One Nation, One Election Bill: Joint polls constitutional, say ex-CJIs, question sweeping powers to EC in Bill

Earlier, former CJIs UU Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi, who too appeared before the panel, had raised the issue of possible legal challenges to the Bill.

Justices Khehar and Chandrachud had almost a five-hour-long discussion with the committee. They were said to have not only gone through the entire Bill, provision by provision, but also discussed the larger issues of constitutional  philosophy, morality and politics associated with the Bill.

Later, committee chairperson P P Chaudhary said, “It was a rich discussion. We got valuable inputs and many issues that members had were clarified. Justice Khehar told the members that it was a golden opportunity for nation-building and that they should avail it as they will not get it back again.”

Parliamentary committee proceedings are privileged, and details of exchanges between members during meetings are not made public.

Issues related to the Bill being silent on situations such as imposition of Emergency in a state or whether elections could be forced even if an Assembly had just three months of tenure left at the time of dissolution also came up.

On whether simultaneous elections would lead to dilution of local issues, Justice Chandrachud, it is learnt, said the exact opposite might happen too. He was said to have cited the example of the language issue, a regional issue with the potential to become a national voting agenda in simultaneous polls.

In the context of the powers given to the ECI and the Bill being silent on many electoral situations, Justice Chandrachud flagged legal challenges and proposed some redrafting of the Bill.

It is learnt he suggested that it was time to give thought to some constraints on the no-confidence motion provision to ensure some stability. This, he suggested, could be done by just amending the rules of the House, requiring no constitutional amendment.

He was said to have told the committee that asynchronous (non-simultaneous) elections were not held as a criteria of a free and fair election and were not part of the basic structure. In fact, the constitutional scheme early in the history of the republic was to hold simultaneous elections, he pointed out.

Justice Khehar too gave a similar opinion. On the proposed Article 82A (1), he observed that the clause only fixed the appointed date, which would be the first sitting of the new Lok Sabha, and brought about no change in the conduct of election or tenure of the House, so it was not violative of the Constitution. All Assemblies elected after the appointed date would have their terms ending with that of the Lok Sabha, as per the Bill.

In Justice Chandrachud’s view, the Constitution only provides for a maximum term, that is five years, and there is no minimum guaranteed term. He was said to have pointed out that in a parliamentary democracy, there was no guaranteed term at all, and a government had to prove its mandate throughout the five years, through the check of the no-confidence motion.

Justice Khehar observed that the Bill, while curtailing the term of Assemblies to only the unexpired term i.e less than 5 years, also ensures that the electorate is clearly informed about the reduced term at the time of voting.