Ahead of its scheduled briefing before the Joint Committee of Parliament on the simultaneous elections Bills on December 4, the 23rd Law Commission is learnt to have firmed up its view that the Bills do not disturb the basic structure of the Constitution, when it comes to federalism and the right of the voter.
The commission’s view, it is learnt, is that the Bills, which will enable simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State and Union Territory Assemblies, do not need ratification by states as they do not propose to make any changes to the subjects under Article 368 (2), clauses (a) to (e), relating to subjects that require ratification by states.
The committee on the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment), known as the One Nation One Election Bills, is set to meet on December 4.
Representatives of the Law Commission and the Election Commission are scheduled to brief the committee, according to the meeting notice.
The two Bills were introduced by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal in December last year and referred to the committee. The Bills provide for synchronising the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections by curtailing the terms of state assemblies that are elected after a particular Lok Sabha to end with the term of that Lok Sabha. Once the terms of the legislatures align, the next general election will be held simultaneously.
In the commission’s view, it is learnt, the Bills affect the duration or frequency of voting and not the right to vote, which does not violate the basic structure.
The commission is also of the opinion that the Bills do not take away the people’s right to periodic, free and fair elections. The curtailment of the term of the state assemblies also cannot be seen as a violation of the basic structure, the commission is learnt to have found.
On the other hand, the commission views the idea of simultaneous elections positively, in that they would lead to the saving of time and money. The commission’s view, it is learnt, is that simultaneous elections do not affect the accountability of the government, as Parliamentary democracy ensures that each government remains accountable until the last day.
On questions about whether a constructive no-confidence vote and statutory backing for the MCC should be enacted, the commission is learnt to be against the ideas. In the case of the constructive vote of no-confidence, which is in place in Germany, in order to bring a no-confidence vote against a government, there needs to be a vote of confidence in another grouping. The commission believes that this would dilute the existing no-confidence vote and would not be suitable for the Indian context. On the MCC, the commission feels that codification of the poll code would slow down decisions during elections.
