Joint Committee Examines Election Bill Amid Opposition
The Parliamentary Joint Committee is reviewing the Constitution Amendment Bill concerning the concept of one nation-one election. The committee's role is to evaluate the bill's legal and practical aspects and submit a unified report to Parliament. Currently, in India, Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly elections occur at different times, managed by the Election Commission of India. Consequently, nearly every year sees elections for various Legislative Assemblies. Additionally, local body elections, including Gram Panchayats, are conducted in different states. For the past two decades, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has advocated for simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies nationwide, incorporating this issue into its election manifesto. However, most parties opposing the BJP have consistently resisted this proposal. Considering this opposition, the Constitution Amendment Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee. The committee has convened several meetings, inviting field experts to provide their insights.
The last meeting of the committee was held last Friday, in which two former Chief Justices of India, Shri D.Y. Chandrachud and J.S. Khehar participated and conveyed their views. It is understood that Shri Chandrachud told the committee that the idea of one country-one election is neither against the Constitution nor against the basic structure of the Constitution. However, the proceedings of the meeting of any standing or select committee or joint committee of Parliament are privileged and the conversation or discussion held in it cannot be made public. But the chairman of this committee, Shri P.P. Chaudhary, issued a tweet and made public two pictures of its meeting in which Justice Chandrachud and J.S. Khehar are presenting their views.
Therefore, the portions of the proceedings of the committee meeting also seem to have come out in bits and pieces. If we know the opinion of the former Chief Justices, they clearly said that the present format of the bill may not stand the test of the Constitution because it has given unlimited powers to the Election Commission of India. If the Election Commission loses its temper due to these powers, then it can harm the parliamentary democracy of India. This aspect of the bill is indeed very serious.
In our Constitution, no constitutional institution has been given the freedom to act arbitrarily and everyone has been made accountable in some form or the other. Even the President, the guardian of the Constitution, does not have this freedom and the door to impeach him in the Parliament has been kept open. Therefore, if Justice Chandrachud and Khehar are giving their opinion about the bill with constitutional points, then it cannot be ignored. If we examine the entire matter in the context of the parliamentary electoral history after independence, then it is clear that the idea of one country-one election does not violate any article of the Constitution from any angle. The fact is that in independent India, till 1967, Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections were held together every five years and the voters of India used to cast their votes for both the houses. The maturity of the voters of India is evident from the fact that in 1967, while they gave majority to the Congress party in Lok Sabha, they dethroned it in nine state assemblies. At that time, opposition parties had formed governments together in nine states and forced the Congress to sit in the opposition.
The argument against holding elections all over the country at once is that this will confuse the voters. This argument is completely baseless. Therefore, if we are currently looking for constitutional ways to hold elections to the Vidhan Sabhas and the Lok Sabha simultaneously, then it cannot be called anti-democracy in any way. However, the most opposition against this is coming from the regional parties. Here also we have to take cognizance of the election results of 1967. After these elections, the politics of regional parties started in various states of India. Over time, these parties became very strong in some states. But after this, the trend of holding elections every year somewhere or the other in the country also started, due to which the expenditure of conducting elections also kept increasing.
However, there is nothing wrong in democracy in holding elections repeatedly because in this system the common voter is its master, but holding repeated elections also has an adverse effect on the development of the country. After the implementation of the Model Code of Conduct, the government is bound and government expenditure increases separately. This aspect of the issue is such that the common voter should also pay attention to it. But the real issue is the one towards which the former Chief Justice is drawing attention and saying that in the passion of one country-one election, the Election Commission cannot be given freedom to be free. Therefore, the committee will also have to think deeply on this issue.