Simultaneous elections may pass the constitutional test, but unchecked powers to the Election Commission and threats to electoral fairness raise serious democratic concerns, caution former CJIs Chandrachud, Gogoi & U U Lalit.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The concept of “One Nation, One Election” has gained considerable momentum in recent political discourse, with the central government proposing a bill that aims to synchronize Lok Sabha and state assembly elections across the country.
This ambitious reform, now under the scrutiny of a Joint Parliamentary Committee headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, has received inputs from several former Chief Justices of India (CJIs). While the idea has found constitutional backing from the judiciary veterans, several critical concerns have also been raised, particularly regarding the unregulated powers proposed for the Election Commission of India (ECI) and its broader implications for federalism and electoral fairness.
Three former Chief Justices, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ranjan Gogoi, and U.U. Lalit have broadly supported the constitutional validity of holding simultaneous elections. In his written submission to the committee, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud categorically dismissed the argument that synchronised polls violate the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution.
He noted that the Constitution does not explicitly mandate that national and state elections must be held separately, and therefore, the concept of simultaneous polls does not inherently violate constitutional principles.
He further stated,
“Arguments opposing simultaneous elections are based on the premise that the Indian electorate is naive. They claim that voters can be easily manipulated.”
He asserted that the proposal does not infringe upon the democratic right of citizens to elect their representatives.
In line with this reasoning, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice U.U. Lalit also refrained from questioning the legality of simultaneous elections, choosing instead to focus on the functional and procedural aspects of the proposal.
Despite supporting the broader idea, both Justice Chandrachud and Justice Gogoi raised alarms over the sweeping and unchecked powers being proposed for the Election Commission of India under the draft legislation.
Justice Chandrachud was particularly critical of the provision that allows the ECI to alter the tenure of state assemblies, either curtailing or extending it on the grounds of facilitating simultaneous elections. He warned that such “unbounded authority” could lead to constitutional overreach unless clearly circumscribed by law.
“The Constitution must define, delineate and structure the circumstances under which the ECI may invoke this power”
he urged, stressing the need for safeguards and specific guidelines to prevent misuse.
Justice Gogoi, during his appearance before the committee earlier this year, reportedly echoed similar sentiments. He acknowledged the concerns of committee members about the excessive concentration of discretionary power in the hands of the Election Commission without adequate legislative oversight.
Justice U.U. Lalit, while agreeing with the constitutionality of simultaneous polls, advocated for a phased or staggered implementation of the reform. He cautioned that abruptly cutting short the tenure of sitting assemblies that still have significant time left could face legal challenges and undermine democratic stability.
He emphasized that such major electoral restructuring should be approached gradually, in a manner that respects the mandates already given by the electorate to sitting governments.
While acknowledging the administrative convenience of a unified electoral calendar, Justice Chandrachud flagged another crucial concern, the potential marginalisation of regional and smaller parties. Simultaneous elections, he observed, might give an undue advantage to national parties with greater financial muscle and media presence, thereby skewing the level playing field.
“To ensure a level playing field among political parties, the rules governing electoral campaigning, particularly those relating to campaign finance, must be strengthened”
he said.
Justice Chandrachud pointed out a critical regulatory gap
While the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Election Rules of 1961 place a cap on individual candidates’ campaign spending, there is no parallel ceiling on the expenditure incurred by political parties.
This, he argued, disproportionately benefits wealthier parties and undermines electoral fairness.
Another practical flaw highlighted by Chandrachud relates to the reduced tenure of governments elected through midterm polls. According to the proposed bill, such governments would serve only the remainder of the five-year term, aligning their exit with the next scheduled simultaneous elections. Chandrachud expressed concern that a short tenure, possibly less than a year, would handicap governments from initiating or completing meaningful policy initiatives.
Moreover, with the Model Code of Conduct likely to kick in six months ahead of the next general election, such a government would effectively function under administrative constraints for most of its term.
The opinions submitted by these eminent jurists signal broad support for the idea of simultaneous elections, recognizing its potential to streamline the electoral process, reduce costs, and ease governance bottlenecks. However, they also sound a note of caution against rushing through reforms without adequate checks and balances.
Their collective view calls for structured implementation, well-defined legal parameters, and robust safeguards to protect federalism, ensure electoral equity, and uphold democratic values.
As the Joint Parliamentary Committee prepares to interact with Justices Chandrachud and Kehar on July 11, these inputs will likely shape the final contours of the bill. The success of “One Nation, One Election” will depend not just on its constitutional legitimacy, but on its careful design, inclusive intent, and sensitive implementation.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
