Former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna told the One Nation, One Election parliamentary panel that “assessing constitutional validity doesn’t mean judging desirability or necessity,” stressing the legal review of the proposal is separate from political considerations.
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna informed a parliamentary committee reviewing the simultaneous election Bill that assessing the constitutional validity of a proposal does not equate to a judgment on its desirability or necessity.
In his written opinion to the committee, Justice Khanna noted that concerns about the potential erosion of the country’s federal structure might arise regarding the constitutional amendment Bill. He outlined various arguments both supporting and opposing the concept, according to sources.
Most experts who have provided their insights to the committee, led by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, have dismissed the claim that the proposals are unconstitutional but have raised certain issues regarding the Bill’s current provisions.
Justice Khanna, who is set to engage with the committee on Tuesday (August 19, 2025), has joined several other former CJIs in expressing worries about the extensive powers granted to the Election Commission (EC) under the Bill.
He stated that the Bill gives “unfettered discretion” to the EC to determine whether an Assembly election can be held alongside a Lok Sabha election and to recommend such a course of action to the President.
According to sources, he remarked,
“This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Article 14 pertains to equality before the law.
Justice Khanna further explained,
“Postponement of elections by the EC may result in indirect President’s rule, in other words, the Union government taking over the reins of the State government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution.”
Addressing various points regarding the Bill, he asserted that the simultaneous elections held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962, and 1967 were merely coincidental and did not constitute an explicit or implied constitutional mandate.
He also distinguished between “merit review and judicial review,” stating that when the Supreme Court or High Courts affirm constitutional validity, it merely validates legislative power and confirms that the amendment or provision does not violate constitutional limits.
He added,
“The court decisions in no way amount to pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of such provisions,”
Prior to Justice Khanna, former CJIs D.Y. Chandrachud, J.S. Khehar, U.U. Lalit, and Ranjan Gogoi have interacted with committee members regarding various aspects of what is commonly referred to as the “one nation one election” Bill.
The BJP and its allies support the Bill, claiming it will enhance growth by reducing expenses caused by the continuous election cycle, which necessitates frequent deployment of security and civil officials for poll duty and the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct.
In contrast, the Opposition argues that the Bill undermines democratic principles and weakens the federal structure.