PP Chaudhary, MP, is the chairperson of the Joint Committee on the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which examine the legislative framework for the “One Nation, One Election” proposal to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and state/Union Territory legislatures.
The senior BJP parliamentarian has been elected to the 16th, 17th and 18th Lok Sabha, with extensive experience in parliamentary committees, law, governance, external affairs and legislative reform. Chaudhary has chaired a number of Joint Parliamentary Committees dealing with major legislative reforms. He was chairperson of the Joint Committee on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, and subsequently chairperson of the Joint Committee on the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2022.
At the 33rd edition of Delhi Dialogues, Chaudhary answered a range of questions related to simultaneous elections, the functioning of the JPC and the legislative and constitutional issues surrounding the “One Nation, One Election” proposal.
Excerpts:
Santwana Bhattacharya: What is the basis behind the concept of simultaneous elections in the country? Could you elaborate on the idea and its underlying objectives?
This concept is not new. From 1951 to 1967, four general elections were held simultaneously. At that time, we didn’t have much infrastructure or logistics. So, the concept is not alien to us. Now, technology and logistics have advanced a lot. Hence, the concept is well-suited and beneficial. The aim is to save both time and resources. Frequent elections dent the state exchequer and push governance to the back seat.
So, taking into account all the factors, I think the majority opinion favours ONOE. Earlier governments didn’t show much interest in it. However, the Narendra Modi-led government is convinced that ONOE is in the country’s larger interest. Also, the Law Commission of India has written in its report that the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections should be held together.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, of which I was a member and whose chairman was Congress Rajya Sabha MP Sudarshan Nachiappan, also advocated it. In line with PM Modi’s vision of holding elections to the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha together, a high-level committee, headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind, was constituted in 2023.
Rajesh Kumar Thakur: Why is the concept of simultaneous elections necessary, particularly from your dual perspective — first, as an MP and people’s representative, and secondly, as the chairperson of the JPC on ‘One Nation, One Election’?
ONOE is the need of the hour. It will save not only the country’s money and manpower but also help our education sector function without any hindrance. During elections, thousands of schools remain closed and teachers are engaged in non-teaching and poll work. Even the administration, including IAS and IPS officers, remains engaged for months in election duty, and ordinary people have to suffer. Do we want to build a country of unskilled people? So, keeping all factors in mind, conducting simultaneous elections will be beneficial, and it is possible.
Whether it is the Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha or panchayat elections, migration is common. On average, frequent elections cause over `7 lakh crore in expenditure. Democracy is basically the will of the people. We should know the pulse of the people, not necessarily the pulse of the political parties. Why should we work in the interest of a particular political party? We have to take care of the interests of the people.
Mukesh Ranjan: Just as the Congress was the hegemonic political force in 1968, the BJP is now the dominant party. Isn’t it that the concept is fundamentally at odds with the spirit of parliamentary democracy?
Article 327 empowers Parliament to make laws regulating elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. But ONOE is about fixing the calendar. If the elections are held together, then democracy will be strengthened. How? The participation of voters will be higher. If the participation is less, then we can’t say that the country is truly democratic. If the elections to the state legislature and Parliament are held together, it is better for migrants, too, because they can plan their travel accordingly.
Prabhu Chawla: Will Opposition parties like the Congress and DMK come on board?
Nobody knows what will happen in politics tomorrow. You can’t say that a political party, which today has taken a particular stand, will not change its position tomorrow. As far as the Congress is concerned, it is certainly beneficial for the party and it knows that. Since PM Modi has initiated it, the Congress would oppose it.
Paramita Ghosh: If the elections are held together, doesn’t it rob the regional parties of a fighting chance? Doesn’t it mean that both the electorate and the leaders will be looking at who’s in power at the Centre? So, in that sense, the system is already sort of biased towards the party in power. In that sense, isn’t this already moving towards a kind of a ‘one nation, one verdict’?
It is a good question. But at the same time, you should not underestimate our voters. Our voter is intelligent. I come from a rural area, and I know that more political discussion happens there, unlike in urban sectors. The people in rural areas don’t divulge their minds, but know each and everything. When journalists ask them about their preferences, they won’t open their mouths. For example, the same voters in Delhi voted for the AAP in the assembly election, but for the BJP in the Lok Sabha polls.
So, it is not a question of loser or gainer. Basically, we have to see how the country is benefited by simultaneous elections. We have to understand what the country wants, not what a certain political party wants. No legal expert will advise the government to dissolve governments elected for five years only on the ground of conducting the elections together. If you want to strike a fine balance, then go for elections in one year. It will be better.
Prabhu Chawla: Will a situation not arise for frequent no-trust motions if ONOE is in effect?
The possibility of this happening is very rare. Basically, a no-confidence motion will be rare. When we were hearing the chief minister of Maharashtra, some members raised the issue that if this happens, there could again be a no-confidence motion, followed by another election, creating the same hardship.
He immediately said that this would act as a deterrent. No political party would want to go for elections after two years. So, there would be very few no-confidence motions, and they would arise only in the rarest of rare cases. We cannot treat such rare cases as the general rule. If it is a rarest-of-rare case, no political party or leader will bring a no-trust motion lightly.
They will try to run the government. But if no party has a majority, how will the legislature function? How will it enact laws? In such a situation, we can have a mechanism similar to President’s rule.
During President’s rule, Parliament can exercise the powers of the state legislature for the purpose of making laws. Similarly, if there is any impediment to resolving such a situation, we can give Parliament the power to enact laws for a period of six months or one year, because important legislation, such as the Budget, has to be passed.
So, we cannot allow the functioning of the state to halt. The state has to function. Both Houses of Parliament can exercise the functions of the state legislature. As in President’s rule, the functions of the state legislature are exercised by Parliament. These provisions are not part of the bill. But we are seriously thinking about how the state can run smoothly.
We are considering amendments to every provision of the bill. Every clause, almost every clause, is being amended, and we are hearing from a large number of people and experts. We have received many comments on each and every clause from law universities, experts, the Supreme Court and others on what kind of provisions can be brought in to create stability and ensure that the system works in the interest of the country.
We are also seriously considering Articles 85(2) and 174(2), to put some sort of embargo on the exercise of the power of dissolution by the prime minister or chief minister when the House is functioning. There must be reasons for such a decision, and judicial review should be available. The House cannot be dissolved merely on the whim and caprice of a particular PM or CM.
But as of today, under the existing provisions of the Constitution, the House can be dissolved on the basis of such discretion. So, we are also considering whether, apart from this Bill, we should add a rider to these provisions so they are not invoked lightly. Such a power should be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases.
Rajesh Kumar Thakur: What has been done in the JPC so far?
We have basically discussed everything. We have to academically consider each and everything associated with the concept and feasibility of ONOE. Basically, our job is to prepare the Bill to the best of our ability in the national interest. And all the members, irrespective of party lines, agreed. We will hear the other side as well, which is what is best for the country, not what is best for a political party. ONOE is not a political agenda; it is a national agenda. So, we have to differentiate between the two.
Preetha Nair: What about Congress, which continues to oppose it?
Even Congress may join One Nation, One Election. It is their brainchild. It is not ours. And we are continuing the Congress’ brainchild. So, if the Congress realised it in 1968, and we are now pursuing the Congress agenda, how can Congress oppose it?