One Nation, One Election: Federalism, Accountability, and Constitutional Challenges in India

Abstract

India is a democratic country; thus, it is essential for the framework to be supportive of its citizens and states. Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections have been held at different times by the Election Commission of India since Independence. This reflects their commitment to fairness and transparency. However, the nature of elections has sparked some controversies among citizens, prompting the introduction of One Nation, One Election—a newer structure conducting simultaneous elections for both tiers of government, where voters cast ballots for both on the same day, thus reducing political challenges, costs, and disruptions from frequent elections.[1]

Introduction

The concept of One Nation, One Election is not new to India; simultaneous elections for both tiers of government were conducted from 1951 to 1967. The first general election occurred in 1951–52, and this continued in 1957, 1962, and 1967. However, this cycle was disrupted by the premature dissolution of several state legislative assemblies and the Lok Sabha, followed by new elections in 1971. The first, second, and third Lok Sabhas completed their full five-year terms, unlike the Fifth Lok Sabha, whose term was extended until 1977 due to the emergency declared under Article 352. Since then, only some have lasted their full term, while others were dissolved early. Premature dissolutions and term extensions have posed recurring challenges, disrupting development and leading to fragmented electoral cycles across India.

A high-level committee was constituted by the Government of India on 2^nd  September 2023, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, to examine simultaneous elections. It formulated a report based on extensive discussions and released it accordingly.

 Key Takeaways

1. Responses

• Public: Over 80% of responses favored simultaneous elections due to time savings and reduced fatigue. Of 21,500 total responses, most came from Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh.
• Political Parties: Of 47 responses, 32 supported simultaneous elections (citing financial savings and focus on core duties), while 15 opposed (citing risks like financial constraints due to the vast structure).
• Experts: Former Chief Justices of India and Election Commissioners were consulted; most supported the proposal, emphasizing wasted resources and disruptions from frequent elections.
• Overall Analysis: After extensive discussions, the Committee recommended amending Articles 82A and 324A of the Indian Constitution to enable simultaneous elections.

2. Phases

• Phase 1: Simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.
• Phase 2: Synchronizing Municipal and Panchayat elections with Lok Sabha and State Legislative elections within 100 days.

3. Electoral Rolls

• The Committee identified inefficiencies in electoral rolls prepared by the Election Commission and recommended a single electoral roll and EPIC across all government levels.

Advantages of Simultaneous Elections

1. Consistency

During ongoing elections, governments—including political leaders and legislators—focus entirely on campaign preparations, neglecting state governance. Simultaneous elections would allow governments to prioritize implementing developmental policies for public welfare.

2. Prevention of Policy Paralysis

Simultaneous elections prevent policy paralysis, as the Model Code of Conduct would be enforced once rather than repeatedly, avoiding disruptions to essential policy implementation from frequent elections.

3. Reduced Personnel Deployment

Frequent elections divert personnel to election duties, stressing core functions. Simultaneous elections enable personnel to focus on primary responsibilities without repeated diversions.

4. Benefits for Regional Parties

Simultaneous elections provide regional parties equal opportunities to highlight their core issues and concerns, preventing overshadowing by larger national parties during campaigns.

5. Political Diversification

Simultaneous elections create diverse opportunities for political workers to represent their parties, curbing monopolization by larger parties and ensuring equitable representation.

6. Reduction in Financial Burden

Conducting simultaneous elections significantly reduces costs for resource deployment, manpower, and campaigning, fostering a more cost-effective political environment.

Challenges of Simultaneous Elections

1. Financial Constraints

Implementing simultaneous elections faces significant financial, legal, and constitutional hurdles, particularly given India’s diverse culture and geography, potentially wasting valuable resources.

2. Constitutional Amendments

Constitutional amendments are required, needing ratification by state legislatures and union territories, which poses a major challenge.

3. Term Alignment

Aligning state assembly terms with the Lok Sabha’s term is challenging, as it requires coordination and compromise between different tiers of government.

