The contentious proposal for 'One Nation, One Election' faced sharp scrutiny from opposition members during a crucial meeting with the Law Commission of India. The commission's chairman, Justice (retd) Ritu Raj Awasthi, was questioned extensively on the rationale and practical challenges of holding simultaneous elections across the country.
Opposition Raises Fundamental Questions
During the interaction held on Monday, opposition parliamentarians did not hold back. They directly challenged the very premise of the initiative, asking Justice Awasthi to clearly explain the pressing need for such a fundamental change in India's electoral cycle. The MPs sought concrete justifications, moving beyond theoretical arguments to understand the tangible benefits and the problems it aims to solve.
Furthermore, the opposition members pointedly asked whether the Law Commission had conducted or studied any independent research on the subject. They inquired if the panel had analyzed the potential impact of simultaneous polls on India's federal structure, the financial costs involved, and the logistical enormity of the task.
The Commission's Stance and Ongoing Process
Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, heading the commission, is currently engaged in a wide-ranging consultation process. The meeting with MPs was part of this broader effort to gather views from various stakeholders on the 'One Nation, One Election' proposal. The Law Commission had previously sought public input on the matter, receiving a substantial number of responses from individuals and organizations.
The government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been a strong proponent of simultaneous elections. It argues that this model would ensure continuity in governance and policy-making, reduce massive election-related expenditure, and minimize the disruption caused by frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct.
Constitutional and Logistical Hurdles Highlighted
Opposition leaders have consistently flagged several major obstacles. A primary concern is the potential undermining of India's federal polity, as the move would tightly couple state elections with the national cycle, possibly diminishing regional issues. They also highlight the constitutional complexity, as synchronizing elections would likely require amendments to the Constitution and possibly the Representation of the People Act.
The logistical challenge is another colossal factor. Organizing elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies at once would demand an unprecedented mobilization of security forces, election officials, and electronic voting machines. Critics also question the mechanism for handling scenarios like a government falling mid-term, asking if it would necessitate imposing President's Rule in a state until the synchronized election date arrives.
The debate around 'One Nation, One Election' remains deeply polarized. While the government and some experts advocate for its long-term advantages, the opposition and other critics demand more clarity on its necessity and a robust plan to address the constitutional and practical ramifications. The Law Commission's final recommendations on this politically sensitive issue are keenly awaited.
