Latest news with #129thAmendment)Bill
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Hits and misses in the one nation, one election idea
Over the past decade, the Narendra Modi government has embraced a series of 'One Nation' policies aimed at replacing India's diverse patchwork of state-specific policies with uniform, national schemes. From the Goods and Services Tax ('One Nation, One Tax') to the portability of subsidised rations ('One Nation, One Ration Card'), the impulse has been toward centralisation and standardisation. Now, the government is pursuing one of the most controversial of these projects: One nation, one election. This proposal seeks to replace India's staggered electoral calendar with simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies. The idea has featured in Modi's speeches for years but was given a boost in March 2024, when a high-level committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind endorsed the idea. In December, the government introduced the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill to give the Election Commission of India (ECI) the authority to implement such a system. The Bill is currently being reviewed by a joint parliamentary committee. Modi and his BJP colleagues have long argued that frequent polls disrupt governance, drain resources, and induce short-term populism. India's current electoral calendar ensures that some part of the country is almost always in campaign mode. Proponents argue that constant elections constitute an undue burden on the State's coffers. And the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) — an informal set of norms to ensure a level-playing field during the campaign period — is cited as a source of 'policy paralysis'. There is obvious appeal to aligning India's staggered election calendar, but there are less disruptive, less dramatic solutions to the underlying problems the government wishes to solve. The case for simultaneity: The proposed Constitutional amendment would overhaul India's electoral framework. It introduces a one-time transitory provision to dissolve all state assemblies, so their elections coincide with the next Lok Sabha polls, thereafter locking both into a single five-year cycle. If a government — state or national — dissolves mid-term, fresh elections would be held only to complete the remainder of the original term. Supporters of this far-reaching reform advance three main arguments. First, simultaneous elections will yield savings in time, money, and bureaucratic resources. Political leaders and government machinery, freed from perpetual campaigning, could spend more time on governance. Voters, especially migrants and students, would require less travel. Proponents also point to reduced campaign costs and a lighter administrative burden. Second, fewer elections — they argue — would mean less voter fatigue and greater turnout. Third, they contend that aligned elections would enhance governance efficiency. With the MCC in force less frequently, governments could avoid frequent halts to new projects, and coordination between state and national administrations might improve, particularly if concurrent elections produced aligned political outcomes. The problems with one-size-fits-all: These arguments have merit, but each is weaker — or more complicated — than advertised. On time savings, the real issue is less about the electoral calendar than about campaign strategy. The BJP, like other parties before it, has deliberately 'nationalised' even the most local contests by deploying its top leaders in subnational campaigns. This is a political choice, not a structural necessity. Staggered elections need not mean the constant diversion of national leadership if parties invested in strong state-level leaders. In terms of costs, India's election administration is remarkably efficient given the scale of the exercise. The 2014 general election cost the central government around 0.03% of GDP. Even including state polls, the share over a five-year period is tiny compared to other budgetary items. If the problem is excessive campaign spending, the answer lies in genuine political finance reform. Instead, the government has gone in the opposite direction, creating opaque mechanisms for political giving such as the unconstitutional electoral bonds scheme. There are legitimate arguments to be made about the diversion of government officials and security forces to conduct, supervise, and secure elections on a staggered basis. But central paramilitary forces have doubled in size since the 1990s, easing concerns about overstretch. Simultaneous elections would require a larger, one-time deployment — creating its own risks. In terms of voter fatigue, the evidence from India is mixed. State election turnout has risen since the decline of simultaneous polls in the late 1960s, often exceeding turnout in national elections. And in states where assembly polls closely follow general elections, turnout has often increased (albeit by a smaller margin than in non-proximate elections). On government efficiency, the MCC is more limited than often claimed: It applies only to states holding elections, not nationwide (except during general elections), and does not halt ongoing programmes. Ironically, simultaneous elections could also result in more — not fewer — elections. According to the proposed amendment, if a government loses a vote of no-confidence and a fresh election is called, the newly elected government will only serve the remainder of the unexpired term. In that case, the efficiency argument for aligned polls no longer holds water. Risks to democracy and federalism: Beyond these weaknesses lie deeper concerns about democratic design. First, the essence of parliamentary government is that the executive is continuously accountable to the legislature and, by extension, the public. A shift toward a system resembling fixed terms upends this. Second, standardising state and national elections on a single cycle creates fewer opportunities for public participation and debate. The current staggered system of elections allows voters to act as a check on a dominant national party. Finally, the amendment gives the ECI broad discretion to delay polls with few limits and without specifying who governs in the interim. This opens the door to greater central control through President's Rule. A better way forward: India's current electoral calendar has costs, but there are less intrusive ways to address them. One option is to reform the MCC. The ECI could