One Nation One Election: 5 Constitutional Amendments Required

The Law Commission of India's 2018 Draft Report on simultaneous elections highlighted the necessity of constitutional amendments to facilitate the 'One Nation One Election' (ONOE) proposal. This initiative aims to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies, a practice observed in India until 1967.

The core challenge lies in altering the fixed terms of elected bodies as enshrined in the Constitution. Moving to simultaneous elections would require significant legislative and political consensus.

The Pre-1967 Electoral Cycle and Its Disruption

India initially held simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies in 1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967. This system was disrupted by several factors:

• Dissolution of State Assemblies: Frequent imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 led to early dissolution of state governments.
• Mid-term Lok Sabha Elections: The dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1970, a year before its full term, further broke the cycle.

This historical context underscores that ONOE is not a new concept but a return to an earlier electoral model, albeit one that proved unsustainable without constitutional safeguards.

5 Constitutional Amendments Required for ONOE

Implementing 'One Nation One Election' would necessitate direct amendments to at least five key Articles of the Indian Constitution. These changes would fundamentally alter the tenure and dissolution powers of legislative bodies.

1. Article 83: Duration of Houses of Parliament

Article 83(2) states that the Lok Sabha, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. For ONOE, this provision would need modification to ensure that the Lok Sabha's term can be either extended or curtailed to align with the proposed common election cycle.

• Proposed Change: Introduce a proviso allowing for the extension or curtailment of the Lok Sabha's term under specific circumstances related to simultaneous elections, or a fixed term irrespective of early dissolution.
• Impact: This amendment would establish a more rigid term for the Lok Sabha, potentially limiting the executive's power to recommend early dissolution.

2. Article 85: Sessions of Parliament, Prorogation and Dissolution

Article 85 grants the President the power to prorogue and dissolve the Lok Sabha. Under an ONOE framework, the power of early dissolution would need to be significantly curtailed or made subject to specific conditions to maintain the synchronized election schedule.

• Proposed Change: Amend Article 85(2)(b) to restrict the President's power to dissolve the Lok Sabha prematurely, perhaps requiring a constructive vote of no-confidence or a supermajority resolution.
• Impact: This would reduce political instability but could also limit the government's flexibility in responding to political crises.

3. Article 172: Duration of State Legislatures

Similar to Article 83 for the Lok Sabha, Article 172(1) stipulates a five-year term for State Legislative Assemblies unless sooner dissolved. This article is central to the ONOE proposal for states.

• Proposed Change: Amend Article 172(1) to allow for the extension or curtailment of State Assembly terms to align with the Lok Sabha election schedule. This could involve a mechanism for a 'trust vote' or 'no-confidence motion' that automatically triggers a new government formation rather than dissolution.
• Impact: State governments would also face more rigid terms, potentially reducing instances of President's Rule for political reasons.

4. Article 174: Sessions of the State Legislature, Prorogation and Dissolution

Article 174 empowers the Governor to prorogue and dissolve the State Legislative Assembly. For ONOE, this power, particularly regarding early dissolution, would need to be re-evaluated and potentially restricted.

• Proposed Change: Modify Article 174(2)(b) to limit the Governor's power to dissolve State Assemblies prematurely, similar to the proposed changes for the President's power over the Lok Sabha.
• Impact: This would further stabilize state governments, potentially reducing the frequency of President's Rule and associated political interventions.

5. Article 356: Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States

Article 356, which allows for the imposition of President's Rule in states, has been a primary cause of non-simultaneous elections due to frequent dissolutions of state assemblies. For ONOE, this article would require significant modification to prevent premature dissolutions that break the electoral cycle.

• Proposed Change: Introduce provisions that, in case of a breakdown of constitutional machinery, prioritize alternative government formation (e.g., a constructive vote of no-confidence) over immediate dissolution and fresh elections. If dissolution is unavoidable, the new elections could be held for the remainder of the original term, rather than a full five-year term.
• Impact: This is perhaps the most critical amendment, as it directly addresses the historical reason for the divergence of election cycles. It would necessitate a re-evaluation of the Centre-state balance of power, a topic often discussed in the context of federalism. Aspirants should note how this contrasts with the original intent and subsequent judicial interpretations, such as the S.R. Bommai case. For a deeper look into Centre-state dynamics, consider reading about India's Export Competitiveness: Economic Policy & Industrial Transformation.

Broader Legislative and Procedural Changes

Beyond these five core constitutional amendments, implementing ONOE would also necessitate changes to several other laws and procedures. These include:

• The Representation of the People Act, 1951: Amendments would be required to synchronize electoral rolls, election schedules, and possibly introduce provisions for holding by-elections for the remainder of a term.
• Rules of Procedure of Parliament and State Legislatures: These would need to be adapted to handle potential scenarios of no-confidence motions leading to alternative governments rather than immediate dissolutions.
• Anti-defection Law (Tenth Schedule): The implications of floor-crossing and government collapses on a fixed-term system would need careful consideration.

