On the evening of 17th December, 2024 , LawChakra hosted an exclusive live discussion with Supreme Court Advocate- Sandeep Mishra , aimed at bringing before the audience a discussion on what exactly is the ‘One Nation , One Election’ and how will it bring about a change in elections in the nation, the historical perspective and the current scenario in accordance to the bill which was introduced recently in the Parliament.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The discussion began with the question on, What exactly is the idea of ‘One Nation, One Election’ and the historical perspective of the same , that is , where it started from and why has it gained importance in the present scenario?
To this , our speaker expressed his views stating ,
“The idea of “One Nation, One Election,” as the name suggests, emphasizes having a single election across the nation. The concept means that instead of holding elections every two to three months, there should be a single election cycle, relieving people of frequent polls.
This isn’t a new system. After independence, elections for both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies were held simultaneously four times—in 1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967. However, disturbances in some state assemblies and the premature dissolution of the Lok Sabha disrupted this system. This disruption led to staggered elections being held over time.Consequently, elections began to occur frequently. This growing frequency added a significant financial burden on the exchequer and taxpayers. For instance, in the 2014 elections, the expenditure was approximately ₹3,000 crores. Imagine the costs in 2019 and now in 2024—substantially higher, draining public funds.”
-Mr. Mishra added
Mentioning , the examples of various states , Mr. Mishra said ,
“Lok Sabha elections are conducted in seven to eight phases, and elections in large states like Uttar Pradesh occur in four to six phases. During this period, the entire administrative machinery comes to a standstill. Any policy decisions that could benefit citizens and honor democratic sentiments are essentially halted.
Taking all these factors into account, the central government made a decision in this direction. If you recall, a committee was formed under the chairmanship of former President Ram Nath Kovind. It’s important to note that this initiative wasn’t merely a political agenda of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The committee engaged in extensive discussions with all stakeholders. As I mentioned, economic and policy-related aspects were thoroughly considered.”
The speaker was posed with a question that , instances of tampering with EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) have come to light and many election petitions have been filed challenging the credibility of EVMs. Moreover , If simultaneous elections are held, the volume of such petitions could potentially overwhelm the judicial system, leading to delays in resolving disputes.
Although , the ruling party is claiming that the “One Nation, One Election” proposal is a great step forward and will lead to growth in the future. However, concerns remain about potential problems and issues that might arise in the future, and how they will be handled?
To this , Adv. Mishra said ,
“India is a democratic country where every individual has the freedom to form their own organization. Unlike countries like the UK or the US, India doesn’t follow a two-party system; there are over 5,000 political parties registered today. Given this diversity, political parties will naturally engage in politics.
When elections are held simultaneously, once the elections are over, the political “business” of parties will be on hold for the next five years. This raises concerns for political parties, as the ruling party will have a chance to work for the next five years, while the opposition will essentially be sidelined, with little to do except oppose the ruling party”
Answering the concern about tampering of EVM’s and overburden of election petitions , Adv. Mishra expressed,
“Once a ballot paper is used and stamped, it is discarded after counting. However, EVMs are reused and, as you know, some of the EVMs used today are as old as 10-15 years. These require refurbishing, which involves significant investment from the government. The government will indeed have to invest in this area.
Now, regarding election petitions, if there is a large number of them, the government may need to form tribunals to handle them separately. This will prevent an overload on the Supreme Court and High Courts, as common citizens seeking justice in civil or criminal cases could be affected if election petitions overwhelm these courts”
Listening to this , a further concern was raised , that bringing in a separate tribunal will also incur costs and more or less , it would be a costly procedure altogether. So, if we implement this system, we will have to implement many other things to support it , and all of them will be costly.
This issue was answered by him stating that ,
“Sometimes, to avoid greater future expenses, we need to invest upfront. For example, if we invest in EVMs and tribunals, it will save us costs in the long run. Consider this: elections are being held every couple of months. Just two months ago, elections were held in Jammu & Kashmir and Haryana, and then in Jharkhand and Maharashtra. Elections are almost continuous, so if the burden on the Election Commission is reduced, this will reduce the strain on taxpayers and the costs associated with deploying armed forces and paramilitary forces for each election.
When you take all these factors into account, you will realize that this is indeed a reformative step, and it benefits all political parties, not just one.”
The Interviewer went on to asking the next question was what would happen if the government at the central or state level falls. If we are holding simultaneous elections across the country, and the results are declared, what happens if a state government collapses or faces defections, like we’ve seen in Maharashtra? Is there a clear plan or policy from the ruling party on how to handle such situations under “One Nation, One Election”?
