At the “Legally Speaking” event hosted by NewsX, Supriya Shrinate (Congress National Spokesperson), Aman Sinha (Supreme Court Senior Advocate), and G. V. L. Narasimha Rao (Former BJP Rajya Sabha Member) engaged in a discussion on the topic, “Does One Nation, One Election Erode India’s Federal Structure?” The panelists expressed their viewpoints, addressing the complexities and implications of the proposal.
Is One Nation, One Election Necessary?
S. Y. Quraishi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, noted that the concept has been debated for over a decade, gaining momentum when Prime Minister Narendra Modi advocated for it in 2013.
PM Modi highlighted issues like administrative paralysis, policy stagnation, and election costs. Quraishi added that, from the Election Commission’s perspective, the idea is efficient since the electorate and election machinery remain consistent.
G. V. L. Narasimha Rao emphasized that elections are central to democracy, but frequent elections—every two to three months—can disrupt governance, forcing governments into constant campaign mode, which hinders effective administration.
Opposition Concerns: Federalism vs. Centralization
Supriya Shrinate pointed out that the union cabinet’s adoption of the proposal, based on a report by former President Kovind, faces significant hurdles. Nearly half of Indian states are unlikely to ratify it, and passing the legislation in Parliament could also prove difficult.
Shrinate expressed skepticism, remarking that the One Nation, One Election initiative, or ONOE, is more of a catchy concept than a practical solution, given the complexity of managing over 30 lakh local body representatives.
Aman Sinha argued that implementing ONOE requires minimal constitutional amendments, specifically to Articles 83 and 172, to allow fixed terms for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. In cases of mid-term dissolution or loss of confidence, elections would only be conducted for the remaining term, ensuring alignment with the overall framework.
Persisting Challenges and Lack of Consensus
Quraishi highlighted that despite calls for a national debate in 2013, no consensus has been achieved in the past decade. While the idea remains under discussion, progress has been minimal.
Sinha suggested incremental changes, such as fixing Rajya Sabha tenure under Article 82 and applying similar provisions to the Lok Sabha. Mid-term polls could still occur for specific situations like vacancies or disqualifications, maintaining flexibility within the system.
Quraishi cited data showing that simultaneous elections influence voter behavior, with support for a single party dropping significantly when elections are held a month apart. Shrinate highlighted concerns from regional parties, asserting that ONOE undermines the federal nature of governance and risks marginalizing smaller parties. However, Sinha countered that many regional parties have expressed support for the idea during consultations.
In conclusion, while the concept of One Nation, One Election presents logistical and financial efficiencies, it raises significant questions about its impact on India’s federal structure, democratic processes, and voter behavior.
ALSO READ: Will Delimitation Disrupt The North-South Balance In Parliament? | Everything Decoded | NewsX