Comparison: Current System vs. ONOE Framework

| President's Rule | Can dissolve State Assembly, trigger fresh elections | Prioritizes alternative government; if dissolved, election for remaining term |\

This table highlights the fundamental shift from a flexible, parliamentary system where dissolutions are common to a more rigid, fixed-term system. Such a change would require a significant political consensus, potentially a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures, as per Article 368.

Trend Analysis: Election Frequency and Expenditure

The move towards ONOE is partly driven by concerns over the frequency of elections and their associated costs. Since 1967, the number of separate Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections has steadily increased.

• 1952-1967: Predominantly simultaneous elections.
• Post-1970s: Increased instances of mid-term Lok Sabha elections and frequent imposition of President's Rule in states, leading to staggered election cycles.
• Recent Decades: Almost continuous election mode in some part of the country, impacting governance, resource allocation, and policy implementation due to the Model Code of Conduct. The Election Commission of India has also expressed concerns over the logistical burden.

While specific expenditure figures are debated, the general trend indicates a rise in both direct election costs (borne by the exchequer) and indirect costs (campaign spending, diversion of administrative resources). The Law Commission's 2018 report estimated significant savings if elections were held simultaneously, although these figures are subject to debate and depend on the specific implementation model.

UPSC Angle: Constitutionalism and Federalism

For UPSC aspirants, ONOE presents a multi-dimensional topic relevant to GS-II: Polity and Governance. Questions could focus on:

• Constitutional Amendments: The specific articles requiring change and the process under Article 368.
• Federalism: The impact on Centre-state relations, especially concerning Article 356 and the powers of Governors.
• Democratic Principles: Debates around accountability, voter turnout, and the potential for national issues to overshadow local concerns.
• Election Reforms: Linkages to other electoral reforms like state funding of elections or electronic voting machines.

The discussion around ONOE also touches upon the basic structure doctrine, particularly if amendments are perceived to alter fundamental aspects of parliamentary democracy. The Supreme Court's pronouncements on the basic structure, stemming from the Kesavananda Bharati case, would be relevant here. For further reading on constitutional provisions and their impact on governance, consider exploring articles like RTE Act: 25% Quota Implementation & 3 Major SC Directives.

UPSC Mains Practice Question

Critically analyze the constitutional amendments required for implementing 'One Nation One Election' in India. Discuss the potential benefits and challenges such a reform would pose to India's federal structure and democratic principles.

Approach Hints:

1. Introduction: Define ONOE and its historical context in India.
2. Constitutional Amendments: Detail the five key articles (83, 85, 172, 174, 356) requiring amendment and the nature of proposed changes for each.
3. Benefits: Discuss arguments for ONOE – reduced expenditure, administrative efficiency, policy continuity, increased voter turnout.
4. Challenges: Analyze concerns regarding federalism (impact on states' autonomy), accountability (dilution of local issues), potential for 'super-presidentialism', and the difficulty of achieving political consensus.
5. Federal Structure Impact: Specifically address how amendments to Article 356 and the curtailment of state assembly dissolution powers affect Centre-state relations.
6. Conclusion: Offer a balanced perspective on the feasibility and desirability of ONOE, considering both its stated objectives and potential unintended consequences.

FAQs

What is 'One Nation One Election'?

'One Nation One Election' refers to the proposal to hold simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian Parliament) and all State Legislative Assemblies across India. This aims to synchronize the electoral cycles, which were originally simultaneous until 1967.

Why is 'One Nation One Election' being proposed?

Proponents argue that simultaneous elections would reduce election expenditure, minimize the burden on administrative and security forces, ensure policy continuity by avoiding the Model Code of Conduct disruptions, and potentially increase voter turnout by simplifying the electoral process for citizens.

What are the main constitutional hurdles to implementing ONOE?

The primary hurdles involve amending Articles 83 and 172 (duration of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies), Articles 85 and 174 (powers of dissolution), and Article 356 (President's Rule). These amendments are necessary to fix the terms of legislative bodies and restrict early dissolutions.

How would ONOE impact federalism in India?

Implementing ONOE could impact federalism by potentially curtailing the autonomy of state governments, particularly regarding their dissolution. Amendments to Article 356 would alter the Centre's power over states, raising concerns about the balance of power and the unique political dynamics of individual states.

Has any committee recommended 'One Nation One Election'?

Yes, the Law Commission of India, in its 2018 Draft Report, recommended holding simultaneous elections. It outlined a framework for implementation, including the necessary constitutional amendments and legislative changes, to achieve synchronized polls.