- Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram opposed One Nation, One Election bills calling it unconstitutional
- He argued the bills undermine parliamentary democracy
- Ten Padma awardees supported electoral reform, citing benefits for national development
Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram has opposed the "One Nation, One Election" proposal at a meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee for the bill today, calling it "unconstitutional".
Appearing before the committee-chaired by BJP MP PP Chaudhary, the senior Congress leader strongly opposed the bills related to "One Nation, One Election" -- labelling them "flawed," and "illogical".
Conversely, 10 eminent personalities and Padma awardees present at the meeting unanimously supported electoral reform, describing it as aligned with the national resolve of a 'Viksit Bharat' (Developed India).
A total of four rounds of hearings were conducted at the marathon meeting. Leaders of political parties, civil society representatives, Padma awardees, and prominent legal policy research organizations presented their suggestions and objections.
In the first session of the meeting, Chidambaram registered detailed objections regarding the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
Sources said he argued that the proposed legislation undermines the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy.
The tenure of any legislature elected by the people is fixed at five years, and curtailing the term of state assemblies prematurely through legislation is constitutionally inappropriate, he had argued.
Chidambaram also noted that the government lacks the requisite two-thirds majority in Parliament to pass this bill. Trinamool Congress MP Sagarika Ghose also opposed the initiative, expressing apprehension that it would grant the Election Commission unlimited and unchecked powers.
Responding to Chidambaram's arguments, committee chairman PP Chaudhary said it would thoroughly examine his views and suggestions. However, he dismissed the contention that the initiative for simultaneous elections violates the basic structure of the Constitution. He noted that since Chidambaram represents a different political party, he might hold a different perspective.
More than ten Padma awardees from various regions of the country participated in the second session of the meeting; prominent among them were Tarlochan Singh, Naveen Khanna, Meenakshi Jain, and Neeru Kumar.
Supporting the 'One Nation, One Election' concept, the Padma awardees described it as a far-reaching step for the nation's development.
Renowned historian Meenakshi Jain remarked that the frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct stalls development projects in the states. Simultaneous elections will allow development work to continue without interruption, she argued.
Dr. Saumitra Rawat pointed out that the continuous election cycle disrupts academic calendars and the schedules of major entrance exams like NEET.
Dr. Ashok Seth observed that frequent elections necessitate deploying administrative officials and medical staff on election duty, thereby hindering equipment procurement and critical administrative decisions in hospitals.
Some members of civil society, however, cautioned that without appropriate safeguards, the move could lead to uncertainty within the administrative system.
Commenting on the suggestions made by the Padma awardees, Chaudhary noted that they appeared as representatives of civil society and offered valuable insights to the committee.
He said, "Given their diverse experiences, I believe the committee gained rich information and excellent suggestions from them. Their views on 'One Nation, One Election' are extremely significant."
The general consensus among the Padma awardees was that simultaneous elections are in the national interest - provided adequate safeguards are in place - and that the committee should work towards this goal.
Chaudhary added that there appears to be a widespread desire to implement this process. In today's meeting, experts associated with prominent organisations specialising in law and policy, such as 'Nation First Policy Research' and the 'Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy', also offered their suggestions.
These organizations urged the committee to establish clear, legally accountable criteria for postponing state assembly elections, rather than relying on subjective discretion.
They also emphasized the need for parliamentary oversight and fixed timelines in the event of election postponement.
Furthermore, the organizations suggested that to avoid a constitutional vacuum during such delays, the powers exercised under President's Rule and by caretaker governments should be restricted to routine administrative functions.
Between 1951-52 and 1967, elections for the Lok Sabha and all state legislative assemblies in India were held simultaneously. The Fourth Lok Sabha was dissolved prematurely in 1970, and fresh elections were held in 1971. While the first, second, and third Lok Sabhas completed their full five-year terms, the tenure of the fifth Lok Sabha was extended until 1977 due to the declaration of the Emergency (under Article 352).
Since then, only a few Lok Sabhas-specifically the eighth, tenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth-have completed their full five-year terms. Others, such as the sixth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth Lok Sabhas, were dissolved prematurely.
A similar pattern was observed in state legislative assemblies.
