Kritika Mehendiratta
INTRODUCTION
Given the current upsurge in political discourse, particularly in the context of the 2024 general elections, the concept of “One Nation One Election “(hereinafter, ONOE) continues to remain in abeyance. In light of this, it becomes crucial to understand the ONOE policy in context of the Indian paradigm.
As we know, the general elections in India and elections for the State Assemblies are not conducted concomitantly. In the light of the same, the theory of ONOE policy propounds that elections to the Lok Sabha and all the State Assemblies take place simultaneously. It may not necessarily happen on a single day, but perhaps in phases, wherein different phases can then be kept in proximity with one another.
The concept, in its essence, came into lime light with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s advocacy in favor of it in 2016. Even the Law Commission of India submitted a report on August 30, 2018, affirming the idea of ONOE. In 2015, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in its 79th Report suggested holding simultaneous elections for “long term good governance”.
Even though it came into limelight after the Modi government created a public discourse around it, there have been reports affirming the stance for the ONOE policy even before that. The Law Commission of India in its 170th Report on “Reform of Electoral Laws” (1999) recommended holding simultaneous elections as a part of electoral reforms. The First Annual Report by the Election Commission of India also staunchly supports the conduction of simultaneous elections.
WHAT IS THE BACKGROUND?
In contemporary India, elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies are not conducted simultaneously. However, this has not always been the case. From 1951 to 1967, the elections in India did follow the principle of ONOE, meaning they were conducted together. The first consecutive elections for the entire nation took place during the 1951-52 elections. Subsequently, for three consecutive terms in 1957, 1962, and 1967, the elections were conducted simultaneously.
However, in the years 1968 and 1969, due to premature dissolution of legislative assemblies of many states, the process got disrupted. Furthermore, even the fourth Lok Sabha, formulated in the year 1970, was dissolved early which resulted in fresh elections being conducted in the year 1971.
Afterwards, the implementation of simultaneous elections could not be reintroduced into the political realm.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATION IN THE TENURE OF STATE ASSEMBLIES/THE PARLIAMENT
To alter the tenure of a State Assembly, a constitutional amendment for that state is necessary. Article 172 of the Constitution of India sets forth the tenure of a State Legislative Assembly to be 5 years.
Likewise, if one has to alter the tenure of the Parliament, Article 83 which defines its tenure, has to be amended. Herein, it becomes pertinent to note that by Parliament, only the Lok Sabha is implied since Rajya Sabha is a permanent house.
The procedure for amendment to the Constitution lies in Article 368 of the Constitution. It entails the passing of resolution by 2/3rdof the members of both the Houses present and voting for an amendment to be brought to the Constitution. Moreover, as per Article 368(2) of the Constitution, amendments to any of the Lists require ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures. Considering that “Elections to the Legislature of the State” falls under entry no. 37 of List-II of Schedule VII and “Elections to the Parliament” falls under Entry no. 72 of the List-I of Schedule VII, ratification by half of the State Legislatures would be required for alteration in the tenure of elections to the legislative assemblies of the respective States and the Lok Sabha.
Apart from the Constitutional provisions, Rules of Procedures of Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies and Representation of People’s Act, 1951 also need to be taken into consideration.
ADVOCACY IN FAVOUR OF ONOE
The proponents’ claims in favor of re-implementing ONOE can be elucidated by considering a plethora of aspects:
- The Need
To advocate in favor of implementation of the ONOE scheme, it foremost becomes paramount to understand the status quo. In the current paradigm, as reported by the August 2018 Report of the Law Commission, every year at least one part in India or the other enters the process of elections.
Here the example of Delhi, is relevant, which witnessed two Assembly elections and one general election between 2013 and 2015. Similarly, in a span of just three years (2014-2016) the country witnessed one general election and 15 State Assembly elections. This gives a clear presentation of a continuous process of elections undertaken in India.
- Arguments with respect to Expenditure
As we know that there are two categories of expenditure made for the purposes of conduction of election. Firstly, the one undertaken by the candidates themselves and secondly, by the government. Leaving aside the expenses of the candidates, if the scope of analysis of expenditure is reduced to just the government’s incurred expenses, that would also depict a vivid reality with regards to the expenses of conducting an election.
