In a move that has stirred intense debate and sharp opposition, the Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal successfully presented the controversial “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) bill in the Lok Sabha. Despite strong pushback from various opposition parties, the bill was adopted, with the majority of the House voting in favor. The bill, which aims to synchronize elections for both the central and state governments, has raised serious concerns regarding the potential impact on India’s federal structure, democracy, and governance.
Introduction of the Bill
On Tuesday, Arjun Ram Meghwal, the Union Law Minister, introduced two crucial bills in the Lok Sabha: the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The core objective of these bills is to facilitate simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha (the central government) and state assemblies. The idea of synchronizing elections across the country has been a long-pending electoral reform proposal aimed at reducing election-related disruptions and expenses.
Home Minister Amit Shah, while speaking on behalf of the government, stated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had proposed referring these bills to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to ensure thorough consultation. Following the intense debate and discussions on the floor of the House, the bill was put to a vote and passed with 269 MPs supporting the proposal and 198 opposing it.
Opposition’s Strong Rejection
The opposition parties, including Congress, Samajwadi Party, Trinamool Congress, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), and others, voiced their staunch objections to the bill. Congress leader Manish Tewari led the charge, calling the bill an assault on the fundamental principles of the Constitution. He argued that the proposal violated the Constitution’s basic structure, particularly the federal nature of India. “The introduction and consideration of the One Nation, One Election bills are beyond the legislative competence of this House,” Tewari remarked.
Several MPs raised concerns about the potential damage to state autonomy. Gaurav Gogoi of Congress said that the bill could grant the Election Commission undue powers and undermine the democratic process by weakening the role of states. Similarly, Supriya Sule from the NCP warned that the bill could lead to the erosion of regional parties and their influence in the political landscape.
The opposition also expressed concerns over the implications for state governance, as simultaneous elections might reduce the tenure of some state assemblies to less than three years. This, they argued, would destabilize the democratic process and hinder local governance.
NEWS OF THE DAY 💥
𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙀𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝘽𝙞𝙡𝙡 Accepted in Loksabha.
AYES 269
NOES 198#OneNationOneElection #ParliamentWinterSession2024 pic.twitter.com/H2H3hUWQrG
— Tarun 🚩🇮🇳 (@fptarun) December 17, 2024Support from the Ruling Party and Allies
On the other hand, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies defended the bill. Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, countering the opposition’s criticisms, stated that the bill would not tamper with the Constitution or undermine the powers of states. He emphasized that the bill aimed at making the electoral process more efficient and synchronized, which would benefit the country in terms of governance and reduced election-related expenses.
Meghwal also pointed to the report submitted by a panel led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which consulted various stakeholders, including opposition parties, before recommending the One Nation, One Election proposal. He reassured the House that the bill would not harm the Constitution’s integrity.
The bill found some support from the BJP’s allies as well. The Telugu Desam Party (TDP) from Andhra Pradesh expressed strong backing, citing the positive experience of simultaneous elections in their state. According to the TDP, such elections lead to clearer governance processes and reduce political instability. Other BJP allies, including the Shiv Sena faction led by Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, also backed the proposal.
The Case for Simultaneous Elections
The idea of conducting simultaneous elections across India is based on the notion of streamlining the electoral process, saving costs, and reducing the frequency of elections, which often disrupt normal governance. Presently, India holds elections for various state assemblies and the Lok Sabha at different times, which leads to frequent election campaigns, increased expenditure, and administrative challenges.
Under the proposed system, all states and the central government would conduct elections in the same year, with the possibility of voting on the same day or within a short time frame. This system is already in practice in a limited way, with some states like Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and Odisha holding simultaneous elections with the Lok Sabha polls.
Legal and Constitutional Challenges
Implementing the One Nation, One Election system requires a significant amendment to the Indian Constitution. Several constitutional provisions, such as Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356, would need to be revised to align with this proposal. Legal experts have pointed out that without proper amendments, the proposal could face legal challenges on the grounds of violating India’s federal structure.
The process also requires broad consensus from various state governments and political parties. Given the mixed reactions from both regional and national political entities, achieving this consensus may prove challenging.
Opposition Concerns: Impact on Democracy and Federalism
One of the key criticisms from the opposition is that the simultaneous elections would undermine India’s federal nature by imposing a uniform electoral process across states. This, they argue, could marginalize regional parties and diminish the representation of local issues at the national level. The opposition also fears that simultaneous elections could lead to greater centralization of power, making it easier for the ruling party to influence state elections through national campaigns.
Moreover, the logistical and financial implications of holding simultaneous elections have also been raised. Some opposition leaders, including DMK’s T.R. Baalu, highlighted the enormous costs involved, particularly the need for the Election Commission to purchase additional electronic voting machines (EVMs) every 15 years, a requirement that could cost the government thousands of crores of rupees.
A Path Forward: Joint Parliamentary Committee
Despite the opposition’s strong objections, the government has proposed that the bill be sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further deliberation and wider consultation. The JPC will include representatives from various parties and will be tasked with reviewing the bill in greater detail, considering the concerns raised, and making any necessary amendments.
This approach is seen as an attempt to bring more stakeholders into the decision-making process and address some of the opposition’s concerns. However, with the BJP’s significant strength in the Lok Sabha, the ruling party is expected to play a dominant role in shaping the committee’s recommendations.
A Landmark Reform or a Threat to Democracy?
The One Nation, One Election proposal remains one of the most contentious issues in Indian politics today. While supporters argue that it could lead to greater efficiency and reduced election costs, critics fear it could undermine the federal structure, weaken state autonomy, and harm the diversity of India’s democracy. As the bill moves to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, the debate on this ambitious electoral reform is far from over, and its eventual implementation will depend on how well the concerns of all stakeholders are addressed.
Read More : Inventurus Knowledge Solutions IPO Sees Strong Demand: Over 3.5x Subscription on Day 3
