custom-ads

Political instability, loss of federal autonomy: Arguments against ‘One Nation, One Election’ Bill

For years, Prime Minister Modi's BJP has strongly advocated "One Nation, One Election," gaining support from allies and friendly parties who highlight its potential to save time, costs, and resources in the electoral process

South First Desk

Published Dec 17, 2024 | 6:01 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 17, 2024 | 6:01 PM

Lok Sabha

File photo of Lok Sabha. (Screengrab)

In a significant move on Tuesday, 17 December,  Union Law Minister, Arjun Meghwal, introduced two crucial Bills in the Lok Sabha aimed at implementing the ‘One Nation, One Election’ concept, which seeks to synchronise elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. 

The introduction of the bills, which followed the approval of the Cabinet last week, came after a vote in favour of the legislation from 269 Members of Parliament, with 198 MPs opposing it.

The two Bills — the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill, 2024) — were presented amidst a packed session. These legislative proposals are designed to facilitate the simultaneous holding of elections to the Lok Sabha and the assemblies of States and Union Territories, a plan that has been under consideration for some time.

Committee established to draft Bill 

The bills are based on the recommendations of the high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which was set up by the Law Ministry in September 2023 to examine and propose changes for conducting simultaneous elections. 

According to the committee’s findings, 32 out of 47 political parties that submitted their opinions on the matter supported the idea, while 15 opposed it.

Under the proposed amendments, the President would be required to designate an “appointed date” during the first sitting of the Lok Sabha following a general election. Legislative Assemblies elected after this date would have their terms adjusted to end with that of the Lok Sabha, thus aligning the timelines for both.

Despite the government’s backing for the initiative, the bills have encountered significant resistance from opposition parties. Ahead of their introduction, the Congress Party and several other opposition groups have openly criticised the amendments, arguing that they are unconstitutional and would undermine the democratic process.

Also Read:  ‘One Nation One Election’ bills introduced in Lok Sabha

Arguments against the Bill 

Opponents of the legislation contend that it could lead to political instability by disrupting the established electoral cycle and centralising power, further consolidating control in the hands of the ruling government. 

They also argue that the amendment would adversely affect smaller, regional parties and hinder the federal structure of the country.

Congress MP for Thiruvananthapuram, Dr. Shashi Tharoor said, “I’m not the only one who has opposed the One Nation, One Election bill; the vast majority of parties have opposed it. It’s a violation of the federal structure of India enshrined in our Constitution. Why should the mandate of a state suddenly be truncated because of the timetable of the nation? In the parliamentary system, you can’t have fixed terms. Govts fall and rise, and in a parliamentary system, it’s bound to happen. It was for this reason that fixed terms were discontinued decades ago. It’s a waste of public expenditure as it will result in the same difficult situation.”

Vehemently opposing the bill, Wayanad MP, Priyanka Gandhi said, “It’s an anti-constitutional bill, It is against the principles of federalism. We are opposing it.”

Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi strongly opposed the ‘One Nation, One Election’ Bill, calling it a direct assault on India’s federal structure.

Gogoi dismissed the government’s claim that simultaneous elections would save money, arguing that the cost of a Lok Sabha election is only Rs 3,700 crore, a mere 0.02 percent of the annual budget. He criticised the government for misleading the public on this issue.

“The government seeks to dismantle India’s federal structure and concentrate more power in the Election Commission of India (ECI), with no oversight from the Supreme Court in selecting its Commissioner,” Gogoi said.

He also pointed out that the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha with just a 65-vote margin, noting that the NDA had failed to secure the two-thirds majority required to pass the legislation.

DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi firmly opposed the Bill, stating that her party has consistently rejected the idea. She argued that the proposal undermines the Constitution, federal rights, and the will of the people.

“We do not accept the concept of one nation, one election,” she said. “It goes against the Constitution and violates the federal structure. People elect state governments for five years, and it is unjust to take away that right and leave it to the Election Commission to decide the tenure of a government.”

Karunanidhi emphasised that the bill undermines the federal system enshrined in the Constitution and poses a direct threat to its core principles. “This move is a direct attack on states and federalism, shaking the very foundation of the Constitution itself,” she added.

