Ramjas Youth Parliament

Session 2 - One Nation, One Election

Joint session - The joint session of parliament is a session where the members
of both the upper and lower house sit together to discuss upon a bill. The joint
sitting of the Parliament is called by the President (Article 108) under special
circumstances such as deadlock in either of the houses.

Letter from the Executive Board

Dear Parliamentarians
This is a matter of immense pleasure that you all are going to voice your opinion in the
largest democracy of the world.
Ever Since our tryst with destiny in 1947, youth has always been eager to show their interest
in the matters of education, sports and various other fields and activism of this sort is indeed
commendable. Youth is considered to be the power and the face of nation and so the
Organizing Committee of Ramjas Youth Parliament 2020 and Executive Board members Of
the Joint Session of the Parliament are committed to provide a platform to voice your opinion
freely. The motive of the discussion is to deliberate and to discuss on the agenda “One
Nation, One Election” in wake of our nation being a federal state. Awards are important for
boosting the morale of participants, but our prime motive is to learn and make you learn and
understand various aspects of the agenda. The other relevant or related sub agendas are also
invited but the discussion shall be depending upon the decision of Executive Board for the
benefit of the committee. The object of this Background Guide is to introduce you to the
prospective agendas and the grounds of discussion. The Executive Board members expect
you to actively participate in the debate subject to the expected decorum, the decision by the
executive board on any discrepancy shall be final.
The Background Guide being provided is an introduction to the agenda “One Nation, One
Election”. Consider it the starting point of your research. The agenda in itself is vast and
exhaustive Do look into its various dimensions.

Best wishes
Executive Board
Mr. Rajat Arora Mr. Naman Jain Mr. Rithik Goel
Speaker Deputy Speaker Scribe
Introduction
In democratic polity, election is held at regular interval to choose legislators/rulers for
a fixed tenure. In our country the task of holding free and fair election at regular interval is
assigned to Election Commission of India (ECI) and State Election Commissions under
Articles 324 and 243K of the Constitution, respectively. While the election to either Houses
of Union Parliament and House or either Houses of State Legislature inter-alia is the main
responsibility of the ECI, the election to local bodies (Panchayati Raj Institutions,
Corporations/Municipalities, etc.) is vested with State Election Commission of the concerned
State. Having regular election in a country of sub-continental dimensions and immense
cultural diversities, by the ECI in free and fair manner is a daunting task, which that body has
been discharging without avoidable delay. The ECI has introduced several measures to
ensure free and fair elections viz introduction of Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC), periodic
revision of Electoral Rolls, tamper proof Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), Voter-
Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), multi-phase polls, etc.

Besides Lok Sabha elections in 2014, polls to about 15 State Assemblies were held
during March 2014 – May 2016.1 In 2014 alone, elections were held in March – May,
September – October and October – December timeframes. In some cases, elections to State
Assemblies were announced within a month of concluding elections to other State
Assemblies. Add elections to the third tier of Government (Panchayati Raj institutions /
Municipal bodies in rural and urban areas), bye-elections etc., and the number of elections in
any given year would increase substantially. Such frequent electoral cycles ends up
negatively impacting administrative and developmental activities in the poll bound states /
regions and the larger governance process in general as well.

As a result, a serious need to evolve a mechanism to end this frequent election cycles
has been expressed by various stakeholders since quite some time now. The idea of
undertaking simultaneous elections is being seriously considered as a potential solution to the
above problem. Several prominent political leaders have also consistently voiced their
support for the above idea at various forums. Some expert committees have also examined
this particular issue in the past. In the year 1999, the Law Commission of India headed by

1
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Centre-seeks-views-on-simultaneous-polls-to-Lok-Sabha-
Assemblies/article14630817.ece
Hon'ble Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy in its One Hundred Seventieth Report on Reform of
Electoral Laws recommended simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative
Assemblies while examining measures for improving the electoral system in the country. The
Department related Parliamentary Standing committee on Personnel, Public grievances, Law
and justice in its 79th report (submitted to the Parliament in December 2015) had also
examined the feasibility of holding simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative
Assemblies. The Committee recommended an alternative and practicable method of holding
simultaneous elections.

More recently, the Hon’ble President of India and the Hon’ble Prime Minister
strongly pitched their support for holding simultaneous elections at public forums. The
Hon’ble President noted “With some election or the other throughout the year, normal
activities of the government come to a stand-still because of code of conduct. This is an idea
the political leadership should think of. If political parties collectively think, we can change
it.... The Election Commission can also put in their idea and efforts on holding the polls
together and that will be highly beneficial”. Consequently, the Union Government sought
views of the general public on MyGov web portal to examine this idea and to evolve
solutions to its attendant issues.2

What is ‘One Nation, One Election’?

