Opinion Former CEC writes: With One Nation One Election, getting India back in sync

India, the world’s largest democracy, will soon have its 18th Lok Sabha elections. As per the recent data released by the Election Commission of India (ECI), over 96.88 crore electors were registered across the country at the conclusion of the last special summary revision.

The forthcoming Lok Sabha Election is coming at a time when discussions over simultaneous elections have been gathering pace. On March 14, the High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections, constituted by the Government of India to examine the legality, efficacy and modality of the simultaneous elections, submitted its report to the President of India. The Committee has recommended the holding of simultaneous parliamentary and state legislative assembly elections along with usage of a common electoral roll and elector photo identity cards (EPIC).

It is a fact that elections to the Lok Sabha as well as state legislative assemblies were being held together from 1952 till 1967. The disruption in this synchronised cycle happened primarily because using Article 356 of the Constitution, state governments were frequently dismissed. Little action was taken by the government of the day to arrest this desynchronisation. The era of toppling state governments continued roughly till the year 1994 when the Supreme Court gave its landmark judgment of S R Bommai vs. Union of India, which curtailed the arbitrary use of Article 356 and consequently reinforced stability and adherence to constitutional norms. However, the ruling party at the Centre did not make any effort to reharmonise the election cycle.

There are many benefits of holding simultaneous elections: Colossal savings on avoidable administrative expenditure; optimum use of manpower, including election officials as well as security personnel; less disruption to public life; long-term focus on governance and reduced obstruction to developmental programmes. Political leaders will then be able to focus on governance rather than electioneering, which in turn would increase their accountability to the public.

One of the major arguments against simultaneous elections is that the lines between a voter’s national and local interests may get diminished, and thus, have a negative impact on the electoral contest. However, there are already many examples from the past few election cycles which prove otherwise. For instance, in the simultaneous elections held for Odisha in 2019, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) won 112 out of 147 seats (44.7 per cent vote share) followed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with 23 seats (32.4 per cent vote share). At the same time, with respect to the Lok Sabha election performance, the BJD won 12 out of 21 seats (42.8 per cent vote share) with the BJP winning 8 seats (38.4 per cent vote share). Similarly, in the NCT of Delhi (where assembly elections are held seven-eight months after Lok Sabha elections), people have voted for different parties at the state and national levels, if the results of the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, 2015 assembly elections, 2019 Lok Sabha elections and 2020 assembly polls are considered. This shows that voters in a mature democracy such as ours can weigh their national and local interests and vote accordingly, even if elections to different tiers of government are held together.

The operationalisation of simultaneous elections can be done in phases. This will include a one-time curtailment of tenure for some state legislative assemblies, where the term may be ending closer to the date of the previous Lok Sabha election, whereas the tenure of some state legislative assemblies will have to be extended beyond their term of five years. Further, once the election cycle is harmonised, the only way of maintaining the synchronised system would be to hold elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies at the same time, irrespective of any premature dissolution of the House. Any possible election and constitution of a new House, in case of premature dissolution, should only be for “remainder of the term” and not for a fixed term of five years. Such a concept is not alien to our legal framework since any by-election to Parliament and state legislative assembly is only done to fill the vacancy for the “remainder of the term”.

There have also been discussions on combining the conduct of local body elections like panchayats and municipalities with parliamentary and state elections. In my opinion, this may not be pragmatic as local body elections are held in different states under their own respective laws. The sheer number of local bodies in our country will also pose a challenge. Another crucial aspect is that in the constitutional scheme of things, the responsibility of holding elections to Parliament and the state assemblies is with the ECI, whereas the responsibility for conducting local bodies elections is with the respective state election commissions.

The breaking up of the election cycle after 1967 was largely the result of undemocratic processes when the party ruling at the Centre arbitrarily and excessively used Article 356 of the Constitution for toppling democratically elected governments. Subsequent dispensations lacked the political will to rectify this situation. The present government has shown the iron will to reintroduce simultaneous elections and shift the focus from constant electioneering to long-term governance. It is my sanguine hope that the efforts being made towards holding simultaneous elections come to fruition soon in the larger interest of the country’s democratic, economic and political growth.

The writer is a former chief election commissioner of India