Simultaneous polls: Many an Article in the way

In favour of the proposal, Meghwal said that asyncrhonous elections, including by-elections, resulted in prolonged enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, impacting developmental and welfare programmes. This has been the position the government has taken before as well.

In a written reply in the Lok Sabha in the Budget Session earlier this year, then Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had quoted a department-related report by the parliamentary standing committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, which highlighted the case of South Africa, where elections to national as well as provincial legislatures are held simultaneously every five years, and municipal elections two years later.

He also spoke of Sweden, where elections to national legislature (Riksdag) and provincial legislature/county council (landsting) and local bodies/municipal assemblies (Kommunfullmaktige) are held on a fixed date — second Sunday in September every four years.

Rijiju had added that a parliamentary panel had examined the issue of simultaneous elections in consultation with various stakeholders, including the Election Commission.

In 2018, the Law Commission had brought out a report that also endorsed simultaneous elections, saying it would save public money, help reduce burden on the administrative setup and security forces, ensure better implementation of government policies, and allow the administrative machinery of the country to be continuously engaged in developmental activities, “rather than in electioneering”. However, it too had cautioned that “holding simultaneous elections is not possible within the existing framework of the Constitution”.

In his response, Rijiju too had incidentally echoed the “impediments” or “imperatives” raised by Meghwal, specifically the need for amendments in “not less than” five Articles of the Constitution — 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356.

Rijiju and Meghwal both said there would also be pressure in terms of procuring additional electronic voting machines (EVMs) and paper trail machines. Meghwal said the machines would cost a “huge amount, might be in thousands of crores”.

What do these Articles deal with?

Article 83: It deals with the duration of the Houses of Parliament. The Rajya Sabha, it says, “shall not be subject to dissolution, but as nearly as possible one third of the members thereof shall retire” on the expiration of every second year. The Lok Sabha “shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting”, with a provision for extending the five-year period by law for one year in the case of an Emergency. However, it cannot extend beyond a period of six months after the Emergency proclamation has ceased to operate.

Article 85: It deals with Sessions of Parliament and their “prorogation and dissolution”. As per the Article, the President must summon each House of Parliament as he or she thinks fit, with a period between Sessions not exceeding six months. It adds that the President may from time to time also prorogue, meaning discontinue the Houses or either House and dissolve the House of the People.

Article 172: This provision speaks of the duration of Legislative Assemblies in states, which is five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. The caveats during a state of Emergency also apply here.

Article 174: It says the Governor can summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the state to meet at such time and place as he or she thinks fit. The gap between sessions should not exceed six months. Here too, the Governor can prorogue the House or either House (in the case of Legislative Councils) and dissolve the Legislative Assembly.

Article 356: This has provisions for imposition of “President’s Rule” in a state, removing an elected government. It empowers the President to withdraw to the Union the Executive and Legislative powers of any state “if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”.

Whether the constitutional machinery has broken down may be determined by the President at any time, either upon receipt of a report from the Governor, or suo motu.

According to the provisions of Article 356, President’s Rule in a state can be imposed for six months at a time for a maximum duration of three years. Every six months, Parliamentary approval to impose President’s Rule is required again.