One Nation, One Election: Constitutional Feasibility and Federal Implications in India

INTRODUCTION

The concept of “One Nation, One Election” means the simultaneous conduct of elections to the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies. Under this system, elections would be held once every five years across India. It allows voters to participate in a single electoral process, which may reduce administrative expenditure and the burden on the government. However, this idea may also create challenges for the administrative machinery. In a country like India, with a very large population and diverse conditions, managing simultaneous elections can be extremely difficult. There is also a possibility of law-and-order issues, which may disrupt the administrative structure of the country.

Many countries follow this system in practice like South Africa, Sweden, Belgium, Indonesia, Brazil and etc. for these countries this system is neither new nor impractical in constitutional democracies. 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The proposal to restore simultaneous elections in India has been revived by the Modi-led BJP government, aiming to reintroduce a system that was followed from 1952 to 1967. However, due to increasing political instability, this practice was discontinued. Major events contributing to this disruption included the dismissal of the Communist government in Kerala in 1959, the dissolution of the Haryana government in 1968, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s decision to dissolve the Lok Sabha in 1970, which led to early elections in 1971. As a result, elections were no longer conducted simultaneously.

The idea was first formally proposed by the Law Commission of India in 1983, which highlighted the administrative disruptions and financial burden caused by frequent elections. Despite this recommendation, the proposal did not receive widespread political acceptance at that time. The issue gained renewed attention in 2016, when a committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind was constituted to examine the feasibility of implementing One Nation, One Election in India. 

RAMNATH KOVIND REPORT

The Government of India constituted a High-Level Committee on One Nation, One Election on 2 September 2023, under the chairmanship of former President of India, Shri Ram Nath Kovind.

The panel also included members such as Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Ghulam Nabi Azad, N.K. Singh, Subhash C. Kashyap, and senior advocate Harish Salve.

After 191 days of research, consultation and feedback, the committee prepared its report. The report was submitted to the President of India, Smt. Droupadi Murmu, at Rashtrapati Bhavan  

RECOMMENDATIONS 

• The committee recommended that elections to the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies should be conducted simultaneously. It further suggested that municipal and panchayat elections should be held within 100 days of the national and state elections.
• For effective implementation of simultaneous elections, the report proposed the introduction of a new constitutional provision, such as Article 324A, to provide a legal framework for synchronized elections.
• According to the report, the concept of One Nation, One Election can be implemented by the year 2029 across all levels of government.
• The committee observed that there was a unanimous opinion among its members that One Nation, One Election would bring significant reforms in the electoral system and governance structure.
• The panel also highlighted several possible benefits, including reduction in election-related expenditure, less administrative disruption, and the potential to enhance GDP growth and ensure a more stable governance system.

CONSTITUTIONAL FEASIBILITY

Yes, there is constitutional feasibility for the implementation of One Nation One Election (ONOE) under the Indian Constitution, subject to appropriate constitutional amendments and safeguards.

Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures in the Election Commission of India (ECI), enabling it to conduct simultaneous elections across the country.

Articles 327 and 328 empower Parliament and State Legislatures respectively to make laws relating to elections. These provisions provide legislative competence to frame a uniform electoral framework necessary for ONOE.

However, to synchronize elections, amendments may be required in provisions relating to:

Duration of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies (Articles 83 and 172),

Premature dissolution and extension of terms, which must be carried out under Article 368.

The Supreme Court in Kesavan Anda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) held that Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, ONOE must not dilute core principles such as democracy, federalism, and free and fair elections.

Further, in Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Court recognized the wide powers of the Election Commission under Article 324, supporting administrative feasibility of simultaneous elections.  

CHALLENGES

Constitutional Challenges

1. The implementation of One Nation One Election (ONOE) raises several constitutional concerns. First, it would require the reduce or extension of the existing terms of many legislatures which would violate the article 172(1). Under the proposed 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill, several State Legislative Assemblies may have their terms either extended beyond five years or shorten to align with the term of the Lok Sabha.
2. For instance, the Law Commission’s analysis highlights that significantly shorter legislative terms sometimes even less than a year could impair governance, as ministers and governments may not get sufficient time to formulate and implement policies effectively.
3. Second, the Bill empowers the Election Commission of India (ECI) to recommend the postponement of elections. At present, under Article 356, postponement of elections is permissible only under exceptional circumstances and requires Parliamentary approval.  Opposition argue that the proposed framework lowers the threshold for deferring State elections. Under this mechanism, the President, acting on the advice of the ECI, could potentially delay a state legislature’s election without effective parliamentary oversight.
4. The PRS Legislative Research memorandum cautions that if such powers are not carefully restricted, they may result in a situation where a State is left without a legitimately elected legislative assembly, thereby raising serious concerns for democratic governance and federalism.  