According to the scope and definition of the term “Simultaneous Elections”, ideally
simultaneous elections should imply that elections to all the three tiers of constitutional
institutions take place in a synchronized and co-ordinated fashion. What this effectively
means is that a voter casts his vote for electing members for all tiers of the Government on a
single day. However, the ‘third tier institutions’ is primarily a State subject as per the
Constitution. Further, considering the facts that elections to the third tier institutions are
directed and controlled by the State Election Commissions and their sheer numbers in the
country is significantly large,3 it would be impractical and possibly impossible to synchronize
and align election schedules to the third tier with that of Lok Sabha and State Assembly
elections.
2
For example, the total numbers of Gram Panchayats, Block Panchayats and District Panchayats in the country
is estimated to be about 2.51 lakhs. Source: “Ministry of Panchayati Raj at a Glance – 1 st January 2015”
3
Article 83(2) states that “The House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from
the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall
operate as a dissolution of the House…”
 Accordingly, for the purposes of this note, the term “Simultaneous Elections” is
defined as structuring the Indian election cycle in a manner that elections to Lok Sabha and
State Assemblies are synchronized together. In such a scenario, a voter would normally cast
his/her vote for electing members of Lok Sabha and State Assembly on a single day and at
the same time. To clarify further, simultaneous elections do not mean that voting across the
country for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies needs to happen on a single day. This can be
conducted in a phase-wise manner as per the existing practice provided voters in a particular
constituency vote for both State Assembly and Lok Sabha the same day.

Looking into the historical perspective, it is interesting to note that the concept of
simultaneous elections is in-fact not new to the country. Post adoption of the Constitution, the
elections to Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously
between 1951 till 1967 when the cycle of synchronized elections got disrupted. As a result of
all premature dissolutions and extension, the cycle of simultaneous elections has been firmly
disrupted.

Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

Article 83 of the Constitution of India provides for the tenure of both Houses of the
Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha). Article 83(2) 4 provides for a term of five years for
Lok Sabha, from the date of its first sitting unless dissolved earlier. Similar provisions under
Article 172 (1) provides for five year tenure for State Legislative Assembly from the date of
its first sitting. Further, the proviso to Article 83 (2) of the Constitution provides that when a
proclamation of emergency is in operation, the term of the House may be extended for a
period not exceeding one year at a time by Parliament by law and not extending in any case
beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate. Similar provision
also exists for State Legislative Assembly under the proviso to Article 172 (1) of the
Constitution. The above provisions effectively mean that the tenure of the House cannot be
extended beyond 5 years except in emergency but it can be prematurely dissolved before
expiration of its tenure.

Article 85 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India provides the President with the power to
dissolve Lok Sabha. Similar provision for dissolution of State Legislative Assemblies by the
Governor of State is provided under Article 174 (2)(b). Further, in respect of premature
4
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/Breaking-out-of-election-mode/article15422727.ece
dissolution of a State Legislative Assembly, Article 356 is also relevant. In the event of a
State being under President’s Rule as provided under Article 356, the Legislative Assembly
of the said State may be prematurely dissolved by the President. While there have been
several cases of proclamation of President’s Rule in States under Article 356 in the past, pre-
mature dissolution of State Assemblies has been made significantly stringent in the light of
Anti-Defection Act 1985 and the judgement by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court
of India.

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the apex court laid down certain guidelines
circumscribing the conditions for proclamation of President’s Rule by the Union
Government. The guidelines state: a) the dissolution of State Legislative Assembly by the
President of India is subject to approval of both houses of Parliament; and b) the validity of
proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review. In effect, the President can put
Legislative Assembly in suspended animation but cannot dissolve it without concurrence of
both Houses of Parliament. The Judiciary can examine validity of such proclamation and
restore the dismissed State Government and revive dissolved Legislative Assembly if Article
356 is found to be mala fide in its use.

As per Article 75(3), “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to

the House of the People”. Article 164(2) provides a similar responsibility of the Council of
Ministers to the State Legislative Assembly. The Executive therefore derives its legitimacy
from the legislature and remains in power as long as it enjoys the confidence of the latter. A
no-confidence motion can be passed if either Lok Sabha or the State Legislative Assembly
loses confidence in the Council of Ministers. It can fall any time with the passage of non-
confidence motion in that House. It is thus implied that even though the fall of a government
is contemplated in the Constitution, it cannot be predicted.

Article 324 mandates the Election Commission of India (ECI) to supervise, direct and
control elections to Lok Sabha & State Legislative Councils. The Parliament has also
enacted the Representation of People Act, 1950 and Representation of People Act, 1951
(hereinafter RPA, 1951) and the Rules framed thereunder, viz., Registration of Electors
Rules, 1960 and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to facilitate the conduct of elections by the
Election Commission of India. Section 14 of the RPA, 1951 provides for the notification for
General Elections to the Lok Sabha. The proviso to the Section 14(2) states: "..Provided that
where a general election is held otherwise than on the dissolution of the existing House of the
People, no such notification shall be issued at any time earlier than six months prior to the
date on which the duration of the House would expire under the provisions of clause (2) of
Article 83." Section 15 (2) of the Act provides a similar provision for State legislatures. This
means that the ECI is empowered to notify elections to both Lok Sabha and State Legislative
Assemblies six months prior to the end of normal terms of these Houses. This would not alter
their term in any way.

