‘One Nation, One Election’ has suddenly gathered momentum, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi pushing for it, amid great fanfare. Hype was raised by the Modi Government, following its recent decision to set up the One Nation, On Election Committee under the Chairmanship of former President Ramnath Kovind. Despite the political rhetoric accompanying the advocacy of One Nation, One Election, there is a legal tangle that is inescapable.

Much desirable, as it may sound, it is riddled with legal issues. It is quite complicated and may not be possible to implement this through even a simple Act of Parliament. Probably, the Modi Government may have to bring about Constitutional Amendments, in order to resolve this legal tangle.

Constitutional Amendment is required either to do away with the provision of fixed tenure for the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies provided in the Constitution, or to pave the way for arbitrary dismissal of the State Governments, without the necessity to establish a breakdown of law and order, when the State administration cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. There is no other way in which such a synchronisation of Lok Sabha and Assembly elections can be brought about.

In the Constitution, Article 83 (2) provides for tenure of five years for Lok Sabha from the date of its first sitting. At the same time, once the Government of the day loses a Money Bill or the No-Confidence Motion, it cannot continue in office, even for a day longer in a parliamentary democracy.

In the event an alternative Government-formation is not possible, dissolution of the House and holding of fresh elections is the only way out.

Similarly, Article 172 (1) provides for tenure of five years from the date of first sitting of the State Assembly. The only way out is when a Government falls, or, if it is dismissed under Article 356 of the Constitution, on grounds of Constitutional breakdown in the State and an alternative Government-formation not being possible. When the House is dissolved and fresh elections are held within six months of the dissolution.

The Karnataka Government was formed in May, 2023. Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh Assembly elections were held just a year ago. There is no ground for dissolutions of these State Assemblies. Without dissolution of these Assemblies, there can be no synchronisation of Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. And even

Primarily, One Nation, One Election means synchronisation of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections. Assuming that after the simultaneous elections, a State Government loses Trust Vote in the Assembly and an alternative Government cannot be formed, what is the way out?

Will it remain under President’s Rule for the rest of the tenure? In the eventuality of such a situation developing at the Centre, there is no provision for President’s Rule at the Centre.

Article 75 (3) provides that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, or House of the People at the Centre. Article 164 (2) provides a similar responsibility for the Council of Ministers to the State Assembly.

Primarily, the Government remains in office, so long as it enjoys the confidence of the House. This is at the core of the parliamentary system of democracy of the Westminster model that India adopted soon after Independence on August 15, 1947.

However, such fixed tenure does not go well at all in a parliamentary system, based on the Westminster model that India has adopted and so successfully runs since her Independence, emerging as the world's largest democracy.

Under the Constitution, the term of an elected Assembly cannot be extended. It was done only once during the Emergency, when Lok Sabha tenure, due to expire in 1976, was extended till 1977. It is only during an Emergency that the tenure of the House can be extended to a maximum of one year, at a time.

Tenure of the House cannot be shortened either, unless in the extreme situation of breakdown of Constitutional machinery and where the State Government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution.

The idea of fixed tenure for the Lok Sabha or the State Assemblies, which is advocated by the proponents of One Nation, One Election, goes against the very essence of parliamentary democracy, where the Government ceases to be in power, once it loses the confidence of the House.

Another theory of its protagonists is that the House can be asked to elect its leader, in the Lok Sabha or the State Assembly, as the case may be. But this militates against the very grain of multi-party democracy followed in India.

The idea of fixed tenure is fine, only perhaps in a Presidential form of Government, as in the United States of America. For instance, in case of incumbent US President dying while in office, as in the case of John F Kennedy, who was assassinated on November 22, 1963, his Vice-President Lyndon B Johnson became the US President for the remainder of his tenure in office; or, in case of resignation, as Richard M Nixon stepping down in August, 1974, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, when his Vice-President Gerald Ford became the US President for the remainder of the term.

In the midst of this entire episode, there has been a breach of a well-settled convention of former Presidents of India not taking up any active assignment after their retirement. The President is the appointing authority of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

After retirement, they should keep away from taking up any assignment that is under the Government. This practice of not taking up any assignment after their retirement was followed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, V. V. Giri, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, Giani Zail Singh, R. Venkataraman, Dr. Shanka Dayal Sharma, K. R. Narayanan, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, Pratibha Patil and Pranab Mukherjee. None of them took up any active assignment after their retirement.

Former President Ramnath Kovind being named as head of a Committee on One Nation, One Election is unprecedented and violates a time-honoured convention. As former Head of State, he cannot accept a post under a Government. It is tantamount to demeaning the status of a former President.

Venkat Parsa is a veteran journalist. Views expressed are the writer’s own.

Latest News