‘One Nation, One Election’ gets constitutional green signal from law commission

At a meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on December 4, Law Commission of India Chairman Justice Dinesh Maheshwari presented a detailed constitutional assessment of the proposed One Nation One Election (ONOE) framework. Addressing key concerns raised by committee members and political parties, Justice Maheshwari stated that the Bill stands on firm constitutional footing and does not infringe upon any element of the Basic Structure doctrine.

Justice Maheshwari told the panel that Parliament possesses complete legislative competence to introduce simultaneous elections, as long as the reform respects the Basic Structure of the Constitution. He clarified that ONOE was fully in line with this requirement. Backing his position with multiple Supreme Court judgments, the Chairman asserted that the proposal represents a policy decision within Parliament’s domain and strengthens administrative efficiency without altering constitutional fundamentals.

Responding to concerns about possible dilution of voter rights due to synchronised polls, the Commission reiterated the Supreme Court’s consistent view that the right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental right. Therefore, harmonising election cycles or adjusting the frequency of elections does not infringe upon citizens’ constitutional liberties.

On the issue of curtailed tenures of Parliament or State Assemblies to facilitate synchronisation, the Commission said the proposed adjustments are minimal, justified, and do not breach constitutional protections, since tenure length is not part of the Basic Structure.

Justice Maheshwari also addressed apprehensions from several federal parties. He emphasised that the Indian Constitution is designed as a quasi-federal system with a clear Union bias, and simultaneously, it explicitly empowers Parliament to legislate on electoral matters for both Parliament and State Assemblies. Therefore, the ONOE proposal, he said, does not disturb the federal balance, nor does it require ratification by states under Article 368(2).

He clarified that since the Bill does not amend any provision central to the federal structure, the procedure for state ratification is not applicable.

The Law Commission also examined concerns related to the enhanced powers proposed for the Election Commission of India (ECI) under clauses 82A(3) and 82A(5). It argued that Article 324 is already a “reservoir of power”, granting the ECI broad and exclusive authority over the conduct of elections. The proposed clauses merely formalise functions the ECI already performs, and therefore, cannot be termed unconstitutional or excessive.

The PP Chaudhary-led Joint Parliamentary Committee has, over the past several months, consulted political parties, constitutional experts, and former Chief Justices. While the idea of ‘One Nation, One Election’ has garnered support from several experts and stakeholders, the Committee has noted that the deeper it examines the proposal, the more complex the administrative and political questions become.

Despite these complexities, the Law Commission’s endorsement marks a major milestone for the government’s ambitious electoral reform agenda.