"Once the Constitutional amendment bill is passed by Parliament and notified by the President of India, the earliest feasible cycle for implementing ONOE would be 2034," said Chairperson of the JPC on "One Nation One Election", PP Chaudhary, in an exclusive interview. He also termed ONOE a progressive reform for a mature and vibrant democracy and urged all parties to rise above differences and support it in the national interest. Excerpts:
Let's start with the Bill's expected timeline. If it is passed before or by 2028, what could be the earliest possible timeline for implementing "One Nation, One Election"?
Once the Constitutional amendment bill is passed by Parliament and notified by the President of India, the earliest feasible cycle for implementing ONOE would be 2034. The process will start from the 2029 General Elections. This is because the Joint Parliamentary Committee has unanimously decided to visit all states and Union Territories before finalising its recommendations. This process will ensure that relevant stakeholders from across domains and regions can present their views before the committee, thereby promoting inclusive participation. As a result, the report itself will take some time before it is laid before Parliament.
Implementing ONOE would require major Constitutional amendments. Which provisions of the Constitution of India may need to be changed?
In order to implement ONOE, amendments may be made with respect to various provisions of the Constitution. The bill primarily proposes amendments to Articles 82, 83, 172 and 327. The bill, as presented in Parliament, is being examined thoroughly by the committee. The mandate of the committee is to suggest changes to the bill. Our aim is to improve the drafting of the bill and to study the implications of various provisions. We have to examine other provisions of the Constitution and synchronise them with the proposed amendments. We are taking inputs regarding the same from every expert being consulted.
Do you believe political consensus is achievable on this reform before it is introduced in Parliament?
This is a reform that is in the interest of the nation. Considering its economic and policy-related benefits, I am confident that the reform will be supported by parties irrespective of their ideologies. Various members, even among the opposition parties and smaller regional parties, have expressed their support for ONOE. This is a progressive reform for a mature and vibrant democracy, and I believe that all parties will rise above their differences to wholeheartedly support ONOE in the national interest. ONOE is an electoral reform in the larger interest of the nation, not any political interest.
Several regional parties argue that simultaneous elections could weaken India's federal structure. How does the panel address these concerns?
The fundamental change being made by the bill is an alteration in the alignment and timing of elections. Currently, elections to Assemblies and the Lok Sabha are scattered across different periods within five years. When the bill is implemented, elections to Assemblies and the Lok Sabha will be held synchronously. I do not see how this change in alignment will have a detrimental impact on India’s federal structure.
In fact, during our consultations, many experts have affirmed that the bill does not undermine the federal structure of our democracy. India's first general elections, after the Constitution was adopted, were simultaneous in nature. The cycle of simultaneous elections remained intact from 1951 to 1967, i.e. four general elections. Until the late 1990s, various states had Assembly elections alongside Lok Sabha elections. Even today, several states like Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim simultaneously vote for MPs and MLAs.
Recently, TN CM MK Stalin wrote an article about the feasibility of ONOE, comparing it with the Indonesian experiment with simultaneous elections in 2019. How far do you agree with it?
There are some crucial differences in the design of simultaneous elections in Indonesia and what we are proposing in India. The deaths of poll workers in Indonesia were not due to simultaneous elections, but due to the fact that workers had to count ballot paper votes for three tiers of government together. All elections across different levels in Indonesia were conducted in a single day—17 April 2019—and 154 million people voted on the same day, and that too through a system of ballot papers.
However, such grave administrative and logistical challenges will not arise in India during simultaneous elections because elections are conducted in phases. Elections are often spread across two months, thereby ensuring that logistical pressure is distributed over weeks. This will allow India to conduct simultaneous elections smoothly.