If data provided by the Election Commission of India to the Law Commission for compilation of its report is perused, one would infer a glaring picture of expenses. In order to understand it, it is pertinent to compare the expenses of States where elections happened in proximity to the general elections, with those where the elections happened in a different time frame than that of general elections. The states mentioned below, which depict the comparative analysis, have approximately the same number of constituencies, ensuring a fair calculation
Juxtaposing the expenses incurred by Andhra Pradesh (where elections were held concomitant to the general elections in 2014) with Maharashtra (where State Legislative Assembly elections took place post the conduction of general elections of 2014) shows that the disparity is indeed very high. Andhra Pradesh spent 489 crores in toto for conducting simultaneous elections in 2014, whereas Maharashtra spent 487 crores and 461 crores for general elections and its State Legislative Assembly elections respectively when both were conducted in 2014 in separate time frames.
Similarly, Arunachal Pradesh spent 15.89 crores in toto for conducting simultaneous elections in 2014. However Delhi, in 2014, had to spend 34.5 crores and 98.76 crores for Lok Sabha and State LA elections respectively.
The data, ipso facto reveals a stark reality of disparate conduction of election process in India by viewing it from an economic perspective.
- National Parties being at the helm
The contention that, by implementation of ONOE, the regional parties would be subjugated or their issues would be incidental to national issues remains an unestablished claim. There is no pragmatic example that can legitimately establish such claim. On the other hand, past examples suggest a contrary picture. In the States where regional elections have coincided with national elections, it has been observed that there are clear cut differences in the pattern of votes received by national parties in both the elections and in relation to votes received by regional parties.
For instance, if we take note of the 2019 General Elections in India which happened in proximity with the Legislative Assembly elections for NCT of Delhi, we can very well infer that the claim regarding national parties becoming despotic can appositely be refuted.
The fact that for general elections, all four of the Lok Sabha seats were won by BJP in 2019 and in the next year, for the regional elections, the AAP government occupied the majority in the State Legislative Assembly; this depicts a clear message that regional issues were dealt with by the people in the regional elections separately viz-a-viz the national election and that, neither would get disposed of at the cost of the other.
- Good Governance vis-a-vis Bad Governance
It has been already pointed out by the Supreme Court in S Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [(2013) 9 SCC 659] that during the process of elections, practices such as distribution of freebies, subsidies, short term political promises etc. inhibit the free and fair election process. Furthermore, conduction of free and fair election for a vibrant democracy like India is an intrinsic part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution as laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain [1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333].
The fact remains undeniable that during elections, the governance process is majorly put on hold. In the light of this, the argument here is that in lieu of causing persistent inhibitions to the stable governance process by repeatedly contesting elections, it would be better to conduct all elections at once, thus avoiding persistent hindrances.
HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT?
Given the economic and political advantages of the scheme, in order to implement it into the Indian political realm, a bi-phasal election mode can be incorporated. The same can be compared with the recommendation of the Law Commission in its August 30, 2018 report for the 2019 General Elections.
The scheme can facilitate the conduction of elections just twice in five years for all the States/Union Territories and to the Lok Sabha. In order to do so, the following are the requisite alterations required:
– For the States/UTs which have their State Legislative Assembly Elections in the year 2023 and 2025, the tenure can be extended and decreased by a year respectively, so that elections take place simultaneously in 2024. Hence, this would mean 15 States/UTs can have their Legislative Assembly Elections in 2024 (with the general elections). This can happen by an Amendment to Article 172 of the Constitution as mentioned earlier. Separate clauses can be inserted to the Article for each State/UT as was done in Article 356 specifically for the State of Punjab (for the extension of emergency).
– For the States/UTs which have their terms ending in 2026 and 2028, the tenure can be extended and decreased by a year respectively, so that elections take place simultaneously in 2027. Hence, the remaining 16 States/UTs can have their assembly elections in 2027 by bringing amendment to Article 172.
– In case any government loses majority before the completion of the requisite period, the new government formed by the means of post-poll alliance etc. should be formulated for a time frame tantamount to the left-over period of the government that lost majority. This was also recommended by the Law Commission of India in its 2018 report. This would also require the changes to the Constitutional provisions mentioned in Article 172 and 83 for both State Assembly Elections as well as General Elections.
– Another recommendation by Law Commission’s 2018 Report requires consideration with respecting to passing of “no confidence motion”. The Law Commission recommends that, in lieu of no-confidence, “constructive vote of no-confidence” should be recognized. This evinces that a no-confidence can only be passed when there is an alternative party in which the house has confidence.
The last two changes can make sure that there are no future inhibitions whilst carrying the bi-phasal election scheme ahead.
The author is a second year B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) student from University of Petroleum and Energy Studies
Image Credits: Live Law
Constitutional Law Society 
Leave a comment