The Union government is moving at a great speed to convert the idea of the One Nation One Election (ONOE) into a law. The Union Cabinet accepted the Ram Nath Kovind Committee report on September 18, and Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal introduced two bills for ONOE in the last Winter Session. The Union government wants to synchronise the elections. It intends to conduct the elections of the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies together. The government and the supporters of the ONOE have been talking about the different benefits it will accrue to the country. At least five benefits are being talked about prominently. They are—saving on election spending, ease of governance, political corruption, stable state finances, and a single voter list through a simplified registration process.
Let us assume we are living in post-ONOE India. Some MLAs of a party that completed half its tenure in a state have decided to resign, and the government has collapsed. Now, the elections are held for the balance tenure of two and a half years, and another party comes to power. Don't these elections cost money for the government and political parties? Won't the political parties spend money on the elections? Doesn't the party in power announce its own schemes and projects to impress the people and try to retain power in the coming general elections that are almost around the corner? Won't the governance be affected due to the tenure limitation? How would state finances improve if the government is not efficient enough? Wouldn't the policy paralysis that would occur because of short tenure and the ruling party's focus on winning the ensuing elections rather than on development cripple the state? Is it not the same with the Union government if it falls in between because of some reason or the other? This ONOE with a fixed tenure concept will not free the country from facing the elections in one state or the other almost every year, and that too for a short tenure.
Let me discuss point by point:
1. Expenditure in the last Lok Sabha election was approximately Rs 60,000 crore, of which Rs 10,000 crore was cost to the government and the remaining amount was spent by the political parties. So far, nobody has established how ONOE is going to save on this expenditure. No one knows how the political parties will start spending less on the elections if they are conducted as ONOE.
2. The argument that the once-in-a-five-year election would help the governments concentrate on development is also a false notion. Each state has its own priorities, timings, seasonal compulsions, and capacities to plan for itself. Their only requirement is a more flexible, liberal, and cooperative Union government that can meet their expectations and give actionable guidance. If the elections are conducted in a state, they won't affect the administration and development of any other state or the Union government. The model code of conduct (MCC) hardly stops the governance and the ongoing development activities. The Election Commission of India (ECI) allows all the decisions of the governments that do not influence the voters even when the MCC is in force. The problem is only for the leadership of the national parties who want to campaign in every other election. Such elections do not impede the states and the country.
3. Political corruption, which supplies the finance for elections, is a systemic issue, and it will not stop unless the root cause is addressed, whatever the type of election is.
4. That political parties do not need to come up with welfare schemes if all the elections are held simultaneously is also an untenable argument. In a federation like ours, regional parties play a crucial role in forming governments both at the Union and in the states. All the parties would continue to have their ideologies and manifestos, which distinguish them from each other. Hence, welfare schemes will continue to be offered as long as parties treat them as a tool to win and people also appreciate them.
5. The voter registration process can be simplified even now. The ECI and the State Election Commissions (SECs) can update the voter lists with simplified yet robust registration processes. The process can be strengthened and streamlined by connecting it to the birth and death registrations and the Aadhaar data. These improvements do not need to be linked with the types of the election.
Notwithstanding these perceived benefits, the ONOE poses two serious problems to the country's polity—it usurps the powers of the states and it challenges the basic structure of the Constitution, which says some aspects of the Constitution, including the federal arrangements, cannot be altered.
The ONOE simply takes away the rights of the states. The Indian Constitution embodies a unique federal spirit, striking a balance between national unity and regional diversity. Article 1 of the Constitution describes India as a "Union of States." The ONOE idea goes against the spirit of Indian federalism as envisaged by the framers of the Constitution. They thought it was not right to mandate one election for the country. The framers of the Constitution were very conscious of the separation of the Union and states. Parts five and six of the Constitution deal with the issues of the Union and states. Articles 83 and 172 deal with the five-year tenure of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, respectively.
The elections of local bodies are governed by SECs and their own laws and not by the Representation of People’s Act (RP Act). The 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments further empowered the local bodies with more autonomy towards achieving local self-governance. This federal structure is designed to provide autonomy to states while maintaining a strong Union government. The rights of the states cannot be seized to implement an idea that offers no tangible benefits. The other serious problem is that the federal system is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution. The Union government's decision on ONOE goes against the federal spirit and the basic structure. To make ONOE a law, the Union government needs to amend some of the articles, including 75(3), 83, 85(2)(B), 173, 174(2)(B), 356, and change the RP Act.
This process needs the support of two-thirds of the majority in the Parliament and to be ratified by 50% of the states. These elaborate arrangements speak volumes about the strong intent of the Constitution framers that certain features of the Constitution can't be amended without proper deliberation and sufficient consultation. If this idea is eventually made into law, it could change the basic structure of our Constitution. For sure, several cases will be filed in the courts on this issue. The judiciary will decide on the matter.
If ONOE becomes law, it could increasingly try to strip the states and other organs of the government of their rights by passing laws in the Parliament. If that happens, the very purpose of the unamendable basic structure that has been preventing the Union government from having such an absolute power would be defeated. In federal India, the Union government shall not encroach upon the states’ rights. The Union government’s actions should always be aimed at augmenting the federal spirit. One Country One Election sounds like an exciting slogan and an ambitious endeavour, but not as a matter of mandate or law.
In 1965, a German jurist and scholar, Dietrich Conrad, in his famous lecture at Banaras Hindu University on the theory of “implied limitations in amending the Constitution,” posed a few hypothetical questions to the audience. Can a government with an absolute majority in the Parliament abolish the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 or amend Article 1 to divide the country into two by validly exercising its powers under Article 368 of the Constitution?
No, it cannot.
This amending power cannot permit the Parliament to distort the essential features of the Constitution. The Supreme Court eventually defined these ideas as the doctrine of basic structure in its judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973. In this direction, the Union government should always strive to preserve the very essence of the Constitution.
Mohan Sai Dutt Alla is presently working as Advisor to YS Jagan Mohan Reddy on party building. He earlier worked as a consultant to a national party in Delhi. Views expressed here are the author's own.