Congress MP Jairam Ramesh also rejected the Bill, asserting that the party would oppose its introduction and demand that it be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. He described the bill as unconstitutional, claiming it threatens the country’s democratic framework and undermines accountability.

Ramesh highlighted that Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge had written to former President Ram Nath Kovind on 17 January, outlining the party’s objections to the very concept of simultaneous elections. “The ‘One Nation, One Election’ bill is just the first step. The real aim is to bring about a new constitution,” Ramesh stated.

He further argued that amending the Constitution is one thing, but the ultimate goal, according to the RSS and Prime Minister Modi, is to replace the current Constitution altogether. Ramesh reminded the House that the RSS had rejected India’s Constitution in 1949, criticising it for not drawing inspiration from texts like the Manusmriti.

TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee argued that the Bill fundamentally violates the Constitution’s basic structure. He pointed out that the bill contradicts Article 83(2)(1), which governs the terms of the Lok Sabha.

Banerjee further criticised the bill for making state assemblies dependent on the central government’s timing. “If Parliament dissolves, state elections would have to align with the national election schedule,” he said, adding that this subjugates state governments to the will of the central government. “State assemblies and state governments are not subordinate to Parliament; they have their own jurisdiction.”

He also raised concerns about the provision that would require additional elections if a state government falls before its term ends, questioning how this would align with the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election.’

Communist Party of India (CPI) leader D Raja voiced strong opposition to the ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal, calling it impractical for a diverse country like India. Speaking on the Bill, Raja said, “The CPI firmly opposes the ‘One Nation, One Election’ idea. Our party has already submitted its views to the committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind.”

Raja emphasized that such a proposal is not feasible in India, given its vast cultural, linguistic, and regional differences. “In a country with such diversity, ‘One Nation, One Election’ is neither practical nor possible,” he added. The CPI leader also demanded that the government clarify its intentions behind pushing the proposal.

Also Read: Southern states oppose One Nation, One Election

Support for the Bill 

For years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been a staunch advocate of the “One Nation, One Election” concept. The idea has largely found support among BJP allies and friendly parties, who emphasise the potential benefits in terms of saving time, costs, and resources.

The BJP has argued that the current system, with elections staggered across different states, has resulted in what it calls “800 days of lost governance” over the past five years. 

According to the party, this delay in elections has hindered the timely implementation of welfare schemes and slowed down decision-making at the national level.

Union Minister Chirag Paswan defended the ‘One Nation, One Election’ Bill, questioning the Opposition’s claims that it is unconstitutional and undermines federalism. “If the bill is truly against federalism, I challenge at least one Opposition member to explain how,” Paswan said.

He accused the Opposition of spreading false narratives and misleading the public. “The Opposition is an expert in peddling lies. They should base their arguments on facts and merits,” Paswan added. He also pointed out that many regional parties are supporting the proposal, countering claims that it only has backing from national parties.

BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad hailed the introduction of the ‘One Nation, One Election’ Bill, calling it a historic day for the country. “Should there always be elections in the country? I believe this is a step towards greater stability,” he said. Praising Prime Minister Modi, Prasad expressed pride in the leadership, describing the move as a welcome initiative that would bring more stability to the nation.

TDP leader and Union Minister Dr. Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar voiced strong support for the ‘One Nation, One Election’ Bill, highlighting its potential benefits.

“From the TDP side, we offer unequivocal support for the bill as it reduces election expenditure, streamlines the electoral process, and boosts voter turnout,” he said. He further emphasized that the proposal would enhance administrative efficiency and overall benefit the country, reinforcing the party’s backing for the initiative.

BJP MP Rajiv Pratap Rudy called the introduction of the ‘One Nation, One Election’ Bill in Parliament a historic occasion.

“This is a historic day. The bill has been introduced and referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee,” Rudy said. Expressing his political enthusiasm, he added, “This decision by the government and the Prime Minister is something I have long dreamed of, and it has been the dream of the people of this country.”

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju emphasized the importance of synchronized elections for the country’s progress, stating, “The country needs one election and one nation. The entire nation must move forward together.”

(Compiled by Ananya Rao)

Follow us