New Delhi: The Narendra Modi government’s decision to form a committee to explore the idea of ‘One Nation, One Election’ has sparked a debate all across the country.
Last week, the Union law ministry notified an eight-member high-level committee (HLC) chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind to examine and make recommendations for simultaneous polls.
The others on the committee are Union Home Minister Amit Shah, former J&K chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, former chairman of the Finance Commission N.K. Singh, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha and constitutional expert Subhash C. Kashyap, former solicitor general Harish Salve, and former chief vigilance commissioner Sanjay Kothari.
Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, the Congress’s leader in the Lok Sabha, was also named in the notification but has declined to be part of the committee.
Arjun Ram Meghwal, minister of state (independent charge) for law and justice, will attend the HLC meetings as a special invitee.
Simultaneous elections have been considered in the past by several committees and commissions.
A Law Commission report titled ‘Reform of Electoral Laws’ submitted in 1999 recommended holding simultaneous elections as a part of electoral reforms.
Another draft report, with a more detailed look into simultaneous elections, was released by the commission, then chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice B.S. Chauhan, in August 2018. ThePrint has seen the report.
During the first two decades after Independence, the general elections for the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies were held simultaneously, during the years 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967.
However, due to the dissolution of certain state assemblies in 1968 and 1969, followed by the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1970 and subsequent general elections in 1971, the cycle of simultaneous elections was disrupted.
The 2018 report asserted that “the country is continuously in an election mode and the time has arrived to highlight the need for simultaneous elections as against the fragmented and staggered election cycle prevalent currently”.
It, therefore, saw simultaneous elections as a “solution to prevent the country from being in constant election mode”.
According to the appendix attached to the report, 10 political parties, including All India Trinamool Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, Indian National Congress and Indian Union Muslim League had, at the time, opposed the idea of simultaneous elections.
However, 11 parties, including Bharatiya Janata Party, Shiromani Akali Dal, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), Samajwadi Party and Biju Janata Dal, had favoured simultaneous elections.
Also Read: One nation, one election is BJP’s ‘brahmastra’. It wants state contests to be ‘Modi versus who’, too
What do simultaneous elections mean?
The 1999 report asserted that “this cycle of elections every year, and in the out of season (sic), should be put an end to. We must go back to the situation where the elections to Lok Sabha and all the legislative assemblies are held at once.”
“…the holding of a separate election to a legislative assembly should be an exception and not the rule. The rule ought to be ‘one election once in five years for Lok Sabha and all the legislative assemblies’,” it added.
The August 2018 draft report explained that the term “simultaneous elections” entails elections to all three tiers of constitutional institutions — House of the People (Lok Sabha), state assemblies (Vidhan Sabha) and local bodies — taking place in a synchronised manner. This means that the voter will cast their vote to electing members to all the tiers of the government on the same day.
However, the report asserted that the “third-tier” institutions are too large in number and that the elections to these local bodies are conducted by their respective state election commissions.
It acknowledged that “it would be extremely challenging, if not impossible” to align the election schedules of local bodies with the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies. Therefore, for its report, it restricted the consideration of the elections to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies only.
The report clarified that simultaneous elections would not mean that voting across the country for the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies would all take place in a single day.
It explained that in a vast country like India, the general elections can take place only in phases, and if it is decided to hold simultaneous elections, the voters in a particular constituency would vote for the state assembly and Lok Sabha on the same day.
The 2018 report added that its analysis of financial implications, logistical issues, the effect of the model code of conduct (MCC) and constitutional and legal provisions, points to there being “feasibility to restore simultaneous elections as it existed during the first two decades of India’s Independence.”
How would simultaneous elections happen?
The 2018 report emphasised the fact that the synchronisation of these elections would require amendments in the relevant provisions of the Constitution and certain provisions of other laws, including the Representation of the People Act 1951.
For instance, it pointed out that Articles 83(2) and 172(1)of the Constitution deal with the tenure of the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies — providing for a term of five years ‘unless dissolved sooner’ by the President and the governors, respectively.
For synchronisation of the elections to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies, the terms of the state assemblies may require either curtailment or extension, as a one-time measure, to bring them all in sync with each other, the report said.
Now, while the Constitution provides an option for curtailment, by allowing them to be dissolved, the extension of the terms of these Houses would need a constitutional amendment, it added.
Article 368 lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution. It says that Parliament can amend the Constitution by passing a bill in “each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting”.
However, for amendment of certain specific provisions, it also requires ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.
The report asserted that the amendments required for simultaneous elections may not need ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. However, it added that “seeking the ratification by the states may be considered optional, as an abundant caution, while making relevant amendments to the Constitution under Article 368.”
Besides, the report also suggested amendments to ensure that the synchronisation of elections is not disrupted. It identified three such grounds of disruption, including no-confidence motions, a hung Parliament or assembly, and budgetary defeat.
Also Read: Battle 2024 has skipped semis, gone straight to final. And BJP has 3 challenges ahead
‘Took PM’s call as mandate’
According to the 2018 report, the commission started the exercise after Prime Minister Narendra Modi “gave a call to start a constructive discussion…on the holding of simultaneous elections in the country”.
This was during the valedictory address at the 2017 National Law Day celebration, organised by the Law Commission of India and NITI Aayog in November that year.
The commission took the call as a “mandate” and started its study on the subject.
The commission then released a draft working paper on ‘Simultaneous Elections – Constitutional and Legal Perspectives’ in April 2018, inviting the opinions of all stakeholders on the subject.
Based on the responses, consultations held with the stakeholders and a detailed study of the issues involved, the commission then prepared a draft report on the subject.
The 2018 report asserted that frequent elections lead to massive expenditure by the government and other stakeholders.
It also highlighted the effect of the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct – which is a set of guidelines applicable to political parties, candidates, the election machinery and government agencies — to ensure free and fair elections.
It said that, when an election is taking place in any particular constituency/state, the policy decisions to be taken by the state or central government, which are likely to influence voters and their voting pattern, are avoided or put on hold.
“At times, vital schemes get affected by ongoing elections even though the MCC is not in operation in the entire state/country. The government(s) may defer such schemes till the completion of the election process, thus slowing down the pace of their ambitious work,” it added.
(Edited by Richa Mishra)
Also Read: Parties without ideology are endangered in the BJP-era. Even Congress needs a modernised doctrine