Former CJI Gavai Backs Simultaneous Elections Bill as Constitutional
Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai informed a parliamentary committee on Thursday that the proposed simultaneous elections bill does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Gavai, who became the sixth former CJI to appear before the joint committee of Parliament chaired by BJP MP PP Chaudhary, emphasized that if enacted, the bill would not impact the federal structure or democratic governance.
Legal Experts Support the Bill's Constitutionality
Sources familiar with the deliberations revealed that Gavai stated the bill is in consonance with the basic structure of the Constitution. He explained that the one-nation-one-election bill, officially known as the 129th Constitution (amendment) Bill, only alters the timing of elections once, while preserving the structure of polls and voter rights unchanged.
Enthused by Gavai's endorsement, committee head PP Chaudhary urged opposition parties to join the ruling alliance in supporting the bill. He argued that this move is in the national interest and called for political interests to be set aside to crystallize the proposed law, which aims to synchronize Lok Sabha and assembly elections.
Historical Context and Opposition Concerns
Gavai noted that India conducted simultaneous elections until 1967, providing historical precedent for the proposal. He also rejected criticism questioning Parliament's mandate, asserting that the legislature has the authority to enact such legislation, even as it affects states.
However, the entire bloc of opposition parties has condemned the bill, labeling it an attack on India's federal structure and challenging the government's supporting arguments. Despite this, Chaudhary highlighted that most legal experts have found no constitutional errors in the bill, reinforcing its viability.
The ongoing discussions underscore a significant political and legal debate over the future of India's electoral system, with proponents arguing for efficiency and opponents raising federalism concerns.
