New Delhi, Aug 26 (PTI) Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Wednesday lashed out at the Modi government over the ‘One Nation, One Election’ concept, claiming the dreams of people in the states would be lost in the noise of parliamentary polls, with only the “one voice” of the prime minister being heard.
Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said it was unfortunate that the country had a government that believed in making everything “one”, including elections and examinations.
“I have a basic problem with this whole concept of everything being different being made into one — one examination for India; one nation, one election; one party deciding what should be sung, what should not be sung; one party deciding what you should eat, what you should not eat; one party deciding what you should dress, how you should dress,” Sibal said at a press conference here.
“If you look outside this window, you will find that the colour green has about a thousand different colours. Just the colour green. The roses that you see in gardens have a thousand different colours. Where is uniformity in nature? Each one of us sitting here is different. Can you make us uniform?” Sibal said.
Uniformity by itself is incompatible with nature, and it is incompatible with human nature, he said.
“So what do you mean by ‘One Nation, One Election’? Each state has different aspirations, each state has different issues, each state has different problems, each state has a different mindset, and each state is struggling with its own problems that another state does not face,” the Independent Rajya Sabha MP said.
Fundamentally, the Constitution-makers decided that a five-year term is essential for any election for the government to demonstrate what it can do in five years, he said, and asked why a five-year term was necessary.
“For example, the President of the United States has a four-year term, but all elections and governments have a fixed term. The rationale for it is that in that fixed term, having promised the electorate as to what you will accomplish, that term will help you demonstrate whether you have accomplished it or not, so that the people can judge whether you should be elected again or should be thrown out and someone else, some other party, should be elected,” Sibal said.
That is the fundamental basis of a fixed-term election, he stressed.
“They have done away with it. This is the basic structure of the Constitution,” Sibal said, referring to the existing electoral cycle.
He cited the example of Uttar Pradesh, which is scheduled to go to polls in 2027, and said implementing simultaneous elections in 2029 would mean holding another election in the state within two years.
The terms of states going to polls in 2027 would end in 2029 under such an arrangement, he said, questioning what promises state governments could make to people and how they would fulfil them.
“You are changing the very basic structure of the Constitution. On what ground? That there is too much expenditure? I mean, you can spend thousands of crores (of rupees) on the kind of things you do on your personal campaigns, or for political campaigns and worry about expenditure on this,” he said.
The dreams of the people of the states which go for elections will be lost in the noise of the parliamentary election, Sibal said.
“We will hear only the prime minister and nobody else. One voice. Not just one nation, one election, but one voice, one religion, one people, one mindset, one dress, one language, one cuisine — a vegetarian India,” he said.
“What a sad state of affairs. How unfortunate this country is to have a government which believes in the number one,” Sibal added.
Sibal then talked about SIR deletions in West Bengal and the deplorable condition of Rajasthan schools.
He also raised the issue of Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta writing to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, questioning why his “fervent appeals” to transfer Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, despite “clear evidence” of favouritism, have been “ignored”.
“On very few occasions in the history of this country has this happened’one occasion being when Justice Gogoi, along with four others, made a complaint against the then Chief Justice as to how the listing of cases was not being dealt with properly,” Sibal said.
Justice Sharma has been the acting Chief Justice for over 10 months and is due to retire in September 2026, he said.
Justice Mehta, a sitting justice, wrote multiple letters to the Chief Justice of India and the collegium in August, alleging that there has been a misuse of the master of the roster.
“The master of the roster, as you know, what does it mean? It means that the acting Chief Justice or the Chief Justice can assign any particular case to any judge, or is entitled to withdraw any case from any judge and place it before himself or place it before another bench. This happens quite often.
“Of course, we can’t raise questions about it, even though the entire bar knows why and speculates as to why this has been done,” Sibal said.
“Now this raises again the same question: should the master of roster practice continue? Why should cases not be listed in accordance with an algorithm so that you cannot decide which judge is going to hear which case? Because unless there is transparency, there will be suspicion,” he said.
If there is suspicion, then the credibility of the institution will be put in question. If that is put in question, the people of India will lose confidence in the judiciary, Sibal said. PTI ASK RHL RHL
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.