The Idea Of One Nation One Election Is Against Federalism

Context: 

This editorial is based on the news “The idea of one nation one election is against federalism” which was published in The Hindu. This article highlights the potential implications of the “High Level Committee on One Nation One Election” that was set up by the Union Government in September 2023 under the chairmanship of former President of India, Ramnath Kovind. 

Need for One Nation One Election (ONOE)

• To Tackle High Expenditure: It is reported that the 2014 general elections cost the public exchequer an estimated ₹3,870 crore. It is argued that common elections for the Union Parliament and State Assemblies would reduce expenditure significantly. 
• No Hindrance to Governance: The Model Code of Conduct comes into effect twice in a five year cycle, which affects the seamless conduct of government business and results in ‘governance downtime’.

Challenges Associated With One Nation One Election (ONOE)

• Against Constitutional Language: The Indian Constitution provides for a specific tenure for the State Legislatures and the Union Parliament. Therefore, One Nation One Election would go against the words of the Constitution. 
• Against the Judgment of the Supreme Court: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court declared that the States have an independent constitutional existence, and they have as important a role to play in the political, social, educational and cultural life of the people as the Union. Therefore, ONOE would be in violation of the view expressed by the Supreme Court. 
• On Equality Principles: The website created by the High Level Committee, for repository of all relevant information and act as a platform for interaction from all stakeholders, is available only in English and Hindi rather than in all 22 official languages of the Union.
  • It is a case of bias, exclusion, and inequality adopted in this exercise. 
• On the Independence of the Election Commission: It is a constitutional body endowed with autonomy to take independent decisions regarding elections. However, it seems to be a silent spectator to the entire process undertaken by the High Level Committee.
• Against the Democratic Values: Opposition argues that democratic processes, including elections and the Model Code of Conduct are essential for a functioning democracy.
  • The cost of holding free and fair elections to elect a government of the choice of the people is a price that can never be high. 
  • The Model Code of Conduct and other guidelines issued by the Election Commission are necessary pains to ensure that executive influence over voters is kept to a minimum and the playing field, during the election period, remains level.
• Need for Re-election after the fall of Government: There are occasions where a government may not complete a full term of five years, and elections may be held again. 

Way Forward

• In India, Parliament is not supreme. The Indian Constitutional grants higher courts the broad powers of judicial review when executive actions transgress the fields assigned to them. 
• In India’s Baker v. Carr Case, the Supreme Court of the U.S. deliberated the concept of “entering the political thicket”. 
• The Indian Supreme Court has self-characterized its constitutional role as the “sentinel on the qui vive”, which would be called upon to determine, quickly and purposefully of Indian democracy.