Decoding ‘one poll’ recommendations, and charting the Kovind panel roadmap
Committee proposes simultaneous elections for improved governance, efficiency & fiscal sustainability, in line with PM Modi's "one nation, one election" idea.
Simultaneous elections for various levels of government will improve the architecture of governance and offer a pathway to enhance efficiency, political stability and fiscal sustainability, a high-level committee (HLC) under former President Ram Nath Kovind maintained in a report that was submitted to President Droupadi Murmu on Thursday.
The panel said simultaneous elections “will bring fundamental transformation in the electoral process and overall governance”, besides optimising scarce resources and encouraging voters to participate in the electoral process in larger numbers. “Disruptions to governance and policy paralysis resulting from the application of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and its adverse impact on economic growth will be mitigated,” it added.
Recommending a two-step process, the panel said that simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies be held in the first step. In the second step, municipal and panchayat elections should take place within a hundred days of the general and assembly polls. To be sure, simultaneous elections do not mean that voting across the country for the three tiers of government must take place on a single day. “In a country as large as India, it is not possible to have that. Pragmatism requires elections to be held in phases,” clarified the panel.
Indicating that 2029 might be the year to start with the first step, the panel said that terms of some of the state assemblies will have to be cut to hold simultaneous polls for the Lok Sabha and state legislatures after the five-year term of the next Lok Sabha ends.
One nation, one election: Key recommendations Ram Nath Kovind panel made in its report
The panel proposed a new legal regime, requiring certain amendments to enable simultaneous polls, even as it remained emphatic that the suggested changes are not anti-federal, not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, nor result in a presidential form of government — some of the key arguments raised against the idea.
Since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power at the Centre in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has consistently pushed for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. The recommendations by the panel are in line with Modi’s support to the idea of “one nation, one election”.
Following his election as president in 2017, Kovind had also expressed support for this idea, pointing out that regular elections not only put a tremendous strain on human resources but also slow down progress because of the MCC’s implementation. In his speech to the nation on the eve of Republic Day 2017, Kovind’s predecessor Pranab Mukherjee too expressed the opinion that the time was right for a productive discussion about electoral reforms and a return to the practice of holding simultaneous elections for state assemblies and the Lok Sabha in the early decades following Independence.
On the other hand, several Opposition parties, including the Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and CPI(M), have remained opposed to the idea of simultaneous polls and registered their protest before the panel.
Read Here | 2-step process, amendments: A look at ‘one nation, one election’ panel proposals
While simultaneous polls have been proposed as a method of improving governance and efficiency in India’s electoral system, they remain not just a contentious political topic but encompass intricate questions of law and constitutional interpretation.
Simultaneous polls are not a new concept:
In India, concurrent elections are nothing new. Until 1967, they were the standard. In 1951-1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967, general elections for the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies were conducted concurrently. However, the cycle of simultaneous elections was broken up by the dissolution of certain state assemblies in 1968 and 1969, the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1970, and the national elections that followed in 1971.
A primary reason for the simultaneous elections for several decades following Independence was the dominance of Congress, the main political party. The regional parties lacked strength and clout. But subsequently, the schedule was disrupted by the central government’s frequent use of Article 356 of the Constitution to impose the President’s Rule in states. Between 1966 and 1977, the President’s Rule were imposed on 39 occasions in different states.
In its 1962 report on the third general election in India, the Election Commission of India (ECI) said that “it is obviously desirable that this duplication of efforts and expense should, if possible be avoided”. In 1983, the ECI proposed holding elections simultaneously in its annual report listing seven reasons that included significant cost savings from holding separate elections, optimal deployment of human resources and avoidance of a slowdown in administrative and developmental work. Neither this report nor its recommendations were discussed by Parliament or acted upon.
One nation, one election: Three retired chief justices, former state election commissioner opposed simultaneous polls
The Kovind panel report cited these events to buttress the point that the concurrent character of elections offered convenience both to the voters and the authorities responsible for the conduct of elections. “Political parties and their candidates also benefited. Electors needed to go to the polling station only once to elect both the members of the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies. The election authorities were required to deploy polling personnel, build polling stations, divert security forces and make other allied arrangements only once. Political parties and candidates could also save resources since their campaign to reach out to the voters was required to be undertaken only once,” it noted. The election law that was good in the initial phase of Indian democracy is now yielding perverse outcomes and calls for the attention of the law makers, the panel rued.
