One Nation, One Election: steps, arguments for and against – OPSC OAS Mains GS Paper II PYQ

📝Model Answer

Introduction

‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE), also called Simultaneous Elections, refers to the proposal of holding elections to the Lok Sabha, all State Legislative Assemblies, and eventually local bodies (Panchayats and Municipalities) together, so that voters cast ballots for multiple tiers of government within a single election cycle rather than facing frequent, staggered polls.

Steps Taken by the Government of India

1. High-Level Committee – A committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind was constituted in September 2023 to examine the feasibility of simultaneous elections; it submitted its report to President Droupadi Murmu in March 2024.
2. Cabinet approval – The Union Cabinet approved the Kovind Committee’s recommendations on 18 September 2024.
3. Constitutional amendment bills introduced – The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 were introduced in the Lok Sabha on 17 December 2024, proposing insertion of new Article 82A and amendments to Articles 83 and 172.
4. Referred to Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) – Both bills were referred to a 39-member JPC chaired by P.P. Chaudhary for detailed examination; its tenure has been extended multiple times, most recently till the Monsoon Session 2026.
5. Phased approach recommended – The Kovind Committee proposed synchronizing Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections in the first phase, followed by Panchayat and Municipal elections within 100 days, along with a single electoral roll and common Electoral Photo Identity Cards.
6. Stakeholder consultations – The JPC has held wide consultations, including presentations by former Chief Justices of India, political parties, and experts such as the IMF’s Gita Gopinath and NITI Aayog representatives.

Arguments in Favour

1. Cost efficiency – Reduces the massive recurring expenditure on conducting separate elections (the 2019 Lok Sabha election alone cost around ₹60,000 crore).
2. Governance continuity – Frequent elections trigger repeated imposition of the Model Code of Conduct, disrupting policy-making and welfare implementation.
3. Reduced security and administrative burden – Minimizes repeated deployment of security forces, government staff, and teachers for poll duties.
4. Historical precedent – Simultaneous elections were the norm in India from 1951-52 to 1967, before being disrupted by premature Assembly dissolutions.
5. Higher voter turnout – Proponents argue combined elections could improve voter convenience and participation.
6. Reduced policy paralysis – Limits the "permanent election mode" that diverts government focus from long-term governance to electoral politics.

Arguments Against

1. Federalism concerns – Critics argue it undermines the autonomy of State Legislatures by aligning their tenure with the Lok Sabha, weakening India’s quasi-federal structure.
2. Basic structure challenge – Opposition parties contend the amendments could violate the Basic Structure doctrine by altering the relationship between the Centre and States.
3. Nationalization of local issues – Simultaneous elections may cause voters to prioritize national issues and parties over regional and local concerns, disadvantaging smaller/regional parties.
4. Logistical challenges – Managing polling for over 96 crore electors and over a million polling booths simultaneously would strain administrative and security capacity.
5. Practical difficulty in mid-term dissolutions – Premature dissolution of a State Assembly or the Lok Sabha would still require a workable mechanism to prevent recurring disruption of the synchronized cycle.
6. Reduced state ratification requirement – The bill’s design does not mandate ratification by at least 50% of the states for anything Article 172-related, raising concerns about diminished state consent in matters directly affecting them.

Way Forward

1. Building political consensus – Ensure broad-based consultation with all political parties and State governments before final legislative enactment, given the scale of constitutional change involved.
2. Phased implementation – Adopt the Kovind Committee’s phased approach, starting with Lok Sabha-State Assembly synchronization before extending to local bodies, allowing course correction along the way.
3. Safeguarding federalism – Build in adequate safeguards, such as state consultation mechanisms, to address concerns about erosion of state autonomy despite the technical non-requirement of state ratification.
4. Addressing premature dissolution – Design a clear, workable constitutional mechanism (e.g., President’s Rule or interim unexpired-term elections) for situations where a Lok Sabha or State Assembly dissolves before completing its term.
5. Strengthening electoral infrastructure – Invest in EVM/VVPAT capacity, security personnel, and a unified electoral roll system to handle the scale of simultaneous polling.
6. Protecting regional voices – Institute measures (e.g., staggered campaign periods, local issue reporting mandates) to prevent the "nationalization" of local and regional issues at the cost of state and local governance concerns.

Conclusion