Government of India is advocating ‘One Nation One Election’ (ONOE) to hold general election to the Lok Sabha and all State/Union territory legislative assemblies simultaneously. This is not a new concept, as India has followed this practice from 1952 to 1967. In fact, the premature dissolution of the first Legislative Assembly of Goa, Daman and Diu in December 1966 was precisely to align with the common electoral cycle in 1967. Subsequently, the cycle was disrupted due to premature dissolution of the Lok Sabha and some state legislative assemblies.
The practice of simultaneous general election followed between 1952 and 1967 was more of an administrative convenience and not a constitutional requirement. The Constitution of India never mandated simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. The Constitution provides that the Lok Sabha and every state legislative assembly shall continue for five years, unless sooner dissolved (Article 83(2) and Article 172(1)).
The President and Governors have the power to dissolve the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, respectively (Article 85 and 174). Article 356 empowers the President for dissolution or suspension of a state legislative assembly. Therefore, the Constitution contemplates that legislatures may be dissolved before completing five years and, therefore, election schedules can diverge.
The present intent of the Government of India is very clear that ONOE shall be through a constitutional amendment. For this purpose, the government has already introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 in the Parliament. These Bills are presently under examination by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
These Bills primarily contemplate insertion of new Article 82A to establish a mechanism for simultaneous elections, empowering the President to notify the commencement of the common electoral cycle and providing that the terms of state and UT assemblies constituted thereafter would expire along with the expiry of the Lok Sabha so that future elections are synchronised.
This would entail amendments to existing provisions under Article 83, Article 85, Article 172 and Article 174, which presently permit each legislature to have an independent life of up to five years, unless dissolved earlier. Further, constitutional amendments alone are not sufficient. Implementation of ONOE will require statutory amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, and other election-related laws, rules and procedures governing notifications, electoral rolls, election schedules, expenditure, Electronic Voting Machines and allied matters.
Further, the ONOE constitutional amendments require a special majority in both the Houses of Parliament under Article 368 and ratification by at least one-half of the state legislatures before it can become law.
The ONOE may certainly result in reduced election-related expenditure and lighten the burden on public administration. Frequent disruption in implementation of government projects and programmes due to Model Code of Conduct would certainly lessen resulting in better governance and improved policy continuity. This would also help improvement in logistical and administrative efficiency.
The ONOE would require massive logistical arrangements like a large number of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), VVPAT units, polling personnel, security forces, transportation and storage facilities etc which is certainly a gigantic task though not impossible. But the major concern of ONOE is a challenge to federalism. India is a Union of states with separate constitutional governments. State elections are intended to reflect state-specific issues. Simultaneous elections may dilute the autonomy and political identity of state governments.
Normally, in state elections, issues concerning the states become relevant in voting pattern, while the national issues get prominence at Lok Sabha elections. There have been many instances in different states including Goa where voters elected different political parties for legislative assembly and Lok Sabha. To be precise, at the national level, voters may elect a particular party, while at the state level voters may choose a different political party including a regional party based on performance of the governments at the Centre and in the state.
But, if elections to state assembly and Lok Sabha are held simultaneously, voting pattern may be dominated by national issues and state issues may get less attention or vice versa. This may weaken the choice of voters in electing different political parties for Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies based on the performance of respective incumbent governments. The voters’ dilemma may increase in exercising their choice in relation to varied governance accountability, performance and prioritisation of issues, which would increase the probability of electing same party both, at the Centre and in the state. In such a situation, anti-incumbency sentiment against the state government may hurt the central government and vice versa.
Several constitutional contingencies may arise, such as a government losing its legislative majority, the premature dissolution of a state assembly, the collapse of a coalition government or the proclamation of an emergency. In such situations, an important constitutional question arises, should the concerned state remain under President’s Rule until the next synchronised electoral cycle?
More fundamentally, would such an arrangement be consistent with the spirit of parliamentary democracy, which envisages that states should ordinarily be governed by democratically elected governments rather than prolonged central rule? Therefore, the proposed constitutional amendments for ONOE need to address these questions to ensure governance continuity without significant disruption. Further, anti-defection law also needs to be made stringent to stop horse-trading and collapse of governments. Alternatively, an option worth exploring is the conduct of two separate elections, one for the Lok Sabha and another for all state legislative assemblies.
(Suresh Shanbhogue is a retired senior bureaucrat.)