convene an all-party meeting to shorten the period it is in force or exempt certain categories of government action from its ambit. A second is to tackle opaque political finance. Parliament could align the ₹2,000 cash cap with the ₹20,000 disclosure threshold — or better yet, ban cash contributions altogether and require Aadhaar verification for all donations. A third is to streamline election scheduling. The 2024 general election stretched over 43 days — the longest voting period in seven decades. Reducing the number of phases would cut the MCC's duration and decrease disruption without changing the staggered nature of elections. If the government insists on consolidation, compromise models exist. One possibility is one nation, two elections, whereby state polls would be clustered at the mid-point of Parliament's term, reducing frequency while retaining separate state and national verdicts. Another option is aligning national and local body elections — saving costs without undermining the role of state assemblies. Proceed with caution: One nation, one election is a bold idea. But it risks centralising power, weakening federalism, and paradoxically increasing the frequency of elections. The better path is to fix the specific problems the proposal seeks to solve through targeted reforms that preserve the strengths of India's vibrant, multi-level democracy. These ideas — less flashy but more practical — have received little airtime in the current debate. They would be a promising place to start. Milan Vaishnav is senior fellow and director of the South Asia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This column draws on a new co-authored paper, with Caroline Mallory and Annabel Richter, 'Does 'One Nation, One Election' Make Sense for India?' The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
One nation, one election constitutionally sound, but has ‘major gaps': Ex-CJIs
Former Chief Justices of India (CJIs) DY Chandrachud and JS Khehar on Friday expressed concern over some 'major gaps' in the legislation that aims to usher in simultaneous national and state elections, but maintained that the proposed law did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, people aware of the matter said. New Delhi, Jul 11 (ANI): Former CJI Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud at the Parliament House Annexe to give their presentation before the JPC, in New Delhi on Friday. (ANI Video Grab)(ANI Twitter) They cautioned the PP Chaudhary-led joint parliamentary committee (JPC) – which is examining the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill – that the Election Commission (EC) was given excessive power in the proposed law, said the people cited above. Earlier, former CJIs UU Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi, and jurist Abhishek Singhvi had expressed concern over the proposed power of EC to delay polls. The 39-member JPC — headed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Chaudhary — was set up in December 2024. Although there is no time frame for the submission of the report, the term of JPC has been extended till the first day of the last week of the upcoming monsoon Session. The proposed law on One Nation, One Election (ONOE) aims to insert a new Article — 82A — in the Constitution that says, 'If the Election Commission is of the opinion that the elections to any legislative assembly cannot be conducted along with the general election to the House of the People, it may make a recommendation to the President, to declare by an order, that the election to that legislative assembly may be conducted at a later date.' According to functionaries, Chandrachud suggested a few measures to curb this 'absolute power' of EC. He told the panel that EC can delay elections only if it can prove that there are issues related to national security or public law and order. He also said that any decision of EC must be approved by both Houses of Parliament — a provision that would require further amendments in the Constitution -- and EC can defer polls only for a fixed period. Opposition members, including Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, asked questions about the constitutional validity of dissolving assemblies midway to sync state elections with Lok Sabha polls, said people aware of the matter. Many Opposition leaders have termed the bill as unconstitutional. In the meeting, Chandrachud pointed out how India had simultaneous polls till the 1960s, and that the term of three states were curtailed to synchronise polls in 1967, said the people cited above. Chandrachud expressed concern on how the bill gives power to EC to amend provisions of Part XV of the Constitution to roll out the new law. Both Chandrachud and Khehar rejected the idea that EC can unilaterally curtail terms of assemblies or decide when to hold polls, the people cited above added. Khehar, according to functionaries, also suggested that Parliament or the Union Council of Ministers should have the final on the election schedule under the new Article 82A(5) of the Constitution (One hundred and twenty-ninth)Amendment Bill. The ex-CJI said that the bill must clearly spell out what happens if there is an also pointed out that the five-year term for a legislature is not cast in stone. He cited Article 83(2), which says, 'The House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years..' to underline that simultaneous polls do not breach the basic structure of the Constitution, said people aware of the matter. He, however, suggested better drafting in some parts to prevent misinterpretation. Speaking to reporters, Chaudhary said the committee welcomes different kinds of views as it will help the panel make good recommendations. 'We want committee members and all stakeholders to have a thorough discussion. Parliament has given us the bill so that we can improve on it, and not that we return it the way it is,' he said. 'Our committee has got a great chance for nation-building and I think such an opportunity will never come again,' the BJP MP added. From the first elections in Independent India in 1952 until 1967, polls were held simultaneously across the country. But since the Lok Sabha and state assemblies can be dissolved before their tenures end, the state and national elections came to be held at different times after that. Several committees, including a parliamentary panel, the Niti Aayog and the Election Commission of India, have studied simultaneous polls in the past, backing the idea but flagging logistical concerns.
