On December 12, the Union Cabinet approved a controversial proposal to implement simultaneous elections across India, involving all three tiers of elections, namely, the Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, and local bodies. This is in pursuance of the recommendations of a high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which submitted its report on the “One Nation, One Election” plan this September.
It is noteworthy that the committee was not given the freedom to study the pros and cons of simultaneous elections but to suggest legislative and administrative measures required to implement it.
The committee, established on September 2, 2023, worked for 191 days and submitted an 18,626-page report on March 14, 2024. According to the report, suggestions were invited from the public and 21,558 responses were received, with 80 per cent supporting simultaneous elections. However, critics have pointed out that suggestions were invited only in Hindi and English. Therefore, the response does not reflect the sentiments of all regions of India. Of the 47 political parties who responded, 32 (all members of NDA) favoured the proposal while 15 opposed it, labelling it anti-democratic and anti-federal. They expressed concern that the move could marginalise regional parties, promote national-party dominance, and lead to a presidential-style government.
Several concerns were raised of which foremost was that state and local issues may be overshadowed by national narratives. States may lose the flexibility to dissolve assemblies or hold elections based on their political needs. It may also affect the outcomes of state elections. Also, if an assembly is dissolved early due to a hung legislature or no-confidence motion, aligning the new election with the national schedule could be problematic.
The committee had proposed that Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections be held together, with municipal and panchayat elections following within 100 days of the general elections. It also outlined the constitutional amendments and legislative changes required to achieve this objective. It was recommended that to hold simultaneous elections nationwide, it is necessary to amend the Constitution and relevant laws, including a new Article, 82A, which states, “notwithstanding anything contained in Articles 83 and 172, all the legislative assemblies constituted in any general election held after the appointed date shall come to an end on the expiry of the full term of the house of the people.”
The committee made it clear that “simultaneous elections” refers to only general elections to the Lok Sabha and all Vidhan Sabhas. Panchayat elections would be held “within hundred days.” Two separate sets of elections do not amount to simultaneous elections. Holding local bodies’ elections three months later is absolutely a new election, requiring logistical preparation all over again. This includes setting up polling stations, selecting and training polling staff, and redeploying security — all within three months.
Mobilising 15 million staff before they get over their fatigue would be an insurmountable challenge. Importantly, millions of voters would not be able to return to the polling stations as they come from outside. Those employed may not be able to take leave again and wage workers would lose their earnings. This would amount to stripping them of their important constitutional right.
The report also stated that “where any state legislative assembly is dissolved on account of a no-confidence motion, a hung house, or any other event, fresh elections will be held for such new house with tenure ending with that of the house of the people.” This provision does not rule out the possibility of midterm polls. This certainly does not constitute simultaneous elections. On top of that, the candidates would end up spending crores on an election for a truncated term which could be as short as one to two years.
One positive feature of the report, however, is that it recommended a single electoral roll by proposing an amendment to Article 325, recognising that the voters for all three tiers of elections are the same. This essentially shifts the responsibility for local bodies’ electoral rolls to the Election Commission of India (ECI) “in consultation with State Election Commissioners”, a task full of practical coordination problems, especially in opposition-ruled states.
The committee also acknowledged the ECI’s “detailed requirements for equipment such as EVMs, VVPATs, polling personnel, security forces, and election materials”. Although specific costs were not mentioned, it is clear that we will require at least three times the current number of 55 million EVMs and VVPATs, which would entail humongous expenses. This is paradoxical since cost reduction was one of the main reasons for the proposal.
It is important to note that the committee did not examine alternative solutions to high costs and “policy paralysis” as its mandate precluded. Costs can be drastically brought down if a ceiling is put on the expenditure by political parties and if the elections’ duration is cut down from 10 weeks to four weeks by going back to single-phase elections. All it would need is the deployment of 4000 companies of paramilitary forces, which should be easily possible since most of the troubled areas are now peaceful, as declared by the Home Minister.
With the dilution of the original proposal, the moral authority of the idea of simultaneous elections has been undermined. If the proposal was sincere, why have all elections been extended over the past decade? Why have the Himachal and Gujarat elections, which were traditionally held simultaneously, been consistently separated, and why was the norm of clubbing all elections due within six months not done in 2024 and earlier? What happened to the concern of prolonged disruption of normal life and policy paralysis?
This puts a question mark on the sincerity of a proposal put forward in the name of national interest. Modi had mooted the proposal as far back as 2013, before becoming Prime Minister, citing high costs and disruptions to development activities. He had rightly called for a national debate to arrive at a consensus. After intense debate, committees examined the proposal but no consensus was achieved. Taking a unilateral decision in the absence of a consensus amounts to a bulldozer technique, currently much in vogue. At least the Bill should be referred to a JPC to make a last-ditch attempt at consensus.
Quraishi is former Chief Election Commissioner of India and author of India’s Experiment with Democracy: The Life of a Nation through its Elections
Why should you buy our Subscription?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be misled and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package
