Decoding the ‘one nation, one election’ debate

A deep dive into the concept of “one nation, one election” highlights the history and the prospect of the idea.

“One nation, one election” is not new

Simultaneous elections are not new to India. They were the norm until 1967. General elections for Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies were held simultaneously during the years 1951-52, 1957, 1962, and 1967. However, due to the dissolution of certain state assemblies in 1968 and 1969, followed by the dissolution of Lok Sabha in 1970 and subsequent general elections in 1971, the cycle of simultaneous elections was disrupted.

One of the reasons behind the simultaneous elections for a couple of decades after Independence was the dominance of one national political party – Congress. The regional parties were not powerful and influential. The central government’s frequent resort to the use of Article 356 of the Constitution for imposing President’s Rule in states also contributed to disruptions of simultaneous elections. The President’s Rule was imposed 39 times in different states between 1966 and 1977.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) first floated the idea of returning to simultaneous elections in 1983. In its first annual report, ECI recommended holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and assemblies, listing seven prime reasons. These included considerable savings on the administrative and other expenditure incurred on account of holding of separate elections; procedural economy through the creation of common electoral rolls; human resource deployment; and the speeding up of administrative and developmental work.

“Having regard to the above considerations, the Elections Commission is of the firm view that a stage has come for evolving a system by convention, if it is not possible or feasible to bring about a legislation, under which the general elections to the House of the People and Legislative Assemblies of the States are held simultaneously,” the 1983 report held. This report was, however, not acted upon or put up for further discussion.

The Law Commission report in 1999

The 170th report of the Law Commission of India in 1999 dealt with reform of electoral laws. Headed by justice BP Jeevan Reddy, the commission pointed out that, after 1967, simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and state assemblies got disrupted owing to a bundle of reasons, including use of Article 356 and the dissolution of the state assembly by the governor on recommendation of the chief minister of the state.

The commission noted that though all the situations and eventualities in which Article 356 may be resorted to for the imposition of the President’s Rule cannot be anticipated or foreseen, holding of separate elections to state legislative assemblies should be an exception and not the rule. The rule must be one election once in five years for Lok Sabha and all the legislative assemblies, it said.

“This cycle of elections every year, and in the out of season, should be put an end to. 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 the 170th report.

The commission acknowledged that “the desired goal of one election in every five years cannot be achieved overnight” and that some adjustments will have to be made in the election schedule, adding a constitutional amendment can solve the problem. “Such an amendment can also provide for extending or curtailing the term of one or more legislative assemblies, say for six months or so, wherever it is necessary...If all the political parties cooperate, the necessary steps, some of which are indicated hereinabove, can be taken without hurting the interest of any political party.”

The commission presented an alternative proposal, too, if the terms of legislative assemblies were not to be shortened. “An appropriate solution may be to hold elections to Lok Sabha/legislative assemblies simultaneously but to withhold the results of elections till after the expiry of term of the legislative assembly concerned - the interval not exceeding six months.” This report was also not taken forward by the successive governments.

79th report of the parliamentary standing committee in 2015

The parliamentary panel, in its report on “Feasibility of holding simultaneous elections to the House of the People (Lok Sabha) and State Legislative Assemblies” flagged a raft of justifications for holding simultaneous elections.

Simultaneous elections would reduce the massive expenditure incurred for conduct of separate elections every year, stated this report, adding to a policy paralysis from the imposition of the model code of conduct (MCC) during elections severely impacts normal governance and developmental work. According to the panel, simultaneous elections would further reduce the impact on delivery of essential services and the burden on crucial manpower that is deployed during election time.

The committee, under the chairmanship of Congress MP EM Sudarsana Natchiappan, noted that of the 16 Lok Sabhas that have been constituted so far, and seven were dissolved prematurely due to coalition governments.

The committee recommended that elections could be held in two phases. It stated that elections to some legislative assemblies could be held during the midterm of Lok Sabha. Elections to the remaining legislative assemblies could be held with the end of the current Lok Sabha’s term. The panel pointed out that the Representation of People Act, 1951 permits the Election Commission to notify general elections six months prior to the end of the terms of Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

At the time, the committee suggested that the proposed first phase of assembly elections could be held in November 2016. Elections to all state assemblies whose terms end within six months to one year before or after the appointed election date can be clubbed together. Similarly, the second phase of elections can be held in 2019 with the general elections to Lok Sabha.