What’s the Need?

There exist various key issues with the existing electoral cycle. In the last 30 years,
there has not been a single year without an election to either a State Assembly or to Lok
Sabha or both. The current trends indicates that the same situation is likely to prevail going
forward as well. While this situation leads to several avoidable issues – massive recurring
expenditures by the Government & stakeholders, prolonged deployment of security forces
and official manpower and so on, the biggest adverse impact is on governance, policy making
and developmental activities.

Within the larger sphere of governance, the adverse impact is both tangible and
intangible. Tangibly, frequent imposition of Model Code of Conduct leads to suspension of
developmental projects and other government activities. The larger intangible impact of
frequent elections is that Governments and political parties remain in perpetual
“campaigning” mode. Electoral compulsions change the focus of policy making. Short-
sighted populist and “politically safe” measures are accorded higher priority over “difficult”
structural reforms which may more beneficial to the public from a longer term perspective. In
a recent article,5 the Hon’ble Vice-President Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu noted that “…the cycle
of continuous elections was not only affecting the developmental process and good
governance, but also forcing the political class to typically think in terms of immediate
electoral gains rather than focus on long-term programmes and policies for the overall
progress of the nation and its people”. He points out that frequent elections adversely impact
the focus of Governments and political parties. Need to win the next impending election
makes short-term political imperatives an immediate priority. As a result, sound long-term
economic planning often takes a back seat. There have been various instances in the past
when Governments have preferred to put off/ postpone implementation of difficult structural
5
Para 9.5 to 9.9 Report of the Parliamentary Standing committee on Personnel, Public grievances, Law and
justice - 79th report (Dec 2015)
reforms due to elections – the direct cost of which is borne by the needy electorate. This leads
to sub-optimal governance and adversely impacts the design and delivery of public policies
and developmental measures.

Unlike gradual, incremental measures, transformative measures typically involve

short-term pains and hence are seen as politically risky and unpopular to implement. Frequent
elections, therefore, crowd Government’s risk taking capabilities and incentivize it to opt
safer status-quo’ist approach instead. Getting out of this “permanent election mode” is
therefore a huge structural change in mindset that could potentially provide the much needed
space to Governments to focus on long-term transformational measures without worrying
about the next impending election. Various prominent leaders across party lines have also
supported his view including most recently the Honb’le Chief Minister of Karnataka. Experts
on this matter and prominent think tanks also agree that the country needs to get out of this
situation.

Do the means justify the ends?

Key political parties such as Indian National Congress (INC), All India Trinamool
Congress (AITC), Communist Party of India (CPI), All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen
(AIMIM), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) etc. in their submissions to the Parliamentary
Standing Committee have expressed their reservations. These parties have questioned its do-
ability given the existing constitutional and statutory provisions with regards to tenure of
various Assemblies and Parliament.6
It has to be understood that, Indian voters are not mature / informed enough to
differentiate between the voting choices for State Assembly and Lok Sabha in case
simultaneous elections are held. This situation could lead to – a) National issues impacting
electorate’s behavior for voting in State Assembly elections; or b) State issues impacting
electorate’s behavior for voting in Lok Sabha elections. As a result, voter behavior gets
influenced and he/she may vote for the same political party, which in most cases may be
larger national parties. A recent study published by IDFC institute7 concludes - “on average,
there is a 77 per cent chance that the Indian voter will vote for the same party for both the
State and Centre when elections are held simultaneously”. Meaning, in about 77% of the total
Assembly constituencies, the winners came from the same party as that of the Parliamentary
constituency. The authors of this study analysed electoral data for four rounds of Lok Sabha
elections – 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014. They chose States whose elections coincided with the
above elections and noted that “trend of choosing the same party has gone from 68 per cent in

6
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/state-assembly-elections-nudging-the-voter-in-
onedirection/article8438114.ece
7
Source: https://www.thequint.com/opinion/2016/06/13/holding-ls-assembly-polls-together-is-desirablebut-
not-feasible
1999 to 77 per cent in 2004 to 76 per cent in 2009 and 86 per cent in 2014” implying that
“the ability or willingness of the voter to vote differently is only decreasing with time”.
Recently, Dr. S. Y. Quraishi in an article on simultaneous elections pointed out some
additional points as counter-arguments to simultaneous elections. He mentioned the
following points “a) Having to face electorate more than once every 5 year enhances the
accountability of politicians and keeps them on their toes and b) many jobs are created during
elections, boosting the economy at the grass-root levels”.