Introduction

The foundation of a democratic society lies in its diversity. To ensure that discrimination based on religion, gender, caste, language, color, or location does not prevail and that social harmony and order are maintained, it is essential to have a strong state above society. This state must be represented by a government that gives it a concrete form.

A government should continuously adhere to democratic processes, govern according to constitutional provisions, and maintain legitimacy through ongoing public approval. Therefore, it is necessary that elections are held at regular intervals to elect a government for a fixed term.

Periodic elections serve as the backbone of a democratic government, allowing the public to actively participate in governance. They also provide political parties with the opportunity to improve their performance in line with public aspirations.

Since India's democratic governance system is a synthesis of the parliamentary model and the federal system based on the Canadian model, elections for legislatures are held at both the union and state levels.

During India's first general elections, elections for both Parliament and State Assemblies were held simultaneously. However, over time, the central government misused the position of state governors, either dissolving state assemblies prematurely or imposing President's Rule.

Simultaneously, the coalition politics that emerged in the late 1970s led to unstable governments due to fragmented Lok Sabha formations, increasing the frequency of general elections. These two factors resulted in frequent legislative elections, ending the practice of simultaneous elections in 1968. Today, elections take place in different states almost every year.

This continuous electoral process has highlighted the need for changes in India's electoral framework and structure. The primary argument supporting this change is that the frequent enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct disrupts efficient governance. Additionally, the recurring nature of elections imposes a significant financial burden on administrative and security systems, which is not in the "national interest."

Furthermore, frequent elections also impact economic development and social stability. These reasons have fueled support for the "One Nation, One Election" concept, advocating for simultaneous elections for state legislatures and the Lok Sabha.

Elections form the foundation of India's democracy. Since the "One Nation, One Election" concept is directly linked to the election system in India, its study and analysis are of great importance.

As a concept, it is relatively new in the Indian context, necessitating academic exploration of its various aspects. Elections are essential for the orderly functioning of a diverse and democratic country like India.

Regular elections at the central, state, and local levels strengthen India's democratic framework and enhance political efficiency. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze the feasibility of holding simultaneous elections at both central and state levels.

India's democratic framework has thrived due to its dynamic electoral process, enabling citizens to actively shape governance at all levels. Since independence, over 400 Lok Sabha and state assembly elections have demonstrated the commitment of the Election Commission of India to fairness and transparency. However, the fragmented and frequent nature of these elections has sparked discussions about the need for a more efficient system, reviving interest in the "One Nation, One Election" concept.

This idea, also known as simultaneous elections, proposes conducting elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies at the same time. Voters would cast their ballots for both levels of government on a single day in their respective constituencies, although elections could still be conducted in multiple phases nationwide. The objective of synchronizing election timelines is to address administrative challenges, reduce election-related expenses, and minimize governance disruptions caused by frequent elections.

A high-level committee report on simultaneous elections was released in 2024, providing a comprehensive framework for implementing this approach. The report was accepted by the Union Cabinet on September 18, 2024, marking a significant step in electoral reform. Supporters of this system argue that it could enhance administrative efficiency, reduce election expenses, and promote policy continuity. Given India's aspirations for streamlined governance and adaptable democratic processes, the "One Nation, One Election" concept has emerged as a major reform requiring thorough deliberation and consensus.

Historical Background

The concept of simultaneous elections is not new to India. From 1951 to 1967, elections for the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies were conducted simultaneously. The first general elections in 1951-52 followed this practice, which continued for three more elections in 1957, 1962, and 1967.

However, the early dissolution of certain state assemblies in 1968 and 1969 disrupted this practice. The fourth Lok Sabha was also prematurely dissolved in 1970, leading to fresh elections in 1971. While the first three Lok Sabhas completed their five-year terms, the fifth Lok Sabha’s tenure was extended until 1977 due to the declaration of an emergency under Article 352. Since then, only the eighth, tenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Lok Sabhas have completed full terms, whereas others, including the sixth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth Lok Sabhas, were dissolved prematurely.

State assemblies have faced similar challenges in recent years, with frequent early dissolutions and tenure extensions. These disruptions have significantly affected the cycle of simultaneous elections, leading to the fragmented electoral schedule observed today.

 

High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections

On September 2, 2023, the Indian government formed a high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind to assess the feasibility of conducting simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. The committee sought public and political responses on the matter and consulted experts to evaluate the potential benefits and challenges of this electoral reform. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the committee's findings, its recommendations for constitutional amendments, and the expected impact of simultaneous elections on governance, resources, and public sentiment.