Working paper by NITI Aayog in 2017

In January 2017, NITI Aayog prepared a working paper titled “Analysis of Simultaneous elections: the What, Why and How” in which the proposal to conduct elections to the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assembly simultaneously was deliberated upon. The report analysed the existing constitutional provisions, financial and logistical implications relating to simultaneous elections and worked out a framework for conduct of simultaneous elections.

Bibek Debroy and Kishore Desai of NITI Aayog flagged in the paper that the elections of 2009 had cost the exchequer about ₹1,115 crore, and the 2014 elections about ₹3,870 crore. The total spent on the elections, including the expenses incurred by parties and candidates, was several times more.

The paper said the situation leads to massive recurring expenditures as well as prolonged deployment of security forces and manpower etc. It noted that the adverse impact is both tangible and intangible within the larger sphere of governance. “Tangibly, frequent imposition of Model Code of Conduct (MCC) leads to suspension of developmental projects and other government activities... The larger intangible impact of frequent elections is that governments and political parties remain in perpetual ‘campaigning’ mode,” it added.

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 elections.

The 2018 Law Commission draft report

The Department of Legal Affairs asked the Law Commission of India in April 2018 to examine the issue of holding simultaneous elections. On August 30, 2018, the commission, headed by former Supreme Court judge BS Chauhan, came out with a draft report on the subject, favouring simultaneous elections, but at the same time, preferring further deliberation with the political parties and other stakeholders before final recommendations could be made.

In this draft report, the commission noted that holding simultaneous elections will save money; reduce the burden on the administrative set-up and security forces; ensure timely implementation of government policies; and ensure that the administrative machinery is engaged in development activities rather than electioneering.

This report noted that simultaneous elections cannot be held within the existing framework of the Constitution as they will require appropriate amendments to the Constitution, and ratification of the constitutional amendments by at least 50% of the states since synchronisation would call for curtailment and extension of terms of the Lok Sabha. Articles 83(2) and 172(1) of the Constitution deal with the tenure of the House of the People and the state assemblies providing that the term will be of five years “unless sooner dissolved” by the President and the state governors respectively. The commission noted that the Representation of the People Act 1951, and the Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha and state assemblies, will also have to be amended.

This report gave three options to synschronise elections in India. As a first option, the commission recommended advancing or postponing election timings in certain states, such that elections to all state assemblies and Lok Sabha may be held together in 2019.

A second option, it said, could be that the elections of 13 states could be held along with the Lok Sabha elections in 2019 and the rest of 16 states and a Union territory with legislature could be conducted in 2021 so that elections will be synchronised in such a manner that they are held only twice in five years.

If it is not possible to conduct simultaneous elections, then, as a third option, the commission said that all elections falling due in one calendar year could be conducted together during such part of the year, which is conducive to all the state legislatures involved and the House of the People.

The commission, however, cautioned that there are various issues, including the impact of simultaneous election on democracy, basic structure of the Constitution and the federal polity of the country, and a workable formula to do so, that warrant more deliberation.

Law Commission revives the exercise in 2022

In December 2022, the 22nd Law Commission of India referred to its 2018 draft report, stating that holding simultaneous elections in India is not only ideal but also desirable. It formulated a set of six questions on the feasibility of conducting simultaneous elections in the country and invited their suggestions.

One of these questions asked whether the holding of simultaneous elections in any way tinker with democracy, the basic structure of the Constitution or with the federal polity. “Where no political party has a majority to form a government, it is proposed that the Prime Minister or chief minister may be selected or appointed in the same manner as the Speaker of the House or assembly is elected. If so, will it be in consonance and in conformity with the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution?” asked the commission, adding that such a mechanism may require amending the Tenth Schedule too.

It further asked if any of the recommendations made in the 2018 draft report violate the constitutional scheme. The commission, however, is yet to publish its final report on the matter.

The Modi government has renewed the debate at a time when assembly polls are due in five states -- Mizoram, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and Rajasthan -- in November-December, to be followed by the Lok Sabha elections in May-June next year. Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh assemblies are scheduled to go to the polls with the Lok Sabha elections in 2024.

The deliberations over the years suggest that implementing simultaneous elections, which will reshape the electoral landscape in the country, require broad bipartisan cooperation and political consensus, besides a comprehensive road map for making necessary adjustments to election schedules, constitutional amendments, and legal changes. Additionally, a raft of critical issues related to governance and stability underline the challenges the proposition is fraught with, stressing on the need to have a robust public discourse and stakeholders’ engagement in shaping the final approach “one nation, one poll”.