NEW DELHI: One of the first decisions the new government will have to take after the Lok Sabha poll outcome is announced would be on the recommendations of a high-level committee on the concept of one nation, one election (ONOE). A panel led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, in its report on March 13, suggested that the President of India notify the date of the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after a general election as the ‘appointed date’ to kick off the synchronisation of the Lok Sabha and assembly elections - as a one-time arrangement. If Prime Minister Narendra Modi gets a repeat mandate, he would want to quickly set the process in motion as synchronisation of polls is part of the legacy he is intent to build under his watch.
The other momentous decision the new government will have to take is about setting a timetable for the Census of India, the subsequent delimitation of constituencies and the rollout of quota to women in the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies.
The idea of holding simultaneous elections is not new to India. The first four election cycles to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies after Independence from 1952 to 1967 were held together. Later, the Article 356 was widely used to dissolve assemblies before their tenure ended. In addition, there were circumstances such as a hung House, no-confidence motions and other such events that resulted in the premature dissolution of the assemblies. As a result, elections to the Lok Sabha and the assemblies became progressively asymmetric.
For the ruling BJP, the promise of simultaneous polls is as old as its electoral debut in 1984. The party had promised it in its election manifesto when it first contested in the 1984 Lok Sabha elections after the Jan Sangh’s demerger from the Janata Party in 1980. But the proposal drew scathing criticism from the Opposition as it feels it would impinge on the basic structure of the Constitution, be anti-democratic and anti-federal, marginalise regional parties, encourage the dominance of national parties and result in a presidential form of government. Recently, the ruling DMK government in Tamil Nadu in its election manifesto announced that the state would not implement the ONOE concept.
The Kovind panel
The Modi government in September 2023 appointed the Kovind panel to examine the feasibility of the ONOE promise the BJP has been making in successive election manifestos. After extensive consultations with stakeholders, the nine-member panel endorsed simultaneous elections to Parliament, state assemblies and local bodies. The voluminous report, which runs into more than 18,000 pages, proposes several constitutional amendments, most of which do not need ratification from the states.
The panel said simultaneous polls will spur development and social cohesion, deepen the “foundations of the democratic rubric” and help realise the aspirations of India, that is Bharat. The members of the panel include Union home minister Amit Shah, former Leader of Opposition Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad, former Lok Sabha Secretary General Subhash C Kashyap, former 15th Finance Commission Chairman N K Singh, senior Supreme Court lawyer Harish Salve and ex-Chief Vigilance Commissioner Sanjay Kothari. Though the Union government nominated Congress leader in the Lok Sabha Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury as a member, he declined, saying, “I have no hesitation whatsoever in declining to serve on the Committee whose terms of reference have been prepared in a manner to guarantee its conclusions. It is, I am afraid, a total eyewash.”
Why ONOE?
Arguing in favour of simultaneous polls, the panel said it will achieve administrative convenience and promote better utilisation of resources in a populous and diverse country like India. Synchronising the elections offers a pragmatic solution to streamline the electoral calendar, facilitate administrative convenience and optimise the use of financial and human resources. It also felt that the adoption of simultaneous elections would shift the government’s attention to developmental activities and the implementation of policies aimed at promoting the welfare of the masses.
The report observed that frequent staggered elections disrupted policy continuity, fragmented political focus and imposed excessive costs on the nation. By synchronising elections, the report envisioned a more stable political landscape, allowing governments to prioritise governance over campaigning. It said the frequent imposition of the model code of conduct (MCC) prior to the polls affects the pace of the developmental and welfare programmes. The progress of government projects is compromised until the MCC is lifted, it said.
Besides, staggered elections induce voter fatigue, the report said. It went on to argue that frequent elections are a threat to national security and safety as a large number of paramilitary forces are diverted even from sensitive border areas for election duty. It also said certainty is important for decisions central to good governance, which leads to faster development. Uncertainty invariably leads to policy paralysis. Simultaneous elections serve to forge an improved architecture of governance, it contends.
Key proposals
To facilitate synchronised elections, the panel suggested a two-phase process — beginning with Lok Sabha and state assemblies, followed by elections to local bodies within 100 days of completion of the general elections. The first is a Presidential notification, issued on the date of the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after a general election to insert Article 82A into the Constitution and bring into force. That the date of the notification shall be called the ‘appointed date’. The tenure of all state legislative assemblies, constituted by elections to assemblies after the appointed date and before the expiry of the full term of the Lok Sabha, shall be only for the period ending up to the subsequent general elections. Thereafter, all elections to the Lok Sabha and all assemblies shall be held together. For this purpose, the committee recommends that an implementation group be constituted to carry out its recommendations.