4. Bye-Elections

If a Lok Sabha or state assembly dissolves prematurely, holding fresh elections across all states would be unfair and create logistical confusion and chaos.[2]

Accountability under Simultaneous Elections

• During frequent elections, the public can scrutinize government actions and reward or punish state leaders accordingly. This cultivates accountability among state assemblies and the Lok Sabha. However, simultaneous elections compress judgment into a single day, overshadowing regional issues with national concerns.
• Supporters argue that continuous elections lead to endless campaigning and populist moves, while opponents suggest that frequent elections enable voters to provide regular feedback without waiting until the final vote, thereby keeping leaders on track.[3]

Coalition Politics and Government Stability

• The no-confidence rule stabilizes governments and prevents mid-term collapses unless another coalition is ready to take power as an alternative. This discourages parties from forming coalitions or withdrawing support for strategic advantage.
• The problem is that if dissolving a government is difficult and elections occur only every five years, a weak coalition can remain in power until the next election. In India’s multi-party system, this policy could strengthen national parties while making it harder for regional parties to influence policy implementation during mid-term changes.[4]

Anti-Defection Law in Synchronized Elections

• The Anti-Defection Law disqualifies MPs and MLAs who defect from their party. Simultaneous elections would complicate enforcement: while rebels can be disqualified immediately, replacement elections cannot occur mid-term, forcing constituencies to remain unrepresented until the next cycle.

Perspective on Democratic Principles

• The Constitution of India upholds parliamentary democracy, where governments remain in power only as long as they enjoy legislative confidence. Free and fair elections and parliamentary democracy form part of the basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be altered even by amendments.
• Implementing One Nation, One Election would require several amendments that conflict with these democratic principles:

1. Informed Voting

Political literacy remains low among Indian voters; terms like “parliamentary elections” and “Lok Sabha” confuse many. Requiring voters to cast ballots for both national and state candidates simultaneously would exacerbate confusion, violating their fundamental right to informed voting and potentially creating chaos.

2. Tenure

Extending or shortening the tenure of elected bodies directly contravenes the will of voters who elected representatives for a fixed five-year term, breaching public trust and consent.

Perspectives on Federalism

• Implementing ONOE would require extending or shortening many state legislative assemblies to align with the Lok Sabha’s tenure nationwide.
• Articles 83 and 172 of the Indian Constitution specify that these bodies “shall continue for five years and no longer.” The phrase “no longer” was deliberately included to ensure terms cannot be extended or shortened except during national emergencies. Thus, the current Constitution prohibits tenure alterations.[5]
• Possible solutions include:

1. Amending the Constitution to permit tenure extensions.
2. Dissolving assemblies prematurely.

Statutory Perspective

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides a legal framework for the rules and conditions of the electoral processes in India. It also sets out the duties and responsibilities of the Election Commission to oversee elections in the country. The Act further lays down the criteria that have to be met by individuals in order to become members of Parliament, members of the Legislative Assembly, the machinery for conducting elections, and the autonomous body to adjudicate election-related disputes. 

Also, Section 14 of the Act provides for the notification of general elections to the Lok Sabha. However, there is a rule that if a general election is conducted without the dissolution of the previous Lok Sabha, then the notification for such election should not be issued earlier than six months before the expiration of the House, in accordance with Article 83(2) of the Indian Constitution. 

On the other hand, Section 15(2) of the Act provides a set of guidelines for State Legislatures. This provision empowers the ECI to announce elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislatures up to six months before the expiry of their normal terms, without curtailing the duration of their tenure. This statutory framework reveals the proper planning and execution of elections, thereby reflecting the transparency and precision of the legislation governing India’s democratic framework.[6]

International Views on Simultaneous Election

• Countries like South Africa, Germany, and Sweden offer insights into synchronized elections.

1. South Africa

National Assembly and provincial legislature elections occur concurrently every five years. This provides stability but risks overshadowing provincial responsibilities, as national issues often dominate.

2. Germany

Bundestag and state legislature elections occur at different intervals, but the Chancellor is elected alongside the Bundestag. Federalism and coalition politics ensure states receive equal representation, prioritizing legal responsibilities.

3. Sweden

Elections for centralized and decentralized bodies occur every four years, enhancing governance efficiency. However, critics argue it overshadows regional representation, as national results take priority.

4. Indonesia

Conducting separate polls for decades, Indonesia finally shifted its elections to be conducted simultaneously in 2019. Its first election was held in 1955, following independence, where the president was picked by lawmakers until direct votes came into the picture in 2004. Local elections for governors and mayors used to happen at different times across the country. The Constitutional Court ruled in 2013 to conduct national, regional, and local elections at the same time to cut costs and disruptions.

The 2019 polls set a record for women in office, enhancing representation; however, they faced logistical complications such as delays in participation.