Hindustan Times
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Former CJI seeks level-playing field in simultaneous poll plan
NEW DELHI: Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud has raised some concerns about simultaneous state and parliamentary elections in his submissions to a joint parliamentary committee and called for a level-playing field between smaller and national parties, people aware of the matter said on Thursday. The proposal to align elections – known colloquially as one nation, one election (ONOE) – was a part of the BJP's 2024 poll manifesto. (PTI) Ex-CJI Chandrachud and another former CJI, JS Khehar, are set to attend on July 11 a meeting of the JPC examining the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, which are intended to roll out simultaneous polls in the country, the people cited above said. The 39-member JPC — headed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader PP Chaudhary — was set up in December 2024. Although there is no time frame for the submission of the report, the term of the JPC has been extended till the first day of last week of the upcoming Monsoon Session. The proposal to align elections – known colloquially as one nation, one election (ONOE) – was a part of the BJP's 2024 poll manifesto and is backed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who argues that it will trim election costs and shift focus to governance. But the proposal is fiercely opposed by a raft of political parties and activists who allege that it will hurt democratic accountability and federalism. The bills propose the alignment process to begin in 2029 and the first simultaneous elections in 2034. 'Justice Chandrachud has also given his opinion about the proposed ONOE. In his submission to JPC in April, he has pointed out that concerns about simultaneous elections possibly marginalising smaller or regional parties because of the dominance of better resourced national parties is a significant policy aspect which warrants legislative attention,' said the person quoted above. A clutch of regional parties such as the Rastriya Janata Dal (RJD) have alleged that the proposed legislation can dent federalism. 'The former CJI has noted that to ensure a level playing field among political parties, the rules governing electoral campaigning, particularly those relating to campaign finance, must be strengthened. Referring to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 that impose ceilings on the amount a candidate can spend for campaign, there are no corresponding limits on the expenditure incurred by political parties themselves he said. This gap in regulation weighs the electoral process towards parties with greater financial resources he said,' the person quoted above said. On the fear that simultaneous elections may infringe upon the right of voters to choose their elected representatives, the former CJI pointed out that even in instances where the duration of either the Lok Sabha or the assembly expires before the full term, the legislation provide for conducting mid-term elections, ensuring that the Indian electorate remains continuously represented by their duly elected representatives. 'He is of the view that the proposal would be violative of the basic structure doctrine only if the facet of non-simultaneous elections to every tier of the government is a basic feature of the Constitution,' the person quoted above said. Chandrachud is also learnt to have weighed in on the provisions for no-confidence motion. 'He has pointed out that the cardinal principle of parliamentary democracy is that the council of ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, must always have the support of the House. This principle will be diluted if there is a time bar on introducing the no-confidence motion. Similarly, one of the common features of a multi-party democracy such as India is the inability of any party or coalition of parties to secure the majority in the House. If the issuance of a notice of no-confidence is contingent on the motion of confidence, there is a real possibility of the minority government continuing in power. This is contrary to democratic tenets,' said the person quoted above. The bill now being examined by JPC suggests adding Article 82(A) (simultaneous elections to the House of the People and all legislative assemblies) and amending Articles 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament), 172, and 327 (power of Parliament to make provisions with respect to elections to Legislatures). It also states that the provisions of the amendment will come into effect on an 'appointed date,' which the President will notify on the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after a general election. As per the bill, the 'appointed date' will be after the next Lok Sabha elections in 2029, with simultaneous elections slated to begin in 2034. According to a person aware of the details, the meeting on July 11 will see JPC also interact with former Union minister and Congress leader M Veerappa Moily and former Congress lawmaker EMS Natchippan. From the first elections in Independent India in 1952 until 1967, polls were held simultaneously across the country. But since the Lok Sabha and state assemblies can be dissolved before their tenures end, the state and national elections came to be held at different times after that. Several committees, including a parliamentary panel, the Niti Aayog and the Election Commission of India, have studied simultaneous polls in the past, backing the idea but flagging logistical concerns.
