Weeks before ‘one nation, one election’ push, Centre listed pros and cons

New Delhi: The government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is actively pursuing the “One Nation One Election” plan, a concept aimed at synchronizing national and state elections. However, Union Law Minister Arjun Meghwal has highlighted several significant obstacles and key requirements for implementing this ambitious idea.

In a written response to a query raised by Kirodi Lal Meena during Parliament’s Monsoon Session, Union Minister Arjun Meghwal outlined five impediments to “One Nation, One Election” and presented arguments in favor of the concept.

The government recently established a committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind to explore the possibility of simultaneous elections, a practice that was followed in India until the 1960s. India conducted simultaneous elections for the central and state governments in 1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967.

According to the Union Minister, making “One Nation, One Election” a reality would necessitate amendments to five articles of the Constitution.

These articles include Article 83 (which deals with the duration of the Houses of Parliament), Article 85 (pertaining to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha by the President), Article 172 (related to the duration of state legislatures), Article 174 (concerning the dissolution of state legislatures), and Article 356 (on the imposition of President’s Rule in states).

Meghwal also emphasized the need for consensus among all political parties, given India’s federal structure. Additionally, he pointed out that implementing simultaneous national and general elections would incur significant costs, including the requirement for additional electronic voting machines and voter-verified paper audit trail (EVMs/VVPATs). Since the EVMs have a lifespan of 15 years, they would need replacement every 15 years, resulting in substantial expenses.

Furthermore, the Union Minister noted the necessity for additional polling personnel and security forces to conduct elections across the country simultaneously.

Despite these challenges, Meghwal listed some positive aspects of the “One Nation, One Election” idea. He mentioned that it would lead to substantial savings for the public exchequer by avoiding duplication of administrative and law enforcement efforts.

Simultaneous elections would also reduce costs for political parties and candidates during election campaigns. Moreover, it would address the issue of the Model Code of Conduct remaining in force for extended periods due to asynchronous national and state elections, which could adversely affect developmental and welfare programmes.

Meghwal cited international examples, such as South Africa, Sweden, and the UK, where various forms of simultaneous elections or fixed-term parliaments exist.

In South Africa elections to national and provincial legislatures are held simultaneously for five years and municipal elections are held two years later.

Similarly, in Sweden, the election to the national legislature (Riksdag) and provincial legislature/county council (Landsting) and local bodies/municipal assemblies (Kommunfullmaktige) are held on a fixed date — the second Sunday of September — for four years.

The concept of reverting to simultaneous elections was initially proposed in the Election Commission’s annual report in 1983 and was later mentioned in a Law Commission report in 1999. In 2014, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP-led government came to power, the party strongly advocated for “One Nation One Election.”