Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud told his views on the ‘One Nation, One Election’ initiative to a Parliamentary committee Indian voters are not naive and rejected claims against simultaneous polls, stating staggered elections are not an immutable part of the Constitution or its original design.
Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud presented his views on the ‘One Nation, One Election’ initiative to a Parliamentary committee, where he rejected claims that the proposed constitutional amendment for conducting simultaneous elections violates the basic structure doctrine.
However, he expressed concerns about the broad and undefined powers granted to the Election Commission, particularly the ability to decouple elections in a state, as outlined in the bills introduced in the Lok Sabha. Although not part of the bill, he also opposed the idea of linking a no-confidence motion to a trust vote.
Justice Chandrachud submitted a detailed note earlier this year, and along with former Chief Justice J. Kehar and former Ministers M. Veerappa Moily and E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan, he has been invited by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the ‘ONOE’ Bills for discussions on July 11.
In his note, he argued that while free and fair elections are a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, it does not specify that such elections can only occur if they are not held simultaneously.
He stated that simultaneous elections does not infringe upon voters’ rights to choose their representatives, as noted in his communication to the panel chaired by senior BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, which is reviewing the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
Chandrachud further emphasized that the reasoning against simultaneous elections assumes that the Indian electorate is “naive” and easily “manipulated.” He highlighted that universal adult franchise is a fundamental constitutional commitment, arguing that unverified hypotheses should not undermine this principle.
In his submission, he also asserted that “staggered elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature.”
He clarified that the legislation does not infringe upon voters’ rights to elect their representatives, as it accommodates midterm elections if a State Assembly is dissolved for various reasons.
He dismissed the notion that voters behave differently in national versus state elections, suggesting that local issues often influence national voting, as constituents seek local and state interests to be represented nationally.
Moreover, he pointed out that the original Constitution did not stipulate separate timings for Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, thus undermining the argument that staggered elections are a part of the basic structure.
Also Read: Ex-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud: “Do Not Confuse Law with Justice”
He also found no validity in concerns that regional parties would struggle financially compared to national parties, asserting that this issue is separate from the proposal for simultaneous elections and can be addressed through improved regulations on campaign financing.
He supported the idea of shortening the tenure of some Assemblies to synchronize elections, indicating that such changes would be more transparent to the electorate compared to the current practices of premature dissolutions and tenure extensions seen during the Emergency.
Earlier, former Chief Justices who met with the committee highlighted various issues within the proposed legislation. In February, former CJI U.U. Lalit expressed that the Bill, in its current form, would likely not withstand legal scrutiny in the Supreme Court. He noted that shortening the terms of certain State assemblies to synchronize elections might violate the Constitution’s basic structure, as affirmed by the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.
In March, another former CJI, Ranjan Gogoi, cautioned against granting the Election Commission unrestricted authority to determine the scheduling of simultaneous polls.
Justice Chandrachud acknowledged the concern that simultaneous elections might marginalize smaller or regional parties due to the advantages held by larger national parties with more resources. However, he stated that this issue exists independently of the simultaneous elections legislation.
On the same day as his testimony, the panel will also hear from senior advocate E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan and former Union Minister M. Veerappa Moily.