Time of India
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
India prepares for 'one nation, one election' rollout by 2034: Assemblies to have shorter terms post-2029
The Modi government is advancing its plan for implementing simultaneous national and state elections by 2034, with all state assemblies elected after 2029 expected to serve shortened terms to align with the general elections, according to a Times of India report. The groundwork is being laid through the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, which seeks to enable the 'One Nation, One Election' system, the report added. According to PP Choudhary, chairman of the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) overseeing the bill, state assemblies elected after 2029 — such as Uttar Pradesh's in 2032 — may serve shorter terms, potentially as brief as two years, to ensure synchronisation with the Lok Sabha elections scheduled for 2034. The bill empowers the President to issue a notification after the first sitting of the Lok Sabha following the 2029 general elections, marking the starting point for the new synchronized electoral cycle. Assemblies elected after this notification will have terms ending concurrently with the Lok Sabha's term. If either the Lok Sabha or a state assembly is dissolved early, fresh elections will be held only for the remainder of the five-year term, preserving alignment. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like New Container Houses Vietnam (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo In states where elections are due before the 2034 target, polls will still be conducted, but only for the remaining duration needed to bring those assemblies in sync with the national election timeline. An exception clause exists: if the Election Commission determines that a simultaneous election isn't feasible in a particular state, it can recommend to the President that polls be held separately. Choudhary, a BJP MP from Pali, Rajasthan, also noted that the JPC is likely to extend its term, as there is consensus among members to visit more states and Union Territories before finalising recommendations. So far, visits have been conducted in Maharashtra and Uttarakhand to gather public and stakeholder feedback. Live Events Both the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill were introduced in Parliament in December 2024 and referred to the JPC for detailed scrutiny. The goal is to streamline the electoral process, reduce logistical burdens, and ensure more consistent governance cycles nationwide.
India Gazette
22-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
JPC Chairman PP Choudhary holds press conference over two-day meeting of key amendment bills
Dehradun (Uttarakhand) [India], May 22 (ANI): Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) Chairman PP Choudhary held a press conference in Dehradun on Wednesday. This comes in connection with the two-day meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territory Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, held from May 21-22. Earlier today, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami participated in a dialogue program with the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the topic 'One Nation, One Election' at a hotel on Mussoorie Road. He welcomed and greeted the Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, PP Chaudhary and all the committee members. The Chief Minister said that 'One Nation One Election' is an important initiative towards making our democracy more strong, effective and inclusive. CM Dhami said, 'Our election system has been effective and strong despite its diversity. However, because elections are held at different times, the code of conduct is imposed repeatedly, which is why all the work of the states comes to a standstill. Whenever elections come, many personnel must be removed from their original work and put on election duty.' The Chief Minister said, 'For the last three years, due to the code of conduct of the Assembly, Lok Sabha, and Municipal elections in the state, the administrative machinery of the state was deprived of the process of taking policy decisions for 175 days. For a small and limited resource state, these 175 days are important from the point of view of governance.' The Chief Minister said that the state government bears the entire expenditure burden of the assembly elections, and the central government bears the expenditure burden of the Lok Sabha elections. 'If both polls are held together, the expenditure burden on the state and the central government will be equally halved. By holding both the elections together, there will be a saving of about 30 to 35 per cent in the total expenditure. This can be used in many areas of the state, such as health, education, road, water, agriculture, and women's empowerment,' said CM Dhami. The Chief Minister said that in Uttarakhand, the period from June to September is the time of rain along with the Chardham Yatra; in such a situation, many problems must be faced due to the election program. He said, 'The election process should not be scheduled during the last quarter of the financial year, from January to March. Due to the high school and intermediate board examinations in February-March, administrative resources are under additional pressure.' He said that 'One Nation, One Election' is important in hilly and difficult geographical conditions, such as in states like Uttarakhand. The Chief Minister said that it is difficult to reach polling booths in remote areas of Uttarakhand, which is why the election process takes more time and resources. He also said that it is also challenging for voters in mountainous areas to participate in elections, due to frequent elections, people's inclination towards voting decreases, and the voting percentage also decreases. (ANI)