Additionally, Indonesia used ballot papers for conducting simultaneous elections. Counting ballot papers for three tiers together not only takes significantly more time but also takes a heavy toll on the health of counting officials. While Indonesia's use of paper ballots exacerbated health risks for poll officials, India's effective use of technology through EVMs will avert many counting-related problems seen in Indonesia. Thus, due to its geography and population, conducting a single-day election in Indonesia proved to be a major challenge. Moreover, the number of deaths and sick officials quoted in the article itself is questionable and inconsistent with official data provided by Indonesian ministries. The ONOE reform in India is an administratively and logistically feasible exercise.
Is India administratively ready to conduct nationwide elections simultaneously?
Immediately after independence, from 1951 to 1967, several elections were held simultaneously. Now, in this era of technology, there is no problem in conducting simultaneous elections. ONOE will not harm India's democracy or federalism in any manner. In fact, the exercise will further strengthen the democratic process by allowing elected leaders to devote their complete time and energy to the development of their constituencies, parliamentary duties such as deliberating on legislation, and policy-making, rather than being in a perpetual campaign mode.
How does the panel propose to deal with situations where state governments fall mid-term under synchronised elections?
We have received a lot of suggestions from experts we have consulted and from members of the committee regarding the remainder term period. The concept of the remainder term is not alien to Indian democracy. Our grassroots-level local self-governments have actively employed the principle of the remainder term. In these institutions, no-confidence motions are restricted for a certain period, and any subsequent fresh election is held only for the remaining term. Applying a similar model to Assembly and Lok Sabha elections might be one way of dealing with this challenge.
There are various other options being considered by the committee. There is serious consideration of introducing a provision that would disallow moving a no-confidence motion if a government is in its final year. There have been suggestions to adopt the German model of a constructive vote of confidence after a no-confidence motion is moved. These decisions are political in nature. Since the bill is currently silent on these provisions, the committee will consult political parties before recommending any amendments. Thus, all members of the committee are actively discussing these issues, and I am sure that we will arrive at a consensus in the national interest.
How many consultations have so far been held with state governments and regional parties during the drafting of the report?
This is probably the first JPC that has resolved to visit all states and Union Territories to gather their views on ONOE. This is one of the first committees to have interacted with six former CJIs, former Justices of the Supreme Court, a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and various senior advocates of the Supreme Court. The committee has already interacted with the state governments of Uttarakhand, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra and Punjab, as well as officials in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. These interactions have provided very interesting perspectives on state-level challenges in conducting frequent elections.
Do you not think that simultaneous elections require a massive increase in EVMs and security personnel, and what would be the estimated cost?
The estimation of how many additional EVMs and security personnel are needed to conduct simultaneous elections is primarily a logistical concern; it can best be assessed by the Election Commission. I am extremely confident that the Election Commission is more than capable of dealing with any logistical challenge that might arise from the implementation of simultaneous elections. From the perspective of additional budgetary allocation, I do not think it will add any significant stress to the state exchequer. In 2014, when our government came to power, the budget was ₹18 lakh crore, and today the recently passed budget is ₹55 lakh crore. Buying additional EVMs, estimated at around ₹10,000 to ₹15,000 crore, will not be a problem. ONOE will also save roughly ₹7 lakh crore, a cost that could otherwise fund housing, infrastructure and development. We need to look beyond the narrow definition of election-related expenditure.
Critics say simultaneous elections may favour national parties over regional parties. Did the panel study this possibility?
ONOE is an electoral reform in the national interest, not any political interest. Both regional and national parties stand to gain from simultaneous elections. To argue that national parties will gain an advantage solely on the basis that elections will be held synchronously is a flawed assumption.
If implemented, would this reform be as transformative for India’s electoral system as past reforms, such as the introduction of Electronic Voting Machines?
Absolutely. This is one of the most important electoral reforms in the world. There are very few countries that have shifted from asynchronous elections to simultaneous elections. India’s model can act as a precedent for other countries to implement this reform. Much like earlier electoral reforms that enhanced transparency, efficiency and voter confidence, One Nation One Election has the capacity to bring coherence, stability and predictability to our democratic processes.