11 Reasons Why Simultaneous Elections Are Not 'Anti-Constitution'

11 Reasons Why Simultaneous Elections Are Not 'Anti-Constitution'
11 Reasons Why Simultaneous Elections Are Not 'Anti-Constitution'
11 Reasons Why Simultaneous Elections Are Not 'Anti-Constitution'
11 Reasons Why Simultaneous Elections Are Not 'Anti-Constitution'

 

11 Reasons Why Simultaneous Elections Are Not 'Anti-Constitution'

After a concise discussion on December 17, 2024, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal presented the 129th Constitution Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha. This legislation aims to establish simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. The Bill was subjected to a vote division at the request of Opposition members, ultimately securing 269 votes in favor and 198 against. It has subsequently been sent to a joint parliamentary committee for thorough review.

Various Opposition MPs contended that conducting simultaneous elections would violate the Constitution's fundamental structure. The Indian National Congress, in its report to the High-Level Committee (HLC) regarding simultaneous elections, asserted that such a modification would lead to “significant alterations to the Constitution's foundational framework.” Similarly, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) argued that concurrent elections would undermine democracy, which is a key constitutional principle. Reflecting this perspective, numerous Opposition leaders labeled the Bill as “anti-federal.”

Nevertheless, in spite of these accusations, the Bill does not breach the basic structure doctrine. In reality, there are 10 persuasive arguments demonstrating that it aligns with the Constitution's essential tenets.

Constitution Permits Adaptability

Firstly, simultaneous elections were standard in the initial years of the Republic (1951-52, 1957, 1962, and 1967) without causing any negative effects on the constitutional framework or democratic values. The persistence of a constitutionally endorsed practice cannot be regarded as contravening the basic structure. No judicial ruling has declared that the past practice of simultaneous elections was unconstitutional or harmful to the Constitution's fundamental characteristics. 

Secondly, it is frequently claimed that simultaneous elections contradict the Constitution’s basic structure because they might require the premature dissolution of State Legislative Assemblies—entities made up of elected representatives—thus countering the electorate's expressed will.

However, as posited by the HLC report, the Constitution itself acknowledges that the term of both the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies shall be “five years unless dissolved sooner.” This wording underscores that the framers intentionally incorporated flexibility into legislative durations. As premature dissolution is already permitted under the Constitution, its measured application to facilitate synchronized election cycles does not introduce any essentially new or prohibited aspect to the constitutional framework.

No Risk to Fundamental Framework

Three, the fundamental characteristics of the foundational framework—such as the triad of rights (Articles 14, 19, and 21), essential liberties, the equilibrium between Parts III and IV, secularism, and the judiciary’s autonomy—remain intact. The HLC report clearly indicates that the critiques of concurrent elections “do not encroach upon citizens’ rights under Part III or the rule of law or any other elements such as an independent and fair judiciary.” Consequently, no essential constitutional principle acknowledged in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) is compromised.

Four, democracy, acknowledged as a component of the fundamental framework (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461; Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412), is not endangered by the conduct of simultaneous elections. Regular, free, and just elections remain unaltered. The suggested amendment does not limit the right of citizens to vote or their ability to select representatives. It simply aligns election schedules, guaranteeing that the democratic principle of periodic electoral validation is entirely upheld.

Five, the Supreme Court has consistently asserted that free and fair elections are vital to democracy and thereby to the foundational framework (Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299; Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112). The proposed amendment does not change the powers, functions, or autonomy of the Election Commission of India, nor does it diminish the mechanisms for judicial review. Thus, the fairness and integrity of the electoral process are preserved.

Six, although democracy is essential, the rights to vote and to contest are not classified as fundamental rights; they are constitutional and legislative rights (N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64; Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 3127). Synchronizing elections does not inhibit or eliminate these rights; it merely modifies their timing. No aspect of the proposed amendment transforms these rights into something constitutionally unacceptable, nor does it disrupt their legal framework.