Shorter term for states
The rollout of the proposed simultaneous elections will begin in 2029 if the new government after the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections accepts the Kovind committee’s recommendations and introduces constitutional amendments in Parliament. In essence, the tenures of several state assemblies would have to be curtailed between 2024 and 2029 to synchronise with the next Lok Sabha poll cycle. As per the Election Commission of India, six states are due for elections in 2024 - Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha in June, and Haryana and Maharashtra in November.
Three other states - Jharkhand, Bihar and Delhi - are due for elections in 2025. If the ONOP is implemented in 2029, the term of these three states will be shortened by a year (see table). The year 2026 will see West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Assam and Kerala besides the Union territory of Puducherry go to polls. All of them will have their terms cut by two years. Six states—Manipur, Goa, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat - that will go to polls in 2027 will have only two years in office. The remaining 10 states where assembly elections are due in 2028 will meet the worst fate as they will have only one year in office.
Constitutional amendments
As the first step for simultaneous elections, a Constitutional Amendment Bill needs to be introduced amending Article 83 (duration of Lok Sabha), and Article 172 (duration of state legislatures) besides inserting Article 82A, the report suggests. These amendments do not need ratification by the states.
However, to hold local body elections along with the other two tiers of governance, another Constitutional amendment bill has to be introduced so as to insert Article 324A and amend Article 325. “The insertion of Article 324A will ensure that in case the term of the Municipalities and Panchayats expires sooner than the expiry of five years from the date appointed from their first meeting, the term of such local bodies constituted under a mid-term election, will be to the unexpired period of their term until the next general elections,” the report said.
Since these amendments touch upon state subjects (Entry 5) of Schedule VII, Part IX, and Part IX A of the Constitution, they need to be ratified by the states under Article 368(2) of the Constitution.
Hung House
The committee recommends that in the event of a hung House, no-confidence motion or any such event, fresh elections may be held to constitute a new House. If fresh mid-term elections are held for the Lok Sabha, the tenure will be only for the unexpired term of the immediately preceding full term. If fresh mid-term polls are necessitated for a state assembly, its tenure shall be up to the end of the full term of the Lok Sabha. The truncating of tenures in the event of mid-term polls for synchronisation requires amending Article 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament) and Article 172 (duration of state legislatures) of the Constitution.
Single electoral roll and Photo Identity Card
While the Election Commission of India is empowered to prepare the electoral rolls and the Elector’s Photo Identity Card under Article 325, the State Election Commissions have the same powers under Article 243K and 243ZA for local body elections. But in many states, electoral rolls are prepared by the State Election Commissions after taking the data from the Chief Election Commissioner. However, in some cases, the electoral rolls are prepared by the State Election Commissions on their own. At times, it results in errors besides duplication of work. The committee therefore recommends the amendment of Article 325 so as to have a Single Electoral Roll and Single Elector’s Photo Identity Card for all three tiers of government. This amendment will require ratification by the states.
EVMs and VVPATs
The committee recommends that for making logistical arrangements for the conduct of simultaneous elections, the Election Commission of India may estimate in advance the procurement of equipment such as EVMs and VVPATs, deployment of polling personnel and security forces, and other necessary arrangements. Similarly, for the elections to local bodies, State Election Commissions, in consultation with the Election Commission of India, may draw up similar plans.
For and against
Out of the 47 political parties that submitted their views to the panel, 32 were in favour of ONOE while 15 opposed it. While red-flagging the proposals, the Congress contended that implementing simultaneous elections would result in substantial changes to the basic structure of the Constitution. The party asserted that it would go against the guarantees of federalism and subvert parliamentary democracy. Contesting the argument that simultaneous elections will cut cost, the party said that people will be willing to consider this small amount as the cost of free and fair elections to uphold democracy. “There is no place for the concept of simultaneous elections in a country that has adopted a Parliamentary system of government,” the Congress argued. In its submission, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) said holding simultaneous elections would require premature dissolution of state assemblies, which is unconstitutional. The party went on to question the constitution of the high-level Kovind committee and raised questions on its jurisdiction.
Disapproving the concept, the Trinamool Congress questioned the constitutional and structural implications of the ONOE concept. According to the party, forcing the Vidhan Sabha to go for premature elections just for the sake of contemporaneity will be unconstitutional and ultimately lead to suppression of state issues.
In their response, the Samajwadi Party, Aam Aadmi Party and the CPM said it would lead to the domination of national over regional issues. They also observed that if simultaneous elections are implemented, state-level parties will not be able to compete with national parties in electoral strategy and expenditure, leading to increased discord between national and regional parties. The parties argued that the proposal would “institutionalize a Presidential form of government which cannot be dislodged by a vote of no-confidence. The Opposition said it will affect the choice of the voter and her right choice will not be reflected during such elections, thus infringing on the freedom of speech and expression.
