A total of 15 Constitution Amendments which include changes in three provisions and new insertions in 12 provisions; amendments to three statutes that govern Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, and all other Union Territories; and a Presidential notification of an “appointed date” to tie all elections — these are the key changes in the legal framework recommended by the the High Level Committee on One Nation, One Election, headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind, in its report on Thursday (March 14). According to the report, the framework for simultaneous polls could be kicked off as early as June this year, with the President issuing a notification to declare an “appointed date” as the “date of the first sitting of the House of the People after a general election”. However, amendments to the Constitution are required for the President to draw her powers to issue such a notification. Essentially, the bundle of constitutional amendments and the notification by the President are likely to follow one another. For the constitutional amendments that would sync Assembly elections with Lok Sabha elections, the Kovind panel has recommended that ratification by states is not needed. However, the panel said that ratification by states will be required for constitutional amendments for the preparation of a common electoral roll, and syncing municipal and panchayat elections with the general (simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly) elections. Article 368 of the Constitution deals with the power and procedure to amend the Constitution. While several provisions can be amended by a simple majority like in passing any ordinary legislation, a special majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting is required for other provisions. For a third category of “entrenched provisions” that impact the federal structure of the Constitution or the powers of the state Assemblies, an amendment requires to be ratified by legislatures of at least half of the states. Specifically, Article 368(2)(d) lists the representation of states in Parliament as one of the issues that would require ratification. While a textual reading of the provisions may not indicate that representation of states in Parliament would not be altered through simultaneous polls, the move has a huge impact on the states, impinging on their legislatures. The Kovind panel has stated that states under Article 328 of the Constitution only have residual powers on conducting Assembly elections; the power is mainly entrusted to Parliament through Article 327. Article 328 (“Power of Legislature of a State to make provision with respect to elections to such Legislature”) states: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and in so far as provision in that behalf is not made by Parliament, the Legislature of a State may from time to time by law make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, the elections to the House or either House of the Legislature of the State including the preparation of electoral rolls and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses.” The report of the Kovind panel says: “The elections to the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies are held by the Election Commission of India under the Constitution of India, The Representation of People Act, 1950, The Representation of People Act, 1951, and the rules and orders made thereunder. Therefore, the amendments required for simultaneous elections to the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies do not fall under the purview of the proviso to Article 368(2) and hence, do not warrant a ratification by the States.” The question of ratification can also be judicially reviewed. In Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu (February 18, 1992), the Supreme Court struck down a part of the law dealing with disqualification of lawmakers on the ground that it was not ratified by the states. The Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, among other things, sought to bar the jurisdiction of courts in any matter connected with the disqualification process. This tinkered with one of the six aspects that require ratification by half the states — jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Supreme Court struck down this part of the amendment while upholding the validity of the Tenth Schedule.
