With the Union Cabinet accepting the report prepared by the High-Level Committee advocating

for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, the argument over “One Nation

One Election” (ONOE) has taken centre stage again. Some have taken the view that

simultaneous elections would benefit the citizenry at large, others argue that it would serve as an

assault on the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

Before we delve into these arguments, it might be beneficial to appreciate that India was never a

stranger to holding simultaneous elections. In fact, our democratic journey began with this very

idea. The first general election saw us voting simultaneously for both the Lok Sabha and state

assemblies. This practice continued in 1957 with the second general elections wherein several

assemblies (Bihar, Bombay, Madras,

Mysore, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal) were dissolved to align with national polls,

ensuring synchronicity.

Advertisement

It was unfortunate that this harmonious electoral cycle was short-lived. The first blow came in

July 1959, when then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dismissed the Kerala government led by

E M S Namboodiripad. The second blow was struck by former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as

she prematurely dissolved the fourth Lok Sabha and called for general elections 15 months ahead

of schedule. Thereafter, the situation further deteriorated as central governments led by Congress

unceremoniously utilised Article 356 of the Constitution to topple state assemblies it did not find

favour with. On a side note, it was unfortunate that such a course was adopted on at least 50

occasions and all of this struck a blow to simultaneous elections.

The disadvantages of this fragmented approach were apparent to all. For instance, in 1962, the

Election Commission of India in its Report on the General Elections emphasised that “it is

obviously desirable that the duplication of effort and expense should, if possible, be avoided”.

This sentiment was echoed by the Commission in its 1983 Annual Report where it stressed the

need to conduct simultaneous elections for parliamentary and assembly constituencies. The Law
Commission in its 170th Report went a step further as it not only advocated simultaneous

elections but also pinned the blame on the misuse of Article 356.

Given this background, the question arises: What are the benefits of holding simultaneous

elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies? First and foremost, voters will only need to visit

polling stations once to elect both their national and state representatives.

Second, the logistical burden on authorities would be greatly reduced: Election authorities can

deploy polling personnel, build polling stations, divert security forces and make other

arrangements only once. Moreover, even the preparation of an electoral roll, which in itself is a

Herculean exercise, would only need to be done once. To translate this into numbers, it was

estimated in 2015 that the cost of holding elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies was

pegged at almost Rs 4,500 crore and in the 14th Lok Sabha, over 1,349 mobile companies of the

Central Armed Police Forces were deployed.

Advertisement
Third, at a time when the Opposition’s favourite political argument is that elections in India don’t

have a level playing field, simultaneous elections would benefit these political parties by

ensuring that their campaign expenses remain limited.

Fourth, ONOE would alleviate the policy paralysis that occurs due to frequent impositions of the

Model Code of Conduct (MCC). Each time the MCC is imposed, governance comes to a

standstill as new schemes or projects cannot be announced or implemented. Simultaneous polls

would significantly reduce these periods of administrative limbo.

It appears that for years even those who were amenable to the idea of ONOE dismissed it as a

noble but unfeasible reform. However, the report of the High-Level Committee, which

comprised a former President of India, former Leader of Opposition, distinguished bureaucrats

and constitutional experts, has provided a concrete roadmap for implementation. The success of

this report not only lies in the manner in which it was prepared but also in the fact that it
provided an answer to the various exigencies that could arise. For instance, it outlines the course

of action to be adopted in case of a hung assembly.

Predictably, as soon as the High-Level Committee’s report was published and the Cabinet

accepted it, a set of compulsive contrarians emerged to criticise it as an assault on democracy. In

their haste to oppose, they conveniently overlooked the fact that India was not alien to

simultaneous elections and that numerous government panels, even during Congress rule, had

recommended such an approach. Detractors of ONOE also argued that the course adopted by the

Cabinet was contrary to a number of judgments of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that

“free and fair elections” are the hallmark of the basic structure of the Constitution. On the

contrary, with ONOE strengthening our democracy, the basic structure of the Constitution is far

from threatened — it is fortified.

Advertisement
As we stand at a crossroads — the ONOE proposal will be brought before Parliament — two

options lie ahead of us. We can either resign ourselves to the disadvantages of separate elections

or we can take a step forward by shedding our partisan views and acting in national interest.

The writer is an advocate at the Bombay High Court

he pros and cons of simultaneous elections |

Explained

What are the various benefits of holding Lok Sabha and State

elections at the same time? How would simultaneous elections go

against the federal character of the Constitution? What are

international practices on the same in other Parliamentary

democracies?

January 29, 2024 10:50 pm | Updated March 15, 2024 05:16 pm IST

Rangarajan R.

PRINT

Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) | Photo Credit: File Photo

The story so far: A High-Level Committee (HLC) headed by Ramnath Kovind, former

President of India, was constituted in September 2023 to examine the issue of holding

simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies and local bodies of all

States. The HLC has invited responses from political parties, the Law Commission and other

groups on the proposal to hold simultaneous elections.

What is the background?

During the first four general election cycles in 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967, the elections to the

Lok Sabha and State legislative assemblies were held simultaneously. However, due to the

subsequent premature dissolution of the Lok Sabha on seven occasions and the premature

dissolution of legislative assemblies on various occasions, the elections to the Lok Sabha and

various State assemblies are held at different times. In 2019, only four States had their

assembly elections, along with the Lok Sabha. The idea of simultaneous elections has been

mooted in the past by the Election Commission of India (1982) and the Law Commission

(1999).

Panel on simultaneous polls invites suggestions from public

What is the case for simultaneous elections?