Key Findings:

• Public Opinion: The committee received over 21,500 responses, with 80% supporting simultaneous elections. Feedback came from all regions of India, including Lakshadweep, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Nagaland, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The highest number of responses came from Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, West Bengal, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh.
• Political Parties’ Views: Out of 47 political parties, 32 supported simultaneous elections, citing benefits such as efficient resource utilization and social harmony. However, 15 parties raised concerns about potential anti-democratic effects and the marginalization of regional parties.
• Expert Consultation: Former Chief Justices of India, former Election Commissioners, and legal experts overwhelmingly supported the idea, highlighting the wastage of resources and socio-economic disruptions caused by frequent elections.
• Economic Impact: Business organizations such as CII, FICCI, and ASSOCHAM supported the proposal, emphasizing its positive impact on economic stability by reducing election-related costs and disruptions.
• Legal and Constitutional Analysis: The committee recommended amendments to Articles 82A and 324A of the Indian Constitution to facilitate simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and local bodies.
• Implementation Approach: The committee proposed a two-phase implementation strategy:
  • Phase 1: Conduct simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
  • Phase 2: Hold municipal and panchayat elections within 100 days of the Lok Sabha and assembly elections.

Rationale for Simultaneous Elections

1. Continuity in Governance: The current electoral cycle often distracts political leaders from governance, as they focus on upcoming elections. Simultaneous elections would allow governments to concentrate on policy implementation and development initiatives.
2. Reduced Policy Delays: The Model Code of Conduct disrupts administrative activities and welfare initiatives. Simultaneous elections would minimize such disruptions, ensuring timely policy execution.
3. Efficient Resource Utilization: Election-related administrative tasks divert officials from their primary responsibilities. A synchronized election cycle would reduce the frequency of such diversions.
4. Relevance of Regional Parties: Contrary to concerns, simultaneous elections would maintain the significance of regional parties by allowing them to focus on local issues without national election influences.
5. Financial Efficiency: Reducing the number of election cycles would significantly cut down election-related expenses, allowing better fiscal management and promoting investor confidence.

Disadvantages of Conducting Simultaneous Elections

The idea of "One Nation, One Election" has several advantages, but it also comes with significant challenges and potential drawbacks. Here are some key concerns associated with implementing simultaneous elections in India:

1. Impact on Federalism: India follows a federal structure where both the central and state governments function independently. If elections for both Lok Sabha and state assemblies are held together, it may undermine the autonomy of state governments and centralize power excessively.

2. Reduced Focus on Regional Issues: When national and state elections are held simultaneously, national parties and issues tend to dominate the discourse. This could marginalize regional parties and local issues, as voters may be more inclined to focus on broader national concerns rather than state-specific problems.

3. Impact on Democratic Process: Frequent elections ensure continuous engagement between political parties and the public. They provide an opportunity for citizens to hold the government accountable at regular intervals. If elections are held only once in five years, public grievances may not receive timely attention.

4. Complexity in Case of Government Collapse: If a state government or the central government falls before completing its tenure, it creates uncertainty. Would the state be placed under President’s Rule until the next synchronized election? Holding fresh elections in between would defeat the purpose of simultaneous elections.

5. Threat to Political Diversity: Large national parties, with greater financial and organizational resources, could gain a significant advantage in simultaneous elections. This may weaken smaller regional parties and impact India’s multi-party democracy, reducing political diversity.

6. Influence on Voter Choice: Currently, voters can make different choices in national and state elections based on distinct leadership and policies. However, when elections are held simultaneously, voters may be inclined to vote for the same party at both levels, potentially reducing political checks and balances.

7. Logistical and Administrative Challenges

• Conducting elections across the entire country simultaneously requires massive security arrangements and administrative coordination.
• A large number of EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) and VVPATs would be needed, which may pose logistical difficulties.
• Managing electoral staff and ensuring smooth polling operations nationwide would be a monumental task.

8. Impact on Development Activities

• Governments often announce new policies and welfare schemes keeping elections in mind. If elections occur only once every five years, governments might not be as responsive to public demands between election cycles.
• Frequent elections force governments to remain accountable and sensitive to public needs.

9. Constitutional Amendments Required: Implementing "One Nation, One Election" would require several constitutional changes, including:

• Amendments to Articles 83 and 172, which define the tenure of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
• Changes to Article 356, which deals with President’s Rule in states and could affect governance if elections are delayed.

Conclusion

The high-level committee, led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, has laid the foundation for a transformative shift in India's electoral process. By aligning Lok Sabha and state assembly election cycles, the proposed reforms aim to address longstanding challenges related to governance disruptions and resource wastage. With broad public and political support, the "One Nation, One Election" concept is poised to streamline India's democratic processes and enhance administrative efficiency.