2034 earliest for simultaneous polls under existing Bills: One Nation, One Election panel chief

Indian Express

2 days ago

P P Chaudhary, BJP MP and chairman of the Joint Committee of Parliament on Bills relating to 'One Nation, One Election', has told The Indian Express that the earliest that simultaneous elections can be held under the existing Bills is 2034, and the committee may go beyond the draft law to suggest ways to keep polls aligned, including recommending a provision for a constructive or positive vote of no-confidence.
In an interview with The Indian Express, Chaudhary, responding to a question on how long it would take the committee to finalise its recommendations, said members had unanimously decided to visit all states and Union Territories – a process that would take about two to two-and-a-half years. So far, the committee has visited two states: Uttarakhand and Maharashtra.
The Bills were introduced in Lok Sabha in December last year and were almost immediately referred to the Chaudhary-led committee which has been holding consultations with stakeholders for feedback.
Although the draft legislation provides for a one-time measure to bring Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in sync, Chaudhary felt that the committee could make additional recommendations to address how synchronisation should be maintained.
One such suggestion could be a constructive vote of no-confidence which, as is the case in Germany, requires members of a legislature who bring a no-confidence motion against a government to have the numbers to form the government instead.
Asked when the first simultaneous elections would be held, he said: 'The committee will deliberate; Parliament will decide. We can't say when, but the Bill says the first session of Parliament, if it happens with the appointed date, then it would be from 2034.'
The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill), 2024 provide for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and Assemblies. If passed, the Bills provide for the President notifying the appointed date on the first sitting of a newly-elected Lok Sabha and every state or UT Assembly elected after that appointed date would have its term curtailed to align with the Lok Sabha. This would provide for simultaneous elections to be held when the five-year term of the Lok Sabha ends. The Bills also provide for elections to be held for the remainder term in case a government falls before the five-year term.
Asked what would happen if a Lok Sabha or Assembly election returns a hung verdict or if a Union or state government falls, Chaudhary said: 'The Constitution does not mention no-confidence motion even now; it is governed by Rule 198 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. We can bring in some provisions for stability. We can recommend new provisions in the Constitution.' He said the committee could deliberate on the issue and it was for Parliament to decide.
'If some impediments are there in the Constitution, those impediments may be redressed after discussion with all the members. Constructive no-confidence motion, like the German model, can be discussed. Once you bring a no-confidence motion, then at the same time, you should bring a confidence motion. In the rarest of rare situations, the Leader of the House can be elected on the floor of the House like the Speaker is. But, this situation will not arise. We have seen that the electorate does not support those who bring a no-confidence motion,' he said.
'All members will discuss and if there is a requirement to incorporate something or make additions to the Bill in the national interest, I believe the committee will recommend. If our end goal is to achieve 'One Nation, One Election', then definitely we will recommend amendments to enable that,' he said.
The Bills had been introduced by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on December 17, 2024 and were based on the recommendations of the High-Level Committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind.
Responding to criticism from some in the Opposition that the move would be anti-democratic and against federalism, Chaudhary, who is BJP MP from Pali in Rajasthan, said simultaneous elections would further the cause of democracy.
'In our experience, the states where elections are held simultaneously, the voter turnout is 10-20% more. Is that in the interest of or against democracy? If there is only 40% polling and the PM or CM is elected with 21% of the votes, is that democracy? I believe polling will cross 80% if we have simultaneous elections. The expression of the will of the people will be more robust and it will strengthen democracy. Not holding simultaneous elections is anti-democratic,' he said.
He maintained that the Bills only 'fixed the time schedule' of elections and did not affect the basic structure of the Constitution, federalism and free and fair elections. He said Article 327 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to make provision with respect to elections to legislatures.
When it comes to federalism, he said the Supreme Court, in the SR Bommai case in 1994, had reinforced that federalism is a basic feature and that the Bills before the committee do not infringe upon this as the powers of the Union and states remain the same.
'The first three elections were held simultaneously until 1967. Were those elections against federalism? Some Assembly elections are still held with Lok Sabha, is that against federalism? Has any regional party in those states demanded separate elections? Look at the example of TDP in Andhra Pradesh or BJD in Odisha. This argument is untenable. We welcome anyone who wants to come before the committee with such an argument, with foundations. We will deal with it. If there is no basis, we cannot deal with such an argument properly,' he said.
The Bills, he said, did not alter the accountability of the government to Parliament and that holding frequent elections did not mean that the government would be more accountable.
'We have a parliamentary form of democracy. The executive is accountable 24×7 to Parliament,' he said.
Asked about the concerns of regional parties that holding simultaneous elections would lead to regional issues being sidelined, he said voters were capable of electing different parties at the Centre and state.
'The voters today are very intelligent and politically educated. We can't underestimate the Indian voters. Underestimating them will tantamount to undermining them. The voters, particularly in rural areas like where I come from, know who to vote for in national elections based on national issues, and in local elections, based on local issues,' he said.
Chaudhary said the cost of frequent elections was borne by the education system, particularly government schools where teachers are sent on election duty for months, and the economy. On how much it would cost to hold simultaneous elections, he said it would be 'maximum Rs15,000 crore'. But this, he said, would be a small amount when compared to the benefit to the economy in terms of fewer disruptions to governance, policy-making and investments. On the other hand, he said the practice of announcing freebies and caste-based politics around elections would also be reduced if all elections were held once in five years.
As a part of the committee's hearings, he said all states and UTs had been asked to prepare reports on the impact of frequent elections to their economy and society. Stakeholders like the Indian Bank Association were also asked to study the impact of simultaneous elections. The Committee has so far met former Chief Justice of India U U Lalit and several former Supreme Court and High Court judges as a part of its consultations. He said the committee plans on meeting more legal luminaries, apart from political leaders and other stakeholders in states.
Asked how the BJP would be able to have the Constitutional amendment passed as it required two-thirds majority, which the NDA does not have, he said he believed the parties who think of the national interest would support the Bills.
'It is not in the party's interest, it is in the national interest. It will not take time to be passed if they think in national interest. I have full faith that the parties that think of national interest will support. If Congress or any other party thinks of national interest first, then not just 2/3, but we will get 3/4 majority,' he said.
The committee, comprising 39 members and two co-opted members, had been given an extension until the Monsoon session during the last session.