Federalism Challenges

1. On the issue of federalism, constitutional experts disagree on whether One Nation, One Election (ONOE) affects the basic structure of the Constitution. According to the basic structure doctrine, laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its essential features such as federalism and democracy.
2. Some scholars and opposition leaders argue that holding elections together would reduce the independence of states. They believe it would shift attention from local and regional issues to national-level politics. According to them, each state should have the freedom to decide its own election schedule, and ONOE could increase the dominance of the Centre in electoral matters.
3. On the other hand, the 23rd Law Commission (2025) reportedly stated that the proposed ONOE amendments do not violate the basic structure. The Commission explained that these changes only affect the timing and frequency of elections, not the right to vote or the federal structure itself. It clarified that aligning the terms of state legislatures with Parliament, even if it means shortening a term, does not take away the people’s right to free, fair, and regular elections, and democratic accountability remains intact and preserve under India Parliamentary system.

Administrative Challenges

1. If the Indian government implements One Nation, One Election, the process would initially be difficult and complex, because elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies are presently held at different times. Aligning these cycles would inevitably lead to a clash of existing tenures of several assemblies.
2. To synchronize elections, the government would have to either curtail or extend the terms of certain State Assemblies, which raises constitutional, political, and federal concerns. Managing simultaneous elections across all levels would also place enormous pressure on the Election Commission, security forces, and administrative machinery, making the transition phase potentially chaotic if not carefully phased.
3. However, it is important to note that this difficulty would be temporary. Once synchronization is achieved through constitutional amendments and a phased roadmap, subsequent elections would become more streamlined. Thus, while ONOE is administratively challenging in the short term, the long-term feasibility depends on careful planning, legal backing, and political consensus, rather than restarting the system 

ADVANTAGES

Supporters of One Nation, One Election say it has many benefits. One major benefit is saving money. The Election Commission and government reports point out that holding different elections over five years costs a lot. For example, a Standing Committee estimated that about ₹4,500 crore was spent on Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in 2015–16. The Law Commission and a High-Level Committee have also said that holding elections together would save public money and reduce repeated spending on election arrangements like security, polling staff, and logistics.

A recent High-Level Committee report (March 2024) noted that frequent elections can increase inflation and disturb normal economic activities. In contrast, simultaneous elections could bring stability, continuity in governance, and improve investor confidence.

Administrative Advantages

1. Another benefit of holding elections at the same time is better administration. At present, state and central government staff are busy with election work almost every year. This includes civil servants and paramilitary forces, which affects normal government work. If elections are held together, this burden will be limited to one fixed period.
2. According to the High-Level Committee, this would allow government officers to focus more on implementing policies instead of constantly preparing for elections. It would also reduce “policy paralysis,” because the Model Code of Conduct would apply only once during a single election period, rather than being imposed again and again. This means government work and development projects would not be repeatedly stopped. A PRS report also notes that supporters believe synchronized elections would ensure continuity in policies and smooth, uninterrupted development.

Political Advantages

1. Political stability is often given as a key reason for holding elections at the same time. Many bodies, from the Constituent Assembly to present-day committees, have said that stable government needs fixed and predictable election schedules. If mid-term elections are reduced, governments can usually complete their full term, which makes governance stronger and more stable. The High-Level Committee clearly stated that simultaneous elections would bring stability and certainty in governance. 
2. Some experts also believe that if elections are held less frequently, voters may feel less tired of voting, and voter turnout could increase, although opinions on this differ.
3. The High-Level Committee and other groups suggested a step-by-step approach to implement One Nation, One Election. First, elections to Parliament and State Assemblies should be held together. After that, local body elections can be included within 100 days of the general elections. This gradual method could help bring uniformity to India’s election system, such as having a single electoral roll and one voter ID for all levels.  

CASE LAWS

• In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Supreme Court said that free and fair elections are a basic part of the Constitution. It also gave wide powers to the Election Commission to conduct elections properly and honestly. This shows that elections can be managed in an organized and coordinated way. 
• In Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad (2006), the Court clearly stated that elections must be held on time. Delaying elections weakens democracy. This supports the idea of having fixed and predictable election schedules.
• In SR Bomani v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of stable governments. It warned against dissolving elected governments without strong reasons. This principle is important when talking about fixed and synchronized election terms.
• In A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984), the Court held that elections must follow the Constitution and election laws strictly. This means that One Nation, One Election can be implemented only after proper legal and constitutional amendments, without harming democratic principles. 

CONCULSION

The idea of One Nation, One Election is a good concept, but it is difficult to implement in a country like India. It may change the existing democratic process and can be seen as a step towards reform in the election system. However, its implementation will take a long time because some legislative assemblies may need to shorten or extend their tenure. According to opposition leaders, this proposal is impractical due to India’s diversity and is viewed as a threat to democracy and a possible attempt at power centralization. One Nation, One Election can reduce frequent elections and save public money.

It may help governments focus more on development rather than continuous campaigning.

However, India’s federal structure and political diversity make its implementation complex.

Changes in the tenure of legislatures may raise constitutional and democratic concerns.

Broad political consensus and constitutional safeguards are essential before implementation.

Therefore, while the idea has potential benefits, it must be adopted carefully to protect democratic values and federal balance.