The issue of simultaneous elections, which has been hanging fire for over a decade, has now been placed on the precipice of the Red Fort by the Prime Minister in his Independence Day speech this year. He has renewed his resolve to implement the idea as soon as possible, most likely by the 2029 general elections.
As far back as in 2013, even before becoming the prime minister, Narendra Modi had reiterated the demand for simultaneous elections for several reasons, mainly because of the exorbitant costs and disruption of normal development activity. Since then, several committees have gone into the subject and have not been able to find an acceptable solution. The last such effort is a high-level committee headed by the former president of India, Ram Nath Kovind. The mandate of this committee was not to debate the pros and cons of the proposal, but to suggest concrete ways to implement it.
The committee presented a detailed report in record time, as mandated. Notified on September 2, 2023, it worked on the subject for 191 days and gave its 18,626 page-long report on March 14, 2024. Its members included eminent persons from diverse backgrounds. It invited suggestions from registered political parties and experts on law, including former chief justices, former chief election commissioners and state election commissioners.
Suggestions were also invited from the public. The Bar Council of India, Confederation of Indian Industry, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, etc, were all given the opportunity to present their points of view.
According to the report, 21,558 responses were received, of which 80 per cent were in favour of simultaneous elections. Responses were also received from 47 political parties, of whom 32 favoured the system and 15 opposed it, calling it anti-democratic and anti-federal. The opposing political parties expressed apprehensions that it will marginalise regional parties, encourage the dominance of national parties and result in a presidential form of government. Based on these inputs and in-depth research, an analysis was undertaken.
Those supporting simultaneous elections were of the opinion that separate elections cause a waste of resources. Though the majority of expert opinion held that amendments would need to be made to the Constitution and related laws, they emphasised that such amendments will not be anti-democratic or anti-federal, they will not be opposed to the basic structure of the Constitution, and will not result in a presidential form of government.
The best thing about