Answer

Introduction

The proposal for “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) seeks to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies through the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty‑ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024. While intended to enhance efficiency, it raises significant constitutional concerns for parliamentary democracy, federalism and legislative accountability in India.

Constitutional Implications for Parliamentary Democracy in India

• Quasi-Presidential Shift: Synchronising electoral cycles may reduce the flexibility of parliamentary democracy where governments depend on legislative confidence.
  Eg: Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution establish collective responsibility of the executive to the legislature.
• Flexible Tenure Erosion: The Constitution provides only a maximum five-year term, allowing early dissolution when political confidence collapses.
  Eg: Articles 83 and 172 specify maximum tenure rather than guaranteed terms.
• Curtailment of Democratic Mandates: ONOE may truncate the tenure of elected State Assemblies to align with national elections.
  Eg: The proposed Article 82A allows Assembly terms to be shortened to synchronise with Lok Sabha elections.
• Distortion of Electoral Mandate: Mid-term “unexpired-term elections” could produce governments with shortened mandates and limited policy capacity.
  Eg: The Amendment Bill proposes that newly elected legislatures serve only the remaining term of the dissolved House.
• Governance Instability: Residual-term governments may avoid structural reforms and rely on short-term populist measures.

Constitutional Implications for Federalism in India

• Erosion of State Autonomy: Synchronised elections could subordinate State political cycles to national electoral timelines.
• Curtailment of State Legislative Mandates: States may lose their independent democratic timelines if Assembly terms are shortened.
  Eg: Under the proposed Article 82A, State legislatures may have truncated tenures.
• Increased Scope for Central Intervention: Election deferral powers could enable extended central control over States.
  Eg: Proposed Article 82A(5) allows the Election Commission of India to recommend deferring State elections.
• Potential Prolongation of President’s Rule: Delaying State elections could extend periods of central rule in States.
• National Political Waves Influencing State Elections: Simultaneous elections could lead to national issues overshadowing regional concerns.

Constitutional Implications for Legislative Accountability in India

• Reduced Frequency of Electoral Feedback: Staggered elections currently provide periodic opportunities for citizens to assess governments.
• Limited Parliamentary Functioning During Synchronisation: Caretaker governments awaiting synchronised elections may face constitutional constraints.
  Eg: Article 85 requires Parliament to meet every six months.
• Fiscal Governance Constraints: Caretaker governments may not present a full Union Budget.
  Eg: Under Articles 112–117, a government without a fresh mandate may rely only on a Vote on Account (Article 116).
• Reduced Incentives for Long-Term Governance: Shortened legislative mandates could discourage governments from undertaking structural reforms.

Conclusion

While electoral synchronisation aims to improve administrative efficiency, constitutional reforms must preserve parliamentary accountability, federal balance and democratic mandates. Any electoral reform should follow broad political consensus, protect State autonomy and strengthen institutional safeguards to ensure that efficiency does not undermine the constitutional framework of Indian democracy.

DOWNLOAD PDF