Twin bills for one nation one election must be examined for potential risks
By Dr. Gyan Pathak
The twin bills introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 17 seeking ‘one nation and one election’ – that is simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas of the States and Union Territories –contains provisions that reek of over centralization of governance in India that has the potential risks of creating irreparable damage to the federal structure of the country and ultimately to democracy.
The potential risks voiced during discussions in the Lok Sabha by the leaders from the opposition, and even the statement by the Union Home Minister, Amit Shah suggested that the bills need to be discussed in greater details. Amit Shah said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had favoured referring the bills to a joint committee of Parliament for broader deliberations at every level. “Detailed discussions can take place in the JPC. The JPC report will be approved by the Cabinet. Then again, there will be a discussion on these bills in the House,” Amit Shah had said. Finally, the bills were sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee which will have 31 members from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and will submit its report on the legislations in 90 days.
However, the introduction of the bills named the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 in the Lok Sabha and what actually happened in Parliament is indicative of the troubles ahead. After an initial round of discussions, the Opposition sough a division of votes. As many as 269 members voted in favour of the legislations while 198 voted against it.
Though the number of votes in support of the legislation was enough for introduction in the House, it was far less than the two-thirds majority that is required to pass the bills in the Lok Sabha. An interesting fact is that as many as 20 BJP MPs defied the party whip to remain present in the Lok Sabha. It shows the differences within the BJP on the desirability of such legislation. It also shows the challenges and hurdles before the one nation one election legislations.
The Opposition termed the laying down of the legislations as a ‘dictatorial’ move, though Union Minister of Law Arjun Ram Meghwal had asserted while introducing the bills that the legislations would not tamper with the powers enjoyed by states. He said that the bills did not attack the “basic structure doctrine, as claimed by the Opposition” and principles such as judicial review, federal structure of the Constitution, separation of powers, secular character, supremacy of the Constitution had not changed. Meghwal even alleged that the objection to the bills by the Opposition were political in nature. Nevertheless, his references to the risks cannot be accepted as valid without examination by the JPC in the coming days.
Congress MP Manish Tewari opposed the bills saying that they assault the Constitution’s basic structure doctrine. Samajwadi Party MP Dharmendra Yadav said that introduction of the bill is an attempt by the BJP to bring in ‘dictatorship’ in the country. Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee said the bills hit the basic structure of the Constitution itself. We must remember that the state government and the state legislative assemblies are not subordinate to the Central government or to Parliament itself. Now let us see what are the provisions that may put the federal structure of the country and democracy to peris. One of the provisions is that if the Lok Sabha or any state assembly is dissolved before the end of its full term, mid-term elections will be held only for that legislature to complete the remainder of its five-year term.
It means legislative assemblies will be denied full five year terms as per the constitutional provisions of five-year term in case of mid-term polls. The bill seeks adding Article 82(A) (simultaneous elections to the House of the People and all Legislative Assemblies) and amending Articles 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament), 172, and 327 (power of Parliament to make provisions with respect to elections to Legislatures).
It is obvious that federal autonomy of a state would be curtailed as far as elections, formation of governments, and governance are concerned. It is clear from the provision that the tenure of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) will be five years from the appointed date, and the tenure of all legislative assemblies elected after the appointed date will end with the tenure of the Lok Sabha. If it is not interference with the state’s federal autonomy, then what it is?
The proposal under the bill seeks to insert a new Article 82A(1-6), which pertaining to delimitation, and readjustment of allocation of Lok Sabha seats among states after every decadal census. The provision needs thorough discussion since it may affect the share of the states in the power structure of the country.
The second clause says that the terms of all states’ assemblies elected after the appointed date and before the expiry of the full term of the Lok Sabha shall come to an end on the expiry of the full term of the House of the People. This provision would curtail a five-year term of some assemblies and thus the spans of the state governments.
Under Article 82A(5) the Election Commission of India (ECI) will have the power of not holding any particular assembly election along with the election to the Lok Sabha. This provision has the potential to be misused, and in that case the basic purpose of bringing the legislations of ‘one nation one election’ will be defeated. Moreover, Article 82A (6) has a provision that even if a state poll was held later, the term of its legislature would expire with the term of the Lok Sabha. It is again curtailment of the five-year term of state assemblies and governments.
In case of the governments falling before completion of its five-year term, the bill seeks to amend Article 83 of the Constitution and provide a five year fixed term for the Lok Sabha unless it is dissolved sooner. If it is dissolved the next Lok Sabha term will only be for the unexpired term. It is clearly problematic. More so because all the bills pending before mid-term poll would expire, since the provision treats the term before dissolution as full-term. It is clearly a dual standard and prone to exploitation and misuse.
There are many more risks to the federal autonomy of states and democracy, because the provision of the proposed legislation for one nation one election is heavily tilted in favour of the rich and national political parties which may clip the wings of poor and regional political parties affecting regional development and democracy. It would create political imbalance, too much centralisation, diminishing powers of state legislatures and governments, voter confusion resulting out of distinct regional and national aspirations, greater difficulties for holding simultaneous elections both administratively and financially, empower central government to call the shots and other challenges regarding transparency in conducting free and fair polls. It would be difficult to keep democratic process inclusive. As for reducing the financial burden, the claims are elusive since the provisions are likely to put additional financial and administrative burden on the state. (IPA Service)