Read Current Affairs
General Studies Paper–II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International Relations
Context
The idea of “One Nation, One Election” is not new to India—between 1952 and 1967, Lok Sabha and most State Assembly elections were naturally conducted simultaneously. However, political instability after 1967, frequent mid-term elections and the premature collapse of several governments broke this synchronisation. As a result, India turned into a nation with a continuous election cycle, putting persistent pressure on governance, financial resources and administrative machinery.
In the past decade, rising election expenditure, repeated security deployment, and the frequent enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) have reignited this debate. The High-Level Committee constituted under Ram Nath Kovind in 2023 and the Law Ministry’s latest 2025 submission have once again placed the issue at the centre of national discourse, where the challenge lies in balancing constitutional validity, federalism, democratic accountability and practical feasibility.
One Nation, One Election: Concept and Objectives
The term refers to conducting elections to the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies at the same time or in closely aligned phases.
Its primary objectives include:
- Ending the frequency of election cycles
- Enhancing continuity in governance
- Reducing expenditure and administrative burden
- Minimising development disruptions caused by constant electoral politics
Why in News?
Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024
- Introduced in Parliament to establish the constitutional foundation for simultaneous elections; currently under review by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).
Law Ministry’s Position
- A one-time curtailment of legislative terms is valid under Articles 83(2) and 172(1), as the Constitution already allows premature dissolution.
- The Ministry asserts that such curtailment does not undermine democracy, judicial independence, federalism or other principles of the basic structure.
23rd Law Commission’s View
- The Commission, in its recent observations, stated that the model does not violate the right to vote and would be valid if passed through a constitutional amendment with the required majority.
- On 28 November 2025, while submitting its written statement to the JPC, the Law Ministry reiterated that synchronising the terms of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies through limited curtailment does not violate the basic structure.
- This has renewed the debate on its constitutional, political and federal implications.
Constitutional Debate: Basic Structure vs Federal Architecture
Issue | Critics’ Argument | Government/Law Ministry’s Stand |
Basic Structure | Curtailing the fixed five-year term violates the principle of periodic elections. | Terms are not absolutely fixed but conditional—“unless dissolved earlier”; therefore permissible. |
Federalism | Central intervention in State election cycles weakens federal autonomy. | State autonomy is not removed; synchronisation through constitutional amendment is legitimate. |
Why Simultaneous Elections Are Needed
- Major reduction in election expenditure for parties and the Election Commission
- Reduced disruption in development due to repeated implementation of MCC
- Lower burden of repeated deployment of security forces
- Governance and leadership can focus more on policy and long-term development
- Administrative machinery gains stability by avoiding excessive political cycles
Government Steps, Committees and Reports
- 23rd Law Commission Report: Recommended phased synchronisation and the constructive vote of no-confidence model.
- 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill: Drafted to provide a legal framework for simultaneous elections.
- Review by the JPC: Examining the constitutional coherence, federal implications and practical challenges.
- High-Level Committee (2023): Chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind; tasked with studying constitutional, administrative and legal feasibility.
Key Recommendations of the Ram Nath Kovind Committee |
|
Analysis
- Positive Aspects
- More efficient, cost-effective and administratively streamlined electoral management
- Significant step toward modernising India’s electoral architecture
- Challenges and Risks
- National issues may overshadow State-specific concerns
- Strong centralised electoral cycle may affect federal diversity
- Mid-term political crises can disrupt the synchronised cycle
- Requires broad political consensus—which is difficult in a diverse democracy
The Way Forward
- Adopt constructive vote of no-confidence (Germany model)
- Build broad consensus with States
- Strengthen the Election Commission—logistics, technology and manpower
- Adopt phased synchronisation rather than immediate nationwide implementation
Conclusion
“One Nation, One Election” could become a landmark structural reform in India’s electoral system. However, its success depends on:
- Protecting constitutional values
- Ensuring democratic accountability
- Preserving federal diversity
The Law Ministry’s recent submission provides a strong constitutional basis, but the real test lies in achieving political consensus, administrative readiness and maintaining a balanced federal structure.