The “One Nation, One Election” Bill formally introduced Today (Dec 17) in the Lok Sabha following a division vote. The results of the vote showcased significant interest and division among lawmakers, with 269 Members of Parliament (MPs) voting in favor and 198 MPs voting against the motion. Union Law Minister Arjun Meghwal took charge of presenting the Bill, marking an essential milestone in the country’s political reforms.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The One Nation, One Election Bill formally introduced in the Lok Sabha following a division vote.
The results of the vote showcased significant interest and division among lawmakers, with 269 Members of Parliament (MPs) voting in favor and 198 MPs voting against the motion.
Union Law Minister Arjun Meghwal took charge of presenting the Bill, marking an essential milestone in the country’s political reforms. Once the Lok Sabha reconvenes at 3 PM, Meghwal also scheduled to introduce the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
This bill aims to synchronize the electoral processes of Union Territories such as Jammu and Kashmir, Puducherry, and the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.
The introduction of the “One Nation, One Election” Bill stirred intense reactions from opposition parties, especially the Congress-led INDIA alliance.
The bloc has strongly opposed the initiative and demanded its immediate withdrawal.
As the electronic division voting concluded, the contentious Bill found its way into the Lower House of Parliament.
Key Features of the One Nation, One Election Bill
Known officially as The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, the legislation is being widely referred to by its popular name—“One Nation, One Election.”
Union Law Minister Meghwal formally introduced this Bill and requested Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to refer it to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further evaluation and consultation.
The proposed Bill aims to revolutionize India’s electoral framework by integrating the Lok Sabha and state assembly elections into a unified process.
This development is expected to reduce election-related costs and streamline governance.
Alongside this, Meghwal also introduced the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, with a focus on electoral alignment for specific Union Territories.
Constitutional Debate in the Rajya Sabha
In parallel, a significant constitutional debate unfolded in the Rajya Sabha. During this session, Leader of the House JP Nadda made several impactful remarks regarding constitutional interpretations and political history.
Nadda stated,
“Dr BR Ambedkar didn’t approve of the word ‘secular’ being used in the Preamble of the Constitution.”
He emphasized the importance of such debates, claiming that they only strengthen the Constitution. Further, Nadda targeted the opposition for accusing the Modi-led government of media control, asserting that democratic institutions remain robust.
On the topic of Jammu and Kashmir, Nadda celebrated the abrogation of Article 370, highlighting it as a historic move that reinforced the Constitution.
He remarked,
“The abrogation of Article 370 has further strengthened the Constitution and unified the nation.”
The proposal to implement simultaneous federal and state elections—referred to as the contentious ‘one nation, one election‘ initiative—has reignited a long-standing discussion on electoral reforms.
Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, addressing the Lok Sabha today, assured that the reform would neither damage nor tamper with the Indian Constitution.
“Laws can be brought in for electoral reforms… this bill is aligned with the process of easing the electoral process, which will be synchronised. There will be no damage to the Constitution via this Bill. There will be no tampering with the basic structure of the Constitution,”
-Mr. Meghwal said in defense of the proposal.
In response to concerns regarding federalism, Mr. Meghwal firmly stated,
“We are not tampering with the powers of the states.”
He then proposed that the bill be referred to a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) for broader consultation. The composition of the committee, he explained, would be finalized by the end of the day.
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), as the largest party in Parliament, is expected to lead the committee and hold the majority of seats, with opposition members included in proportion to their party strength.
Opposition Pushback and Criticism
The introduction of the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, which aims to amend the Constitution to facilitate simultaneous central and state elections, was met with fierce resistance from opposition parties. Critics denounced the bill as
“beyond the House’s legislative competence,”
“the path to dictatorship,”
and a direct assault on the federal structure of the Indian republic.
The opposition’s objections intensified in the post-noon session after Mr. Meghwal tabled the bill. Congress MP Manish Tewari, representing Chandigarh, led the charge against the government’s flagship proposal, accusing it of violating constitutional principles.
“Article 1 of the Constitution says ‘… India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States, affirming its federal character’. This bill, which proposes simultaneous polls, directly challenges this framework by imposing uniformity across states,”
-Mr. Tewari argued, marking the first of three objections raised by his party.
He further warned that simultaneous elections could undermine the basic structure of the Constitution and added,
“undermine elected state governments, weaken grassroots democracy, and encroach on local governance.”
Leaders from other opposition parties echoed these concerns. Dharmendra Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, Kalyan Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress, and TR Baalu of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) voiced sharp criticisms.
Mr. Yadav warned,
“This is the path to dictatorship,”
while Mr. Banerjee insisted it
“hits the basic structure of the Constitution.”
Mr. Baalu highlighted the financial burden associated with conducting simultaneous elections, pointing to the Election Commission’s expenditure of Rs 10,000 crore on new electronic voting machines (EVMs) every 15 years.
“The government should send this bill to the JPC (joint parliamentary committee),”
-he emphasized.
Federalism and Expenditure Concerns
The proposal also drew ire from the Shiv Sena (UBT), led by former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) headed by Sharad Pawar. Both parties condemned the bill as “an attack on federalism.”
NCP leader Supriya Sule reiterated earlier criticisms, aligning her party’s stance with other opposition voices.
The introduction of the One Nation, One Election Bill signifies a crucial step in India’s democratic journey. While proponents see it as a means to enhance efficiency and unity, opposition parties view it with skepticism, citing concerns about democratic balance.
As the legislation undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, the nation watches closely, knowing that the outcome could reshape India’s electoral landscape.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on One Nation, One Election
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
