One Nation, One Election: Legal and Constitutional Viability
The concept of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) refers to holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies across India. Advocates argue that this approach would reduce election-related expenditure, minimize administrative burden, ensure governance continuity, and prevent frequent disruptions caused by staggered elections. However, the proposal raises significant legal, constitutional, and practical questions concerning its feasibility and impact on India’s federal structure.
Legally, the ONOE concept interacts with several constitutional provisions. Articles 83 and 172 stipulate that the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies have a five-year term, subject to dissolution, while Article 356 allows the imposition of President’s Rule in a state under certain conditions. For simultaneous elections to occur, amendments would be needed to synchronize terms of the Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies, which may require revision of Articles 83, 85, 172, and 356, as well as changes to the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Constitutional Amendment process would need a two-thirds majority in Parliament and ratification by at least half of the states, making it a complex and politically sensitive exercise.
From a constitutional perspective, the proposal must balance federalism, democratic representation, and the separation of powers. India’s federal system allows states autonomy in governance and elections, and forcing simultaneous elections could limit states’ flexibility in dissolving assemblies or conducting elections based on local political conditions. The Election Commission of India (ECI), responsible under Article 324 for free and fair elections, would need to coordinate massive logistics nationwide, which poses challenges of administrative capacity, security, and impartiality. Courts may be called upon to adjudicate disputes regarding the synchronization of terms, extension or curtailment of assemblies, and use of emergency powers under ONOE.
Practically, implementing ONOE requires addressing dissolved assemblies, mid-term elections, and staggered political cycles. In many states, assemblies dissolve before their five-year term due to political instability or loss of majority. To align with simultaneous elections, governments may need to extend or shorten terms, raising concerns about constitutional propriety, legitimacy, and judicial scrutiny. The Law Commission (2018) and NITI Aayog have suggested that careful phasing and transitional arrangements are necessary, such as holding a one-time mid-term election to synchronize all assemblies with the Lok Sabha.
Economically, ONOE could reduce election expenditure, currently estimated in thousands of crores per year, and free administrative resources for developmental purposes. Frequent elections cause governance paralysis, with states and the Centre often focused on electoral promises rather than policy implementation. Simultaneous elections could enhance policy continuity, reduce populist expenditure cycles, and improve administrative efficiency, benefiting governance outcomes.
However, critics argue that ONOE may centralize political influence, favoring national parties over regional parties. Simultaneous elections could lead to national issues dominating state polls, undermining state-specific concerns and local representation. Additionally, voter fatigue and logistical complexity could affect turnout and election management.
Judicial scrutiny is likely to focus on whether ONOE respects constitutional guarantees, federal balance, and democratic choice. Any law extending or shortening assembly terms, or modifying the election calendar, would need to be proportionate, justified, and consistent with fundamental rights, particularly the right to vote under Article 326. Courts may also examine whether ONOE unduly restricts state autonomy under Articles 243 and 246, ensuring that centralized planning does not erode federal principles.
In conclusion, One Nation, One Election offers potential benefits in terms of cost reduction, governance efficiency, and policy continuity, but its legal and constitutional viability is complex. Implementing ONOE would require constitutional amendments, legislative support, careful transitional planning, and robust administrative coordination. It must also safeguard federal autonomy, democratic choice, and electoral fairness. Achieving a balance between efficiency and constitutional propriety is essential for ONOE to become a feasible reform, ensuring that India’s electoral system continues to reflect both national and regional democratic aspirations.