News reports suggest that the Centre has formed a committee, headed by former president Ramnath Kovind, to examine the prospects of “one nation, one election” in India. The debate for holding simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and state assemblies has been in vogue for decades, and has gained considerable momentum over the past seven years since the prime minister expressed the idea publicly. The formation of a committee appears to be a significant step towards giving the idea of simultaneous elections a tangible shape. The relevance of the move is further magnified by the context in which it has been made. In the first place, it came just a day after the Parliamentary Affairs Minister Prahlad Joshi took to the microblogging platform X to announce that a special session of Parliament is being called from September 18-22, triggering a speculation that a bill pertaining to simultaneous elections may be introduced during the session. Secondly, the Opposition is already speculatively apprehensive that the Centre might push to prepone the General Elections in January next year to synchronise it with Ayodhya Ram temple inauguration, prevent the I.N.D.I.A alliance from gaining strength, and ward off the political ramifications of increasing inflationary pressures. For the time being, the formation of the committee to examine “one nation, one election” has intensified their woes. Simultaneous elections to both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies were the norm in post-independence India until 1967. However, this practice was disrupted following the dissolution of certain legislative assemblies in 1968 and 1969 and the Lok Sabha in December 1970. The concept of reverting to simultaneous elections resurfaced in the Election Commission's report in 1983 and was reiterated in the Law Commission's report in 1999, but concrete actions were not taken at that time. However, the idea gained renewed prominence after the 2014 General Elections, with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) vociferously endorsing the proposal. The debate over the feasibility and advantages of "one nation, one election" continues to be a significant topic in India's political landscape. Proponents argue that it could streamline the electoral process and reduce the frequency of elections, thereby reducing the enormous financial cost incurred on conducting separate elections. This is contrasted by the opposing view that the reduced frequency of elections will take a deep toll on the accountability of the governments. It may be recalled that apart from leading to election of governments, a key function of elections is to ensure accountability. It’d hardly be a dilemma if one were to choose between financial savings and the principle of enhanced accountability in a democracy! As far as reducing costs is concerned, the government can come up with other innovative solutions, but there is no substitute for the accountability factor. Second reason floated by the proponents is that simultaneous elections will allow the governments to focus on governance rather than on elections. A counterpoint could be that this is perhaps a utopian vision where the government is expected to perform responsibly without any performance pressure. Rather than being a burden, elections are festivals having immense relevance and multiple utilities in any democracy. Furthermore, it may be noted that the “one nation, one election” system may lead up to recurrent imposition of President’s rule in states, undermining the core democratic and federal principles. Apart from these long-debated pros and cons, there appears to be a political angle to the recent resurgence of the issue, which needs to be taken note of. The formation of the committee is just a small initial step. If the government is serious about the “one nation, one election” system, it should go beyond a detailed committee-led examination. Elections are the most fundamental practice for sustenance of democracy. Any change to the election system has to be made after extensive political consensus with opposition parties and other stakeholders. The government should avoid political urges and not act in a rushed manner.