One Nation, One Election meet: Opposition MPs question simultaneous polls, BJP members defend

The first meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) bills witnessed the opposition members and BJP MPs exchanging views on the legislation.

According to a PTI report, the MPs who attended the meeting of the 39-member JPC expressed their views and asked questions following a presentation by the Ministry of Law and Justice on the provisions of the bills and the rationale guiding them.

On December 18, 2024, The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill were introduced by the Centre in Lok Sabha during the Winter Session of Parliament. The bills were then sent to the JPC for review. The panel has 27 members from the Lok Sabha, and 12 from the Rajya Sabha.

ALSO READ: ‘One Nation, One Election is practical, will not harm federal structure': Law minister Arjun Meghwal

Opposition, BJP MPs debate bill

Several opposition MPs including Congress' Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, questioned the claim that simultaneous Lok Sabha and assembly polls will reduce expenditure.

The opposition MPs also asked if any estimate was made following the 2004 general elections when electronic voting machines (EVM) were used for the first time in all 543 parliamentary seats.

Sources told PTI that the BJP MPS countered the charge that the ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal flouted constitutional values by requiring an early dissolution of several state assemblies and locking their tenure with the Lok Sabha's.

BJP MP Sanjay Jaiswal noted that seven state assemblies were dissolved early in 1957 to ensure simultaneous polls. He asked if then President Dr Rajendra Prasad, who was also the chairperson of the Constituent Assembly, and other lawmakers including those in the Jawaharlal Nehru government, “acted in violation of the Constitution.”

“The idea of simultaneous elections was reflective of the popular will. The high-level committee headed by former president Ram Nath Kovind had consulted over 25,000 members of the public, with an overwhelming majority supporting the idea,” BJP MP VD Sharma was quoted by PTI as saying.

The BJP MPs reiterated that a continuous cycle of elections hampers development, the country's growth and is a drain on the exchequer. One nation one election will be a boost to growth and development, they added.

Shiv Sena, represented by Shrikant Shinde, cited the case of Maharashtra where Lok Sabha, assembly, and local body polls are held back to back within few months, stressing that this derails development work as the entire state machinery is busy in the conduct of elections.

ALSO READ: One nation, one election: When were simultaneous polls last conducted in India?

Cong, DMK and TMC allege attack on federalism

During the meeting, members from Congress, DMK and the Trinamool Congress alleged that the proposed laws “run contrary to the Constitution and are attack on its basic fabric as well as federalism”.

A TMC MP said “Upholding people's democratic rights is more important than saving money.”

Some opposition MPs demanded that the Joint Committee of Parliament, headed by former Union minister P P Chaudhary, scrutinising the two bills should be given a tenure of at least on year due to the enormity of the exercise.

V Vijayasai Reddy of the YSR Congress, which had earlier supported the concept in its submission to the Kovind committee, raised a number of questions over the bills, and demanded that ballot papers must replace Electronic Voting Machines which are "vulnerable to manipulation".

According to the PTI report, Reddy claimed that “simultaneous elections will marginalise regional parties, dilute diversity of representations and local issues, undermine the need for elected representatives to engage regularly with voters and turn polls into a contest between two or three national parties.”

BJP ally questioned on short-tenure govt

JD(U) MP Sanjay Jha spoke of the incidents of booth capturing in Bihar during the use of ballot papers to refute the suggestion to bring them back.

The BJP ally, however, also raised a few questions, including whether a government elected for a short tenure will have the required governance focus that an incumbent with a five-year term will have.

The bills propose that if a mid-term Lok Sabha or assembly election is held due to the fall of a government and the absence of any alternative, the tenure of the new legislature will be for the remainder of outgoing House.

(With PTI inputs)