Constitution Remains Paramount

Seven, while federalism constitutes a component of the fundamental framework, it is not unqualified in the Indian scenario. The nature of Indian federalism is distinct—often referred to as “quasi-federal” or “cooperative federalism” (S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918; Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCALE 72). The suggested amendment does not modify the allocation of legislative or executive authorities. It does not interfere with the States’ jurisdiction, their legislative independence, or the constitutional nature of the Union-State connection. Instead, it maintains the federal equilibrium while improving administrative effectiveness.

Eight, the authority of the Constitution and the process of judicial review—essential components of the fundamental framework (Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789)—are neither suspended nor weakened by the proposed amendment. The judiciary maintains its complete power to annul unconstitutional actions. The amendment solely reorganises election schedules and does not shield any action from judicial evaluation.

Nine, the principles of secularism, adherence to the rule of law, and the differentiation of powers—essential traits of the basic structure—remain unscathed (S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918; M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71). The amendment has no impact on the jurisdiction of Parliament, State Legislatures, or the judiciary. It does not modify the constitutional framework of governance but simply standardises the electoral timetable.

Ten, for an infringement upon the basic structure to take place, the very constitutional identity must be jeopardised or modified (I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861). Aligning election dates neither transforms the identity of the Constitution as a democratic, republican, and federal entity, nor does it introduce any new constitutional aspect that conflicts with the established constitutional spirit.

Eleven, the aim behind conducting simultaneous elections pertains to electoral administration rather than constituting a structural overhaul. Such efficiency-enhancing measures do not undermine the fundamental tenets of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently elucidated that what is forbidden is the dismantling or weakening of the essential features of the Constitution, rather than procedural or administrative adjustments that align with its foundational principles (Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845).  

"Misguided" Critiques 

The initiative to align electoral cycles, designed to decrease the occurrence of elections, lower administrative expenses, and alleviate the need for repeated applications of the Model Code of Conduct, receives affirmation from distinguished legal experts, thereby cementing its constitutional validity. Notably, the former Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra, in his correspondence dated February 28, 2024, to the High-Level Committee (HLC), stated that objections to concurrent elections as contrary to the fundamental framework or principles of federalism are “misguided.” He referenced the “doctrine of expansion” and the “doctrine of reduction” concerning the constitutional adaptability to modify legislative tenures under extraordinary situations, highlighting that “India, as a quasi-federal entity, finds that simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies are not against federalism.”

Further clarifying the advantages, Justice Misra stressed that “aligning elections at the National and State tiers could yield enhanced administrative efficiency by diminishing the frequency of elections and their related expenses.” He noted that this initiative “could serve the interests of both the Central and State Governments” and improve governance by allowing representatives to concentrate more on legislative and executive responsibilities, unimpeded by the disruptions of staggered elections. He definitively stated that the “implementation of One Nation, One Election in India is expected to align well with the essence of the Constitution and with the tenets of collaborative federalism.”

Politics Over Reforms 

Although the Opposition’s dissent to simultaneous elections seems to stem more from political convenience than from constitutional justifications, their arguments do not hold up under legal examination. The architects of the Constitution intended for a dynamic framework regarding legislative terms, and the suggested amendment simply aligns this adaptability to foster stability and effectiveness in administration.

Justice Dipak Misra aptly pointed out that simultaneous elections neither diminish federalism nor breach the Constitution’s essential structure; instead, they “align well with the essence of the Constitution” and reflect the principles of collaborative federalism. In fact, the opposition’s persistence in favoring staggered elections indicates a misguided hesitation to accept reforms that place governance above continuous political maneuvering.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/L7j2PCN
December 18, 2024 at 04:24PM
via Blogger https://ift.tt/eQv9iCo
December 18, 2024 at 05:13PM
via Blogger https://ift.tt/d26XOFn
December 18, 2024 at 06:13PM
via Blogger https://ift.tt/VQgL9nR
December 18, 2024 at 07:13PM