Amid stiff pushback from opposition parties, citing an assault on federalism and the basic structure doctrine, two bills paving the way for “One Nation, One Election” were introduced in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, December 17. The two bills – the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill) 2024 – were introduced by union minister for law and justice (independent charge) Arjun Ram Meghwal after a division of votes was called opposing the introduction of the legislations itself. The bills were then introduced after 269 MPs voted in favour of their introduction and 198 voted against.
The union cabinet had in September approved the report by the high-level committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind on the “One Nation, One Election” proposal that recommended simultaneous polls in the country to the Lok Sabha, state assemblies as well as local bodies (including panchayats and municipalities). The report was compiled after taking responses from 47 political parties, of which 15 opposed the exercise.
The Wire had earlier reported that in the 18,626-page report, the committee recommended the conduct of simultaneous elections in two steps. In the first step, simultaneous elections will be held to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies and in the second, elections will be held to the municipalities and panchayat bodies within 100 days of the elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
Assault on federalism and basic structure
Several notices had been submitted under Clauses 72(1) and 72(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha that allow any member to give prior notices opposing the introduction of a Bill. Opposition members, including from the Congress, Samajwadi Party, Trinamool Congress, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Shiv Sena (UBT), Nationalist Congress Party (SP), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP), opposed its introduction while the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s allies, the Telugu Desam Party and Shiv Sena supported the legislations.
Opposing the introduction of the bills, citing the basic structure doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court in its 1973 judgement in the Kesavanda Bharati case, Congress MP Manish Tewari said that the legislations are an assault on the doctrine and federalism. “Beyond the 7th Schedule of the Constitution is the Basic Structure doctrine and that spells out that there are certain features of the Indian Constitution which are beyond the amending powers of this house,” he said.
“One of the essential features is federalism and the structure of our democracy. The bills that have been introduced by the minister absolutely assault the basic structure of the Constitution and are beyond the legislative competence of this House and therefore they need to be opposed and the introduction of the bills need to be stopped,” Tewari stated.
He added that India is a union of states, and the “excessive centralism which is sought to be brought into existence with this bill absolutely militates against the constitutional scheme in its essence, entirety and its very object.”
Also read: Four Ex-CECs Who Backed ‘One Nation, One Election’ Faced Questions of Independence
All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen MP Asaduddin Owaisi said that this bill “violates the right to democratic self governance.”
“If a legislative assembly is dissolved and mid-term elections are conducted, the tenure of that assembly will not be for five years. This itself is a violation of parliamentary democracy. The Constitution makes it clear that once elected, the House should have the right to function for five years. This is a violation of basic structure that such a provision is being done for administrative convenience and not constitutional purpose,” Owaisi stated.
“The principle of federalism means that the states are not mere appendages of the centre, states are not dependent on it for its existence. This is a violation of basic structure,” he added.
RSP MP N.K. Premachandran said that the legislations attack the “basic roots of federalism.”
“The provisions of the bill are uncertain and not clear regarding the conduct of elections in the legislative assembly subsequent to the notification making the appointed date. Drastic structural change is being proposed, all the states should have been consulted properly before bringing this legislation. By virtue of this bill if made into law the state legislative assembly will become subordinates to the House of the People and the union government. That is essentially against basic principles of federalism,” Premachandran stated.
“After the appointed date in 2029, 17 state assembly elections are to take place. There is nothing in the bills regarding the tenure of the legislative assemblies subsequent to the appointed date notification. Nothing is clear,” he added.
IUML MP E.T. Mohammad Basheer said that “this is really an attack on democracy, federalism and the Constitution of India.” He added, “If this proposal is implemented then some states will have tenures of less than three years which is against the vision, mandate of the voters of this country. The significance of local issues will be undermined.”
‘Ready to send to Joint Parliamentary Committee’
While several opposition members demanded that the bills, if they have to be brought, be sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) first, union home minister Amit Shah said that the government is ready to do so.
“When the constitutional amendment was being discussed in the cabinet, Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself said that it should be sent to a JPC and there should be wider consultations. If the minister agrees it should be sent to JPC, and when its report will be approved by the cabinet, again discussions will take place. So this discussion can be ended here,” said Shah.
While the bills were introduced after the division of votes, a motion to send it to a JPC was not brought on Tuesday.
‘No two-thirds majority for introduction’
Meanwhile, following the introduction of the bills, Congress MP Manickam Tagore alleged that the bills were introduced despite the government not having two-thirds majority during the division of votes.
“Two-thirds majority (307) was needed out of the total 461 votes, but the government secured only 263, while the opposition got 198. The ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal failed to gain two-thirds support,” he wrote on X.
According to former Lok Sabha secretary general P.D.T Achary, however, a special majority which implies 50% of the total membership of the Lok Sabha and a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting is required.
“At the introduction stage, two-thirds majority is not required. It is actually when the House takes it up for consideration that it is required to have a special majority,” he told The Wire.