PP Chaudhary, former Union Minister of State for Law and now Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the Constitution (One hundred and twenty-ninth (Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, is hopeful that the JPC, with its erudite and experienced members, will come out with the report in the national interest, he said in a conversation with Rajesh Kumar Thakur.
Excerpts:
Amid the political heat surrounding the issue, the Modi government has tasked you with heading the JPC. Why do you think this concept is needed for India in the coming years?
As a member of the JPC, I believe it is crucial to evaluate this proposal in the national interest. I am hopeful that every member of this JPC who holds profound experiences and will come out in the national interest with their erudite suggestions on the concept.
Since independence, the country has conducted over 400 elections for the Lok Sabha and State legislative assemblies. This creates significant administrative, financial, and governance-related challenges. Each election cycle imposes logistical costs of thousands of crores while also disrupting policymaking due to the Model Code of Conduct. This often results in policy paralysis.
Additionally, repeated elections burden citizens with voter fatigue and disrupt daily life. I believe that simultaneous elections could help achieve a more synchronised and streamlined electoral system that is both cost-effective and development-focused. This proposal aligns with PM Narendra Modi’s vision of reducing inefficiencies in governance and enhancing democratic processes.
Opposition parties argue that this concept is unconstitutional or a well-thought-out strategy to curtail the influence of regional parties through the ONOE initiative. As a BJP MP, how do you respond to this claim?
I must emphasise that the JPC’s task is to objectively evaluate all aspects of the proposal, including such concerns. However, I personally believe that these claims lack merit. Indian voters have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to differentiate between national and state-level issues. For example, in Maharashtra’s Hazoor Sahib Constituency, the Congress won the Lok Sabha seat while losing all the assembly segments in the same region during simultaneous elections.
This reflects the maturity of India’s electorate.From a constitutional perspective, ONOE is well within the bounds of adaptability. The Constitution allows amendments to Articles 82, 83, 172, 327, and others to synchronise election cycles without compromising democratic or federal principles. ONOE aims not to marginalise any political entity but to enhance efficiency and focus on the electoral process.
You are widely regarded as one of the leading legal experts in constitutional law. Do you believe that the implementation of ONOE is feasible within the current framework of the Constitution?
I am of the studied view that it aligns with the Constitution’s inherent flexibility. Implementing ONOE may require amendments to Articles 83, 85, 172, and others, but these changes focus on procedural synchronisation rather than altering the federal structure.
What are the main objectives of the JPC in exploring the ONOE concept and ensuring that it aligns with constitutional principles and expert opinions?
As laid out in the parliamentary resolution, the JPC’s primary objective is to evaluate the two Bills. The complexity of the subject necessitates thorough consultations and detailed deliberations. The committee’s role is to ensure its recommendations are grounded in constitutional principles, expert opinions, and stakeholders’ collective will.
Is there a specific time frame for the JPC to submit its report?
The JPC has been tasked with submitting its report by the first day of the last week of the next session. This timeline reflects the urgency of the matter. I am confident that the JPC will work diligently to present a well-rounded report that facilitates informed decision-making.
As a legal expert, what potential hurdles related to ONOE do you anticipate facing in the JPC?
Achieving political consensus is likely the most significant goal. Some stakeholders may perceive ONOE as favouring national over regional interests, which requires open dialogue and engagement. Additionally, logistical challenges, such as procuring additional EVMs, VVPATs, and training personnel, will need to be addressed. Aligning election cycles for existing legislative bodies and addressing scenarios like mid-term dissolutions or no-confidence motions are also critical questions.
Is it true that issues could arise concerning states with shorter terms (less than six months) during the general election process under this ONOE concept?
Assemblies nearing the end of their terms during a synchronised election may require temporary governance solutions, such as extending or curtailing their tenure. The JPC must explore mechanisms to address these scenarios while maintaining continuity of governance and upholding democratic principles.
Opposition parties claim that implementing ONOE by 2034 is not feasible. Do you agree with this assertion?
I beg to differ. The High-Level Committee’s report highlights that ONOE is feasible. The report has outlined a roadmap for phased implementation, beginning with aligning state elections over a few years. With strong political will, stakeholder collaboration, and meticulous planning, I believe the necessary reforms can be enacted to make simultaneous elections a reality well before 2034.