Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi stated that the ONOP Bill does not take away voting rights. During discussions, he addressed various concerns raised about the proposed law. Functionaries questioned him on its implications and the Constitution’s basic structure. Gogoi emphasized that the bill aligns with constitutional principles.
Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi addressed a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) on Tuesday regarding legislation for simultaneous national and state elections.
He clarified that the constitutional amendment bill does not strip citizens of their right to vote; rather, it establishes a poll schedule.
Panel members also considered a proposal stating that if a no-confidence motion is passed in an assembly, it must be immediately followed by a confidence motion to prevent any administrative vacuum, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
Gogoi, who was appointed to the Rajya Sabha in 2020, acknowledged that the Election Commission was granted excessive power under the Constitution (129th amendment) bill. His testimony followed that of former CJI UU Lalit, who expressed skepticism about the feasibility of conducting Lok Sabha and all assembly elections simultaneously.
During the JPC session, Gogoi fielded questions regarding the proposed law and its implications for the Constitution’s basic structure.
He defended the bill, stating,
“This legislation does not take away the right to vote; it merely allows Parliament to create a schedule for elections.”
When pressed by some Opposition leaders about whether the bill undermined the Constitution’s basic structure, Gogoi referenced the Kesavananda Bharati case a pivotal 1973 Supreme Court ruling arguing,
“How far are you going to extend the basic structure? Is casting a vote a fundamental aspect of that structure? Is contesting elections?”
Gogoi conceded that while there may be differing opinions on certain clauses, the Election Commission indeed received excessive authority through a controversial new article.
The constitutional amendment introduced a new Article 82 A, which states in clause (5),
“If the Election Commission believes that elections to any legislative assembly cannot be held alongside the general elections, it may recommend to the President to order that elections to that assembly be conducted at a later date.”
Many Opposition members expressed concern that this provision grants too much power to the Election Commission, particularly since, under current law, failure to hold elections within a designated timeframe leads to the imposition of President’s Rule in a state or union territory.
Some lawmakers emphasized that while the proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to parliamentary approval, the new clause would exclude the Election Commission’s recommendations from such oversight.
Additionally, during the JPC meeting, there was discussion about a proposal stating that if a no-confidence motion against a governing body is approved in a legislature, it should be followed by a confidence motion to ensure an alternative government is established, thereby preventing any administrative vacuum.
The committee, headed by Bharatiya Janata Party lawmaker PP Chaudhary, has also decided to create a portal for citizens and organizations to provide their feedback.
This 39-member panel is reviewing the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, which aim to implement simultaneous elections in India. The committee is expected to finalize its report by the beginning of the last week of the 2025 budget session.
Also Read: Former CJI UU Lalit to Appear Before Panel for One Nation One Election Discussion
The initiative to synchronize elections, informally referred to as “one nation, one poll” (ONOP), was included in the BJP’s 2024 election manifesto and is supported by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He advocates that this approach will reduce election expenses and refocus efforts on governance.
However, the proposal has faced strong opposition from various political parties and activists who argue that it undermines democratic accountability and federalism. According to the bills, the alignment process is set to commence in 2029, with the first joint elections planned for 2034.