Recommendations

The Law Commission Report (1999) and Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2015) addressed simultaneous elections. The Law Commission’s 2018 draft proposed:

• Merging Lok Sabha elections with nearly half of state legislative assemblies in one cycle, while holding the remaining state assembly elections separately after 2.5 years.
• Requiring a mandatory confidence motion alongside any no-confidence motion to form an alternative government. If the Lok Sabha or state assembly dissolves prematurely, the new house serves only the remaining term, encouraging MPs and MLAs to form alternative governments.
• Conducting bye-elections (due to death, resignation, or disqualification) collectively once a year.[7]

Case Laws

1. R. Bommai v Union of India (1994)

• A 9-judge bench ruling limited misuse of Article 356, making President’s Rule justiciable and mandating floor tests to determine majority.
• Judicial Review: Proclamations are challengeable if irrelevant; floor tests, not the Governor’s opinion, determine majority.
• Basic Structure: State autonomy in Lists II and III (education, health, law and order) is protected; the Centre cannot interfere politically.
• Article 356 Restrictions: Applicable only for genuine constitutional breakdowns, not policy differences.

2. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973)

• This case introduced the concept of the doctrine of basic structure, which ruled that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not absolute and cannot change the Constitution’s essential features. A bench of 13 judges ruled that Parliament can amend even the fundamental rights but not the Constitution’s basic structure, which can be declared void.

1. Features of basic structure

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Democracy of the government
• Federalism
• Secularism and rule of law
• Individual dignity and judicial review

2. Impact

• Kesavananda challenged Kerala regarding its land reforms, thereby expanding the scope of power over property rights. The doctrine has since protected the democracy and federalism of India’s Constitution by invalidating the amendments in Minerva Mills and others.

Conclusion

Implementing One Nation, One Election offers both benefits and risks. Benefits include financial savings, personnel focusing on core duties, and voter convenience. Risks encompass financial constraints, overshadowing regional issues, and reduced voter turnout.

To mitigate risks and make ONOE viable, consider:

1. Imposing strict limits on resource usage and expenditure.
2. Restricting participation of high-level government officials and machinery in election campaigns.
3. Enforcing stringent controls on election speeches.

Currently, ONOE conflicts with India’s basic structure concerning federalism and democratic principles. It would be feasible only with flexible tenure adjustments. While promising fewer elections, it creates rigidity: mid-term government collapses would trigger additional polls and disruptions, proving inconvenient overall. Thus, it requires extensive debate by highest government authorities and the public to ensure transparency and accountability before any final decision. However, simultaneous elections would show India’s commitment to democracy. It is by respecting the will of the people so that the governance runs at ease without election breaks. It is basically merging the voting into a single poll, thus letting the implementation of the developmental policies to continue without frequent polls.

References

[1] Press Information Bureau, Government of India, ‘One Nation, One Election’ (Press release, 19 November 2025) < https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2085082&reg=3&lang=2 > accessed 14 December 2025

[2]  ClearTax, ‘What is One Nation One Election, How Does it Work …’ (ClearTax, 2 September 2025) <https://cleartax.in/s/one-nation-one-election> accessed 17 December 2025

[3] Priyanshi Manyura, ‘The Impact of “One Nation, One Election” on Political Accountability and Voter Engagement in India: A Comparative Study’ (2025) 2(7) Indian J Legal Res 18 <  https://www.ijlra.com/details/the-impact-of-one-nation-one-election-on-political-accountability-and-voter-engagement-in-india-a-comparative-study-by-priyanshi-manyura > accessed 20 December 2025

[4] NUJS Law Review, ‘Response Paper and Recommendations to the 2024 HLC Report on Simultaneous Elections’ (June 2025) <https://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/NUJSLR_Simultaneous-Elections-Report.pdf> accessed 18 December 2025

[5] Yugant Rane and Sarvesh Nayak, ‘Federalism, Democracy, and the Idea of One Nation One Election’ (Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, 5 October 2020) <https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/federalism-democracy-and-the-idea-of-one-nation-one-election/> accessed 20 December 2025

[6] Shikhar Singh, ‘One Nation One Election: An Extensive Analysis and Possible Solution’ (Academike, Lawctopus, 23 September 2018) <https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/one-nation-one-election-an-extensive-analysis-and-possible-solution/> accessed 20 December 2025

[7] R. Rangarajan, ‘The Pros and Cons of Simultaneous Elections’ The Hindu (New Delhi, 29 January 2024) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-pros-and-cons-of-simultaneous-elections-explained/article67790554.ece> accessed 17 December 2025.