Those in favour of the idea argue that synchronised elections would reduce the huge expenses incurred for conducting them. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry or Ficci quantified the savings due to simultaneous polls at Rs 7,500-12,000 crore.
For its part, the BJP said simultaneous elections “worked seamlessly between 1952 to 1967” and highlighted the subsequent recommendations from the ECI and other reports. The primary concerns raised include the significant loss of up to 800 days in five years due to the imposition of the model code of conduct, adversely affecting developmental work and governance.
The panel also sought suggestions from former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and High Courts, former CECs, state election commissioners, the Bar Council of India, eminent economists and the general public.
Law Commission
Since 1983, various bodies including the Law Commission, Niti Aayog and other committees have studied the feasibility of simultaneous elections. “The concept of simultaneous elections has been featured in many reports and studies, essentially implying a return to the previous practice of conducting elections concurrently. In its inaugural annual report in 1983, the Election Commission of India advocated the idea of conducting simultaneous elections for both the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies,” said the Kovind panel report. Though there were efforts to take up the idea in 2003 by the then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, it did not garner enough support.
In 2015, a report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, endorsed simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and assemblies, saying that it would curb the massive cost of the current elections and the policy paralysis due to frequent imposition of the model code of conduct.
In 2015, a report by the NITI Aayog pointed out that the frequent election cycles cost money, paralyse governance and stymie development. In its reports of 1999, 2015, and 2018 (draft), the Law Commission recommended the holding of one-shot elections.
However, the reports flagged the Constitutional amendments required to necessitate the exercise. The 22nd Law Commission led by Justice Rituraj Awasthi drew up a roadmap for the rollout of synchronised elections in the 2029 Lok Sabha elections. But there is no clarity on whether it submitted its report to the government though it did make a presentation before the high-powered Kovind panel. The Law Commission is now headless as its chairperson Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi recently joined the Lokpal of India as its judicial member.
How India started with ONOE
Going back to the history of elections in India, during the first two decades after Independence, Lok Sabha and assembly elections were held simultaneously during 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967. However, due to the dissolution of certain state assemblies in 1968 and 1969 followed by the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1970 and the subsequent general elections in 1971, the cycle of simultaneous elections was disrupted. The cycle was first broken in Kerala when the first Communist dispensation led by E M S Namboodiripad was dismissed in 1959 after the Nehru government invoked Article 356 of the Constitution. The reason behind the synchronised elections till then was the dominance of the Congress party. Regional parties were not influential at that point in time.
Simultaneous polls elsewhere
1. S Africa
The House of Assembly or the Lower House and Provincial Councils are elected by first-past-the-post voting in single-member electoral divisions. The electoral system for the National and Provincial Assemblies is based on “party-list proportional representation”, which means that parties are represented in the proportion of electoral support to them. However, municipal elections are held separately in a five-year cycle.
2. Sweden
In Sweden, political parties are assigned a specified number of seats in the elected assembly based on their share of votes. They have a system where elections for the Parliament (Riksdag), County Councils and Municipal Councils all take place at the same time. These elections occur every four years on the second Sunday of September. Elections to the Municipal assemblies occur on the second Sunday of September, once every five years.
3. Belgium
In Belgium, one can vote in five different types of elections: European elections, for choosing representatives to the European Parliament; federal elections, for the Federal Parliament; regional elections, for the legislative bodies of the federated regions (like the Flemish Parliament, the Walloon Parliament, the Parliament of the Brussels Capital Region, the Parliament of the German-speaking Community); Provincial elections, for the Provincial Council; and Municipal elections, for the Municipal Council. Voting is mandatory in Belgium. Elections for the Federal Parliament are normally held every five years.
4. Germany
In Germany, the elections to the Bundestag (Lower House), Landtags (State Assembly) and local bodies occur simultaneously. They follow proportional representation and cannot simply remove the Chancellor with a vote of no-confidence because of the concept of “constructive vote of no-confidence”. It gives Germany a stable government and prevents uncertainty.
5. Indonesia
Its Constitutional Court struck down previous electoral laws and held that Indonesia will hold Presidential and legislative elections concurrently starting 2019. Political parties need 4% of votes to qualify for the National Parliament. A Presidential candidate needs more than 50% of votes cast overall and at least 20% of votes in more than half the country’s provinces to win. On February 14 this year, Indonesia successfully conducted simultaneous elections.
6.Philippines
The Philippines has a Presidential form of government. It has been following a system of simultaneous elections for national and local bodies every three years since 1995.