The Kovind panel further lent credence to the recommendations of the previous Law Commission of India report on the issue.
“The 170th report of the Law Commission of India in 1999 dealt with reform of electoral laws. We must go back to the situation where the elections to Lok Sabha and all the legislative assemblies are held at once... The rule ought to be one election once in five years for Lok Sabha and all the legislative assemblies,” stated this report.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution also recommended in 2002 that assembly and Lok Sabha elections should be held simultaneously to save human and other resources.
Similarly, the parliamentary panel, in its 2015 report on “Feasibility of holding simultaneous elections to the House of the People (Lok Sabha) and State Legislative Assemblies” stated that simultaneous elections would reduce the massive expenditure incurred for conduct of separate elections every year, besides averting a policy paralysis due to the imposition of the MCC.
Editorial: The case for one nation, one poll
In January 2017, Niti Aayog prepared a working paper titled “Analysis of Simultaneous elections: the What, Why and How”. Getting out of a “permanent election mode”, the paper stated, is a huge structural change in mindset that could potentially provide the much-needed space to governments to focus on long-term transformational measures without worrying about the next impending election.
The Law Commission’s draft report on “one nation, one election” in 2018 also favoured simultaneous elections, enumerating quite a few advantages of the idea. However, it preferred further deliberation with the political parties and other stakeholders before final recommendations could be made.
Deliberation and objections:
During the consultative process, 47 political parties provided feedback, with 32 agreeing and 15 disagreeing with the idea of simultaneous elections. 15 political parties chose not to respond. Just two of the parties who supported simultaneous elections are national parties — the BJP and the National People’s Party (NPP), led by Conrad Sangma and a constituent of the BJP-led NDA. Simultaneous polling was rejected by the four other national parties — the Congress, AAP, BSP, and CPI(M). Other parties supporting the proposal included state parties, such as the AIADMK, Shiv Sena, BJD and Janata Dal (United).
The parties opposed to the idea of simultaneous elections argued that it would undermine democracy, the basic structure of the Constitution, and the federal polity of the country, besides institutionalising a Presidential form of government. State parties such as TMC and DMK contended that forcing states to go for premature elections just for the sake of contemporaneity will be unconstitutional and ultimately lead to suppression of state issues.
Watch: 'One Nation, One Election' Report Out; Cong Fumes At EC Selection | Rahul Vows To Waive Farmer Loans
Interestingly, the panel also consulted last four Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of India regarding the proposal for simultaneous elections. All four former CJIs, justices Dipak Misra, Ranjan Gogoi, SA Bobde and UU Lalit favoured simultaneous polls. Of the 12 former high court chief justices consulted by the panel, three voted against it while nine others supported the proposition. Similarly, former chief election commissioners, state election commissioners, and the Bar Council of India also lent support to simultaneous elections.
“Given the wide-ranging engagement and overwhelming support for holding simultaneous elections, this Committee is of the considered view that its recommendations will contribute to improved governance, transparency, inclusivity, enhanced ease and confidence of the voters, and further the democratic foundation of our developmental process,” held the panel.
Addressing the concerns flagged by some political parties, the panel said that simultaneous elections do not impinge upon citizens’ rights under Part III (fundamental rights) or the rule of law or any other features such as a free and independent judiciary.
“The concept of simultaneous elections in no way affects the governance mechanism, it only provides a way to better manage the whole election process. Moreover, the suggested scheme neither deprives individuals of the right to vote or participate in elections, nor does it dismantle the established system of regular, open, and equitable elections,” added the panel, rejecting an argument that simultaneous elections would impair the fairness of the electoral process.
Further, by creating the rule of a full term and an unexpired term for the constitution of both the House of the People and state legislative assemblies, it maintained, none of the principles of federalism is undermined.
Enabling framework
Laying down an enabling framework, the panel suggested that in the first step, simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and state assemblies be held while in the second step, the elections to municipalities and panchayats could be synchronised in such a way that those are held within 100 days of holding elections to the House of the People and state assemblies.
The Constitution would have to be amended to introduce the concepts of a “full term” and an “unexpired period” (where the House or the assembly is dissolved sooner than the expiry of its “full term”), and provisions made so that the elections held where the House or an Assembly is dissolved sooner than its “full term” would be considered to be a “mid-term” election. The election held after the expiry of five years would be considered a “General election,” it noted.
One nation, one election: Key recommendations Ram Nath Kovind panel made in its report
According to the panel, in the event of a mid-term dissolution (encompassing instances of a hung House, no-confidence motion, or any other such event), the term of the reconstituted legislature shall be for the remaining unexpired period of the original term of five years so that next election to the legislature concerned takes place with “General election”.
For holding the Lok Sabha and state assemblies’ polls together, the panel recommended amendments in Articles 83 (duration of Lok Sabha) and Article 172 (duration of state legislatures), which provide that their term will be of five years “unless sooner dissolved” by the President and the state governors respectively.
Changes in Article 83 should define five years as “full term” for the Lok Sabha while the period between its date of dissolution and the “full term” of five years should be referred to as its “unexpired term”. Another amendment in this provision, the panel recommended, should mandate that where the Lok Sabha is dissolved sooner than the expiry of its full term, the next House will continue for a period equal to its unexpired term of five years. Corresponding amendments have been suggested in Article 172 for the state legislature.
To activate the framework, the panel recommended insertion of Article 82A in the Constitution. This provision should mandate that the President of India may by notification issued on the date of the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after a general election, bring into force the scheme and that date of the notification shall be called the “Appointed date”.
Irrespective of whether a state assembly has completed its five-year term or not, a clause under proposed Article 82A stated that all the state assemblies constituted in any general election held after the “Appointed date” shall come to an end on the expiry of the full term of the Lok Sabha. The effect of this provision can be understood with an example. The next assembly elections in West Bengal (2026) and Karnataka (2028) would conclude these assemblies’ terms in May or June 2029, coinciding with the next Lok Sabha’s term.
If the ECI wants deferment of a state assembly poll, it can make such a recommendation to the President but whenever the new assembly will be constituted, its tenure would be coterminous with the Lok Sabha’s term, stated another proposed amendment.
According to the panel, these amendments would not require ratification by the states because of the residuary powers vesting with Parliament under Article 248 read with Entry 97 of the Union List and where Parliament has the power to legislate under Article 327 in relation to elections for the House of the People and legislative assembly. It further suggested adding the words “conduct of simultaneous elections” in Article 327 to empower Parliament to make provision with respect to such elections.
For holding the elections to municipalities and panchayats, the panel recommended a second set of constitutional amendment bills, which should include inserting a new provision, Article 324A, for ensuring that the elections to municipalities and panchayats are held simultaneously with the general elections.
It proposed a single electoral roll for consolidating voter information into a single database and enhancing the coordination between the ECI and state election commissions for seamless collaboration to hold the three tiers of elections in India concurrently. For this, the panel suggested amending Article 325 to allow the ECI, in cooperation with state election commissions, to create a single electoral roll and photo identity cards.
It noted that this amendment shall have an overriding effect over Articles 243K, and 243ZA, which authorises state election commissions to prepare electoral rolls for elections to panchayats and municipalities respectively whereas the proposed amendment seeks to empower the ECI to do so in consultation with state poll panels.
Mindful that municipal and panchayat elections come under the ambit of legislative and executive powers of state, the panel stressed that the amendments to include local body polls in simultaneous elections will require ratification by not less than half of the states under Article 368(2) of the Constitution. Article 368 sets down the procedures for modifying the Constitution. A “special majority” is required in cases where subjects relating to State affairs are sought to be amended by Parliament. At least half of the state legislatures must ratify this category of amendments.
Appropriate amendments have also been mulled in the statutes of Union territories having legislative assemblies, including Delhi, Puducherry and Jammu & Kashmir, for conducting simultaneous polls, while suggesting that an “Implementation Group” be constituted to look into the execution of the recommendations given by the committee.
Simultaneous polls draw attention to an issue which is bound to reshape the electoral landscape in a federal country with a diverse population and a complex system of governance. Additionally, the intricate legal structure and critical issues related to stability underline the challenges the proposition is fraught with. Thus, the potential benefits of simultaneous polls must be carefully weighed against the concerns and challenges associated with their implementation.