The desirability of simultaneous elections can be discussed from the perspectives of cost,

governance, administrative convenience and social cohesion. Firstly, it is estimated that the

cost of holding general elections to the Lok Sabha is around ₹4,000 crore for the Central

government. Each State assembly election would also cost considerable amount of money

according to the size of the State. While this is the official expenditure of the government, the

expenditure by parties and candidates are manifold times higher. Simultaneous elections

would entail a reduction in these costs.

Also Read | Understanding simultaneous elections | Explained

Secondly, there are at least 5-6 State elections that happen every year. This results in political

parties, including Ministers, being in ‘permanent campaign’ mode, which acts as a hindrance

to policy making and governance. Further, the Model Code of Conduct that is enforced during

the election process ranges usually from 45-60 days where no new schemes or projects can be

announced by the Centre and concerned State governments.

Third, administrative machinery in the districts slow down during the election period with the

primary focus being the conduct of elections. There are also paramilitary forces that are

withdrawn from the locations in which they are posted and deployed to the concerned State for

the smooth conduct of elections. Frequent elections every year have an impact on

administrative efficiency.

Lastly but very importantly, high-stake elections each year in various States result in

polarising campaigns by all parties in order to win the elections. This trend has exacerbated in
the last decade with the advent of social media thereby creating and deepening the fissures in

our multi-religious and multilingual country.

What are the challenges involved?

There are tangible benefits that accrue due to simultaneous elections. However, there are also

significant issues that surround such a proposal both from democratic and constitutional

perspectives.

Also Read | Law Commission examining various formulae on holding three-tier elections

together

India is a federal country of sub-continental proportions. Various States have their own

unique set of issues that are significantly different from one another. The Union and State

governments have their respective powers and responsibilities towards the electorate as per the

division of powers under the Constitution. Conducting elections simultaneously to the Lok

Sabha and all State assemblies would result in national issues overshadowing regional and

State specific issues. National political parties would have a significant advantage over

regional parties on account of this mechanism. This would be detrimental to the federal spirit

of our country which has been declared as a basic structure of the Constitution. Elections also

serve as an effective feedback mechanism for governments in power. There have been many

policies that have been initiated by various Central and State governments in the past due to

such electoral feedback. If elections are held only once in five years, it can affect this process.

Apart from the federal and democratic issues discussed above, simultaneous polls will also

require constitutional amendments. India is a parliamentary democracy where the

governments at the Centre and the State need to enjoy majority in the Lok Sabha and the

Legislative Assembly respectively. The duration of these houses is five years but it may be

dissolved earlier if the party or coalition in power loses majority, and no alternative
government can be formed. It may also be dissolved prematurely by the council of ministers in

power to seek an early election. Further, State legislative assemblies can also be dissolved by

imposing President’s rule under Article 356 of the Constitution. Having a fixed tenure of five

years for the Lok Sabha and State assemblies will therefore require constitutional

amendments to Articles 83, 85, 172 and 174 that deal with the duration and dissolution of Lok

Sabha and Legislative assemblies. It will also require the amendment of Article 356.

What are the various recommendations?

The reports of the Law Commission (1999), and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on

Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2015), have dealt with the issue of

simultaneous elections. The Law Commission had also submitted a draft report in 2018. The

highlights of these discussions and recommendations can be summarised as follows — (a) the

elections to the Lok Sabha and nearly half of the State assemblies may be clubbed together in

one cycle, while the rest of the State assembly elections can be held in another cycle after two

and half years. This will require curtailing or extending the tenures of existing assemblies that

will entail amendments to the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (b)

any ‘no-confidence motion’ in the Lok Sabha or Legislative Assembly should be mandatorily

accompanied by a ‘confidence motion’ for the formation of an alternate government. If for

any unavoidable reason, the Lok Sabha or State Assembly is to be dissolved prematurely, the

duration of the newly constituted House should be only for the remainder period of the

original House. This would act as a deterrent for MPs and MLAs pushing for premature

dissolution of the House. It would instead encourage the members to explore the possibility of

forming an alternate government through feasible realignments; (c) the bye-elections

necessitated by death, resignation or disqualification of members can be clubbed together and

conducted once in a year.

Abandon the idea of ‘One Nation One Election’, Kharge tells Ram Nath Kovind-led panel
It may be noted that Parliamentary democracies like South Africa, Sweden and Germany have

fixed tenures for their legislatures. The elections to the National Assembly and provincial

legislatures happen simultaneously in South Africa every five years, with the President of the

country being elected by the National Assembly. The Prime Minister of Sweden and the

Chancellor of Germany are elected by their respective legislatures every four years. A lack of

confidence against the German Chancellor can be moved only by electing a successor.

What can be an ideal solution?

There is a lack of consensus among various political parties about the conduct of

simultaneous elections. The ideal middle ground may be to conduct the Lok Sabha election in

one cycle and all State assembly elections in another cycle after two and a half years. The rest

of the recommendations as discussed in the previous section with respect to the formation of

an alternative government in case of the fall of an incumbent government, the duration of the

newly constituted houses being only for the remainder period in case of premature dissolution

and, the clubbing of bye-elections to be held once every year may be adopted through suitable

amendments. This will ensure that the major benefits of simultaneous polls are achieved

without compromising on democratic and federal principles. If all political parties are taken

into confidence, this may be achieved over the next decade and continued thereafter.

Rangarajan. R is a former IAS officer and author of ‘Polity Simplified’. He currently trains

civil-service aspirants at ‘Officers IAS Academy’. Views expressed are personal.

● During the first four general election cycles in 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967, the

elections to the Lok Sabha and State legislative assemblies were held simultaneously.

● There are tangible benefits that accrue due to simultaneous elections.

● The reports of the Law Commission (1999), and the Parliamentary Standing

Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2015), have dealt with

the issue of simultaneous elections.