Critically evaluate the 'One Nation, One Election' proposal in the context of India's federal structure.

Q. Critically evaluate the 'One Nation, One Election' proposal in the context of India's federal structure. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

India held synchronised Lok Sabha and Assembly polls from 1951 to 1967 until premature dissolutions broke the cycle. The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 seeks to restore it [3]. Judged against federalism, the proposal is administratively persuasive but constitutionally intrusive.

Arguments supporting the federal case

• Historical continuity: simultaneous elections were India's original practice; the Law Commission's 170th Report (1999) endorsed a synchronised cycle as feasible within the existing constitutional scheme [4].
• Governance efficiency: a near-continuous Model Code of Conduct freezes both Union and State policy announcements; the Kovind High-Level Committee found repeated polls drain public finances, security forces and administrative manpower [1].
• Strengthening the third tier: the HLC's two-step design extends synchronisation to panchayats and municipalities within 100 days, deepening rather than diluting multi-level federalism [1]; the Union Cabinet has accepted these recommendations [2].
• Consultative base: of 47 political parties that responded, 32 supported the idea, indicating cross-party space for consensus [1].

Federal concerns

• Curtailment of Assembly terms: to align cycles, State legislature terms would end with the Lok Sabha's, subordinating the Article 172 five-year term to the Union's electoral calendar [3].
• Centralisation of electoral power: amending Article 327 to cover "conduct of simultaneous elections" enlarges Parliament's authority over State elections [3].
• Basic structure question: the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai (1994) treated federalism as a basic feature; a synchronised, Union-anchored cycle invites judicial challenge.
• Political asymmetry: national narratives may overshadow regional issues, disadvantaging State-based parties, while a government losing majority mid-cycle would face only a truncated remainder term.

Thus, ONOE promises fiscal and administrative gains, but its present design ties State mandates to a Union clock. The Joint Parliamentary Committee examining the Bill [3] should build safeguards — protecting full Assembly terms where possible and securing wide State consultation. Reform pursued through cooperative federalism, rather than uniformity alone, would honour both governance efficiency and the Constitution's federal spirit.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. PIB — High Level Committee submits its report on One Nation, One Election (2024) — 191 days of work, 47 parties consulted (32 supportive), two-step rollout within 100 days, cost/manpower burden of repeated polls 2. PIB — Cabinet accepts recommendations of the High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections (2024) — government acceptance of HLC recommendations 3. PRS Legislative Research — The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 — Article 82A, amendment to Article 327, curtailment of Assembly terms, referral to Joint Parliamentary Committee 4. Law Commission of India — Reform of Electoral Laws, Report No. 170 (1999) — early official recommendation for simultaneous elections