Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud told the Joint Parliamentary Committee that the One Nation One Election Bill is not unconstitutional and does not breach the Constitution’s basic structure, despite concerns about its effect on federalism and democracy.
Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud stated that the One Nation One Election Bill is not unconstitutional and does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
However, he noted that certain gaps in the proposed legislation need to be addressed, requiring some adjustments. He shared these views with the Joint Parliamentary Panel (JPC) on the matter, as reported by sources who attended the meeting.
Justice Chandrachud expressed concern that the Election Commission of India (ECI) should not be granted excessive powers in implementing the One Nation One Election policy. He argued that allowing the ECI to make unilateral decisions that could alter substantive constitutional provisions or shorten the terms of elected assemblies through a report to the President would not be constitutionally valid.
Also Read: Former CJI UU Lalit to Appear Before Panel for One Nation One Election Discussion
Chandrachud told media,
“This was my first appearance before the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The depth of the learning and knowledge of the respected Members of Parliament has left a lasting impression on my mind. The dialogue which spanned nearly three hours was constructive, cutting across party lines. The meeting today has reaffirmed my faith in India’s Parliamentary democracy and in the future of our democratic institutions,”
However, he declined to share specific details of his submission, citing “issues of privilege.”
Justice Chandrachud is the third former Chief Justice to present his views before the ONOP panel, following Ex-CJIs UU Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi.
According to a source, he outlined his perspective under three main points:
- The concept of simultaneous elections does not violate the Constitution’s basic structure.
- The powers granted to the Election Commission should be revised and limited.
- The Bill must address constitutional ambiguities, especially concerning emergencies and premature dissolutions.
Also Read: One Nation One Election: JPC Meeting Scheduled on April 22 to Review Proposal
He noted that simultaneous elections do not conflict with constitutional principles, recalling that from 1950 to 1960, elections for both Parliament and State assemblies were conducted together.
He cited the example of 1957 when several assemblies were dissolved early to align with national elections. He emphasized that while democracy and federalism are essential to the basic structure, they do not necessitate separate elections, as the Constitution does not mandate asynchronous elections.
To address the identified flaws, Justice Chandrachud proposed that the ECI should only be permitted to delay elections in cases involving national security or public order, with any such recommendation requiring ratification by both Houses of Parliament and being limited to a fixed period.
He explained that once an Emergency concludes, the government would face a choice between shortening the next term of Parliament or extending the terms of assemblies to restore synchronicity. Second, he raised concerns about a situation where a state assembly is dissolved six or seven months before its term ends due to a loss of majority.
The Bill lacks clarity on whether elections can be postponed in such cases to align with Parliament. He noted that this scenario is not addressed by Article 356 and could lead to confusion or possible misuse unless explicitly covered in the Bill.