I write this essay in the backdrop of the High Level Committee (HLC) on One Nation One Election submitting its report to the President of India on 14 March 2024.
At the very outset, it seems like as if the Union Government had made up its mind on what the outcome of HLC would be at the time of Constituting the HLC itself. To substantiate this, I would like to draw attention to the Gazette Notification issued on 02 September 2023. The Gazette Notification itself has concluded that “elections are held almost every year and within a year too at different times, which result in massive expenditure by the Government and other stakeholders, diversion of security forces and other electoral officers engaged in such elections from their primary duties for significantly prolonged periods, disruption in developmental work on account of prolonged application of Model Code of Conduct, etc.;”. Therefore, I firmly believe that the HLC could not attempt a dispassionate analysis of the pros and cons of Simultaneous Elections in a serious manner. Since it appears that the Government was determined to have Simultaneous Elections and wanted the HLC only to examine how it could be implemented, it would have been better if the Government would have held consultations with political parties and evolved a broad consensus before constituting the HLC.
Be that as it may, I will proceed to share my views on certain aspects that concern the concept of Simultaneous Elections and the report of the HLC. Due to the importance of this issue I have decided to be elaborate:
The Phrase 'One Nation One Election'
1. The catchy phrase ‘One Nation One Election’ is being used. I am of the view that even the HLC has not explained what is ‘One Nation Election’ in this context. Our Constitution does not envisage the concept of ‘One Nation One Government’. It envisages India as a Union of States consisting of the Union Government and State Governments. I believe that the HLC should have sorted this enigma first.
Constitutional Aspects pertaining to Simultaneous Elections
2. The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of our Nation. While many critiques of our system in 1947 said that India’s advent as a Democracy would be fractured due to its multiple languages, religions and cultures, our Constitution has connected these diverse links and united our Country. That is the strength of our Constitution and it must be passionately preserved, protected and defended by every citizen of our Country.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the Kesavananda Bharati & Ors Vs State of Kerala & Anr has held that the Parliament cannot amend the Basic Structure of the Constitution. However, I am distressed to note that the idea of Simultaneous Elections, as proposed to be implemented by the Law Commission of India in its draft report dated 30.08.2018 and the HLC in its report dated 14.03.2024, not only alters the basic structure of our Constitution but is also against the principles of Democracy and Federalism as envisaged in our Constitution.
4. Democracy is held to be a part of the Basic Structure. In consistence with the ‘Purna Swaraj’ Declaration, the Constitution ensures that our citizens have the right to elect their representatives and hold them accountable. It is in this spirit that Dr BR Ambedkar said, during a debate in the Constituent Assembly on 17 September 1949, that:
“Our Constitution must not be a dictatorship but must be a Constitution
in which there is Parliamentary Democracy, where the Government is all the time
on the anvil so to say, on its trial responsible to the people, responsible to
the judiciary, then I have no hesitation in saying, that the principles
embodied in the Constitution are as good as, if not better than the principles
embodied in any Constitution.’’
(Emphasis supplied)
The democratic power to elect is wielded by the people usually on two occasions: i) Upon completion of the term of Lok Sabha or Assembly and ii) Upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha or Assembly. Forced Simultaneity in elections, in the manner as recommended by HLC, in my view, will restrict the democratic power of the people.
5. In fact, in its draft report, the Law Commission states that will of the people is paramount in a democracy and provides for the authority of the Government. Curtailing the will of the people in the manner as recommended by the HLC is against Constitutional morality.
6. Our Constituent Assembly decided that India will be a Parliamentary Democracy. It chose Parliamentary Democracy over a Presidential form of Government because it recognized that accountability of the Government is more important than its stability. This character of our democracy, which has been held to be a part of Basic Structure, will be eroded if Simultaneous Elections is implemented.
7. Free and Fair elections are also held to be a part of the Basic Structure. Implementing Simultaneous Elections in the manner as recommended by the HLC will adversely impact the multi-party system as Simultaneous Elections will give an unfair advantage to National Parties, especially the Party that forms the Union Government. While it may also give unfair advantage to dominant regional parties, it will affect the smaller regional parties.
8. Our Constitution is designed to be Federal in nature (except under Emergency situations). Simultaneous Elections, in the manner recommended by the HLC will adversely affect the Federal Structure of our polity. Federalism would be greatly benefitted if elections are held separately to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. There are innumerable instances in which the Union Government and State Governments are run by different parties. Conducting elections separately provides people with the flexibility to choose the Union Government based on National issues and State Government based on State issues. Simultaneous elections will force the election to be centered around National issues and may result in marginalization of regional issues. Apart from this, the steps recommended by the HLC to synchronize elections, by reducing the term of certain State Assemblies is against the basic principles of Federalism, as envisaged by our Constitution.
9. The draft report of the Law Commission (referred by the HLC), 79th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on ‘Feasibility of Holding Simultaneous Election to the House of People (Lok Sabha) and State Legislative Assemblies’ submitted in December, 2015 have been in public domain for a long time but none of them deals effectively on how Simultaneous Elections will handle the prospects of a Hung House where no political party would be in a position to form Government (like the situation that emerged in Bihar in 2005 and NCT of Delhi in 2013).
10. It must be pointed out that the HLC has misinterpreted the debates of Constituent Assembly to suggest that it wanted Simultaneous Elections. On the contrary, the Constituent Assembly clearly contemplated the situation of elections being held intermittently at various levels. I would like to draw attention to Prof Shibban Lal Saxena’s address in the Constituent Assembly:
“…our Constitution does not provide for a fixed for years cycle like in
the United States of America... Every time some election or the other will be
taking place somewhere. It may not be so in the beginning or in the next 5 or
10 years. But after 10 or 12 years, at every moment some election in some
province will be going on.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, it was clear to the Constituent Assembly at the time of drafting the Constitution that elections will eventually become staggered and did not deem it necessary to institutionalize Simultaneous Elections.
Elections and Anti-Defection Law
11. It is disappointing to note that the Government did not mention strengthening of Anti-defection Law in its Terms of Reference to the HLC. While the Government and the HLC have repeatedly said that present system of elections cause a burden of public finances, why are they silent on the increasing number of by-elections to Assemblies necessitated due to defections? A Committee of this nature should have also been asked to suggest measures to strengthen the Anti-Defection Law.
12. The disturbing trend of destabilizing State Governments that are formed by parties/groups that are against the party ruling at the Centre has increased in recent times. We have seen many such instances such as in Arunachal Pradesh in 2016, Karnataka in 2019 where the post poll coalition Government of Congress Party and JDS was dislodged within 14 months of formation, Madhya Pradesh in 2020 where the Congress Government was dislodged within 14 months of formation by engineering resignations. Though those MLAs were disqualified, they re-contested the elections and some even became Ministers in the new Government formed in those States by the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP).
Another trend that is being used off-late is the misuse of Central Investigating Agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), including agencies like Income Tax department by the party ruling at the Centre (i.e. BJP) to engineer defections.
This was the method used to dislodge the post poll alliance Government of Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Congress in Maharashtra in 2022. Similarly in Goa, 8 of the 11 MLAs belonging to Congress Party merged with the BJP.
These are disturbing trends which challenge the will of people as expressed in the election and is a direct assault on our Constitution. Therefore, any reform in the election system should also include comprehensive measures to strengthen the Anti-Defection Law.
Frequent Model Code of Conduct and ‘Election Mode’
13. To quote from the Gazette Notification, the Government believes that “elections are held almost every year and within a year too at different times, which result in massive expenditure by the Government and other stakeholders, diversion of security forces and other electoral officers engaged in such elections from their primary duties for significantly prolonged periods, disruption in developmental work on account of prolonged application of Model Code of Conduct, etc.; “.
This has also been endorsed by the HLC. I am of the view that Model Code of Conduct (MCC) should not be considered as an impediment to Governance. MCC does not hamper day to day administration and its only objective is to prevent misuse of government machinery by the ruling party to influence the election outcomes.
Governments seek clarification from the Election Commission of India (ECI) even before taking small decisions while the MCC is in force. Therefore, the solution lies in fixing responsibility on the ECI to ensure that there is more clarity in the MCC.
14. Further, if persons holding Constitutional offices choose to divert their efforts towards campaigning during elections, which is the HLC refers to as ‘election mode’, it should be seen as a conscious political choice made by that person. This should not be given as a reason to alter the entire election schedule in the country.
Even if the argument that the country is in ‘election mode’ due to staggered elections is accepted, holding Simultaneous Elections is not a solution to that. Infact, this ‘election mode’ will ensure that political parties don’t become complacent.
15. The ECI has established a practice of holding even State elections in multiple phases. The table below illustrates a few examples:
|
State |
No.
of Phases in which Election was held |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
7 |
|
West Bengal |
8 |
|
Jharkhand |
5 |
|
Assam |
3 |
As illustrated in the table, even in a small State like Assam, the ECI has conducted elections in 3 phases.
Holding elections over a long period of time lengthens the period in which MCC is applicable. Therefore the solution lies in completing the election process in short time. If logistical shortcomings are cited as a reason for holding elections in multiple phases, then the argument that logistics can be arranged for Simultaneous Elections is not pragmatic. Infact, it implies that Simultaneous Elections will also be conducted over a prolonged period.
Impact on Finances
16. Another argument made by those who support Simultaneous Elections is that if implemented, it will reduce the expense incurred on Elections. As per the estimate of the ECI, the cost of conducting the 2014 Lok Sabha election with VVPAT machines was around Rs 3,870 crore. The argument that cost of conducting elections are high does not seem to be backed by data as Elections (to the Lok Sabha or State Assembly) are conducted only once in 5 years and the cost is hardly 0.01% of the Union Budget for those 5 years. When elections to State Assemblies are held separately, the cost is borne by those States itself and even that would be a similar percentage of the State Budget. To uphold democracy, we should not hesitate to spend such a small amount.
Conclusion
17. In conclusion, it seems that the proposal of Simultaneous Elections is based on the arguments that staggered elections hamper administration due to prolonged enforcement of MCC and that costs of conducting staggered elections are high. Both these arguments are misconceived and are not backed by any significant data that is sufficient to give effect to Constitutional amendments of this magnitude.
18. Institutionalizing Simultaneous Elections, as suggested by the HLC in its report, would require significant amendments to the basic structure of the Constitution and it has the potential to erode Parliamentary Democracy.
19. As citizens we are entrusted with the responsibility of preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution. Therefore, in the interest of Federalism and Parliamentary Democracy, we must reject the report submitted by the High Level Committee on One Nation One Election and prevail upon the Government to abort the idea of implementing Simultaneous Elections in our country.
References:
1)
Kesavananda Bharati & Ors
Vs State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1973 SC 1461
2)
Minerva Mills & Ors Vs
Union of India & Ors., AIR 1980
SC1789
3)
Indira Sawhney Vs Union of
India (1992) SCC Suppl. (3) 217
4)
PV Narasimha Rao Vs State
(1998) 4 SCC 626
5)
Indira Gandhi Vs Raj Narain
AIR 1975 SC 2299
6)
KihotoHollohan Vs Zachillhu
1992 SCC Suppl. (2) 651
7)
NCT of Delhi Vs Navjot Sandhu
@Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600
8)
Kuldeep Nayar Vs Union of
India AIR 2006 SC 3127
9)
Rameshwar Prasad & Ors Vs
Union of India & Anr., 2006 980
10) Draft
Report of the Law Commission of India dated 30.08.2018
11) 79th
Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,
Law and Justice on ‘Feasibility of Holding Simultaneous Election to the House
of People (Lok Sabha) and State Legislative Assemblies’ submitted in December,
2015
12) Report
of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution
13) NITI
Ayog Report
14) Constituent
Assembly debates
15) Opinion
of Former Chief Justice of India Mr. Rajan Gogoi, submitted to the HLC
16) Opinion
of Former Chief Justice of India Mr. Dipak Misra, submitted to the HLC
@varun: Eye-opening. OneNation-OneVote is a mere subject that is being used to shatter Democratic values.
ReplyDeleteWell written Varun, definitely well worth a read .
ReplyDelete