constitutional validity of any such amendments, particularly if they are perceived to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Election Commission of India will also be tasked with conducting detailed feasibility studies regarding logistics, procurement of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), and administrative preparedness for conducting such a massive, synchronised poll.

Ultimately, the success or failure of 'One Nation, One Election' will hinge on the government’s ability to build political consensus across the vast and diverse Indian political spectrum.

Without it, this ambitious reform risks being bogged down in parliamentary deadlock and protracted legal battles, further polarising the nation on a matter of fundamental democratic principle.