‘One nation, one poll’ faces trust deficit
DESPITE opposition from political parties and civil society, the Union Government, on September 18, decided to move forward with simultaneous elections, accepting recommendations from a high-level committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind. The committee proposed that Lok Sabha and Assembly elections be held together, with municipal and panchayat elections following within the next 100 days. To implement this plan, the government will need to secure constitutional amendments in both Parliament and the Assemblies.
If the proposal were sincere, why have the Himachal and Gujarat elections, which were traditionally held simultaneously, been separated?
The issue of simultaneous elections has been raging for decades. In 2013, before becoming the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi had emphasised the need for simultaneous elections, citing high costs and disruptions to development activities. Since then, various committees have examined the issue but failed to reach a viable solution. It was in this context that the Kovind-led committee was formed, with a clear mandate to propose concrete methods for holding simultaneous elections rather than debating the merits of the proposal.
The committee delivered a comprehensive report within the mandated time frame. Established on September 2, 2023, it worked for 191 days and submitted an 18,626-page report on March 14, 2024. Its members included distinguished individuals from various fields. It sought inputs from political parties and legal experts, including former chief justices, former chief election commissioners and state election commissioners. Suggestions from the public were welcomed, with organisations like the Bar Council of India, the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry given opportunities to present their views.
The report indicated that 21,558 responses were received, with 80 per cent supporting simultaneous elections. But critics have pointed out that suggestions were invited only in Hindi and English. Therefore, the response is not reflective of all regions of India. Inputs came from 47 political parties, of which 32 (all members of the NDA) favoured the proposal and 15 opposed it, labelling it anti-democratic and anti-federal. Opposing parties raised concerns that the move could marginalise regional parties, promote national party dominance and lead to a presidential-style government. Based on these contributions and thorough research, the committee conducted an in-depth analysis.
Supporters of simultaneous elections argue that separate polls waste resources and lead to policy paralysis. While a majority of the experts agree that constitutional amendments are necessary, they contend that these changes would not be anti-democratic or anti-federal, nor would they undermine the Constitution’s basic structure or lead to a presidential form of government.
A significant strength of the report is its comprehensiveness, consisting of 21 volumes of annexures, as it faithfully reproduces all past and present opinions, making it a valuable document. The committee unanimously recommended that simultaneous elections be implemented nationwide. It proposed necessary amendments to the Constitution and laws, including a new Article, 82A, stating that “notwithstanding anything contained in Articles 83 and 172, all the legislative assemblies constituted in any general election held after the appointed date shall come to an end on the expiry of the full term of the House of the people.” It clarified that “simultaneous elections” refers to elections for the Lok Sabha and all Vidhan Sabhas, excluding panchayat elections, which are proposed to be held “within 100 days”.
However, this does not amount to simultaneous elections. In fact, the proposed remedy may be worse than the current situation. First, it leaves out over three million elected representatives compared to the 5,000 included. Moreover, an election held three months later is not a simultaneous election but constitutes an absolutely new one, necessitating all logistical preparations again — setting up polling stations, selecting and training polling parties and redeploying security. All this has to be done within three months, when the 15-million staff would have barely recovered from what is officially described as the largest management exercise in the world. Importantly, voters would have to return to the polls and millions of them will not be able to do so as they are poor daily-wage workers, losing their important constitutional right.
The report also states that “where any state legislative assembly is dissolved on account of a no-confidence motion, a hung House, or any other event, fresh elections will be held for such a new House with the tenure ending with that of the House of the people.” This provision does not eliminate the possibility of midterm polls. Candidates could end up spending crores on an election for a truncated term — potentially as short as one to two years. This certainly does not constitute simultaneous elections.
The committee has commendably emphasised the need for a single electoral roll by proposing an amendment to Article 325, recognising that the voters for all three tiers of elections are the same. This essentially shifts the responsibility for local bodies’ electoral rolls to the Election Commission of India (ECI) “in consultation with State Election Commissioners”, a task that is far from simple. It has also acknowledged the ECI’s “detailed requirements for equipment such as EVMs, VVPATs, polling personnel, security forces, and election materials”, along with expenditure estimates. Although the specific costs are not mentioned, it is clear that we will require at least three times the current number of EVMs and VVPATs, which would entail humongous expenses on nearly 40 lakh EVMs and VVPATs each, that should have been explicitly outlined, especially since cost reduction is one of the main reasons for this proposal.
With such significant compromises, the moral authority of the simultaneous poll proposal has been undermined. Altering an established democratic system and the Constitution raises serious concerns. If the proposal were sincere, why have all elections been extended over the past decade? Why have the Himachal and Gujarat elections, which were traditionally held simultaneously, been consistently separated and why have pending elections not been consolidated, as was the norm? This raises doubts about the sincerity of this proposal. The next logical question might be: why not advocate for one nation, one political party, or one nation, one leader?