The speaker answered in affirmative, saying ,
“Rajiv Shukla Ji, a Congress MP, raised the point: can we guarantee a full five-year term? If not, we don’t think it’s practically feasible to hold elections simultaneously at the Lok Sabha and state assembly levels. If this system is to be implemented, there must be an alternative government in place. Until such an alternative mechanism is in place, no political party or individual will be willing to accept this idea of simultaneous elections.
For this feasibility, it is necessary to ensure a five-year term for the state assemblies, whether it’s Party X or Party Y. However, if there is a change in the chief minister, it should be allowed, even if the ruling party or opposition changes. The government should ensure that the tenure is maintained for five years. To ensure this, amendments in the constitution will be required, and if these changes are made, it will address the opposition’s concerns as well.”
Next question , was raised regarding the legality of the bill and Opposition parties have raised concerns that the bill challenges the federal structure of the country and the basic structure of the Constitution, especially with regard to citizens’ voting rights. They argue that holding simultaneous elections may be against the will of the people, as citizens should have the right to vote separately for different levels of government.
Adv. Mishra mentioned,
“The response to this is that the citizens’ representation is done through elected representatives, not through direct refrendum. If the government brings a bill before the Parliament, it is through the elected representatives, and this does not undermine the people’s opinion.
Furthermore, the concept of federalism is not being attacked. The Constitution specifies the tenure of the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies. It is nowhere mentioned in the constitution that , there is a fundamental right to remove the government before five years tenure. If such a situation arises where a government collapses, these issues will be discussed in Parliament and resolved accordingly.”
A question was also raised , that whether this bill was being brought in to harm the regional parties? For instance , Many states like West Bengal, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu have strong regional party dominance, which neither the ruling party nor the Congress has managed to break. Critics argue that this bill aims to eliminate regional parties and establish dominance at all levels, from local to national. Is that true ?
To this , the speaker added ,
“There’s a saying, “Looking London, Talking Tokyo.” Making baseless arguments without reasoning is illogical. If “One Nation, One Election” does harm regional parties, there should be logical arguments to back such claims. Simply making allegations without substance is absurd”
Moving beyond the “One Nation, One Election” debate, some recent election-related cases were discussed . For example, the 2024 general elections faced numerous controversies, including issues with EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines), VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail), and accusations that the Election Commission was aligned with or controlled by the ruling party, BJP and this was connected to tampering of EVM’s where the opposition parties and citizens are unhappy about the same , and the views of Adv.Sandeep Mishra were asked on the same.
To this Adv. Mishra replied,
“Let’s take the ruling party’s situation in places like Kashmir and Jharkhand. These are regions where the ruling party needed power more than Maharashtra or Haryana. In Jharkhand, for instance, issues like the growing presence of Rohingyas pose a national security threat, and the central government is struggling to manage it. Similarly, in Kashmir, after the removal of Article 370, there is pressure on the central government to restore statehood and remove its Union Territory status.
If tampering were to be done, wouldn’t the central government have focused on winning Kashmir or Jharkhand first, rather than Maharashtra or Haryana? If the BJP or NDA wanted to manipulate elections through EVMs, they would have prioritized these regions. Simply blaming the referee whenever one loses is a pattern everyone recognizes now. The Election Commission has repeatedly established that EVM tampering is baseless, and such allegations are unfounded.”
Conclusively , the speaker was questioned upon the accusation against the judiciary and the former CJI that during the Maharashtra elections, the Shiv Sena (UBT) faction alleged that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud was indirectly responsible for the election results and the Supreme Court delayed its decision and left it to the Speaker , to which he answered ,
“First, Uddhav Thackeray and the Shiv Sena (UBT) faction must understand that both the legislature and judiciary operate independently. The legislature cannot dictate the judiciary’s proceedings. Allegations against a sitting or former Chief Justice are inappropriate. Judges, especially the Chief Justice, have multiple responsibilities beyond delivering judgments.
For instance, the Chief Justice represents the judiciary at state events, such as welcoming foreign dignitaries at Rashtrapati Bhavan. Their schedules are determined by the President’s engagements, not vice versa. The Chief Justice has an extremely demanding role, balancing judicial responsibilities and state representation. Blaming the judiciary or its leader for political outcomes is not only incorrect but also undermines its independence”
-he concluded
Lastly, he was asked as to when can we expect One Nation, One Election to be implemented on the ground level , to which Adv. Mishra conclusively said ,
“On-ground implementation will likely happen only after 2029 because it requires steps like delimitation, census completion, and other preparatory measures. But the process must start somewhere. Once discussions progress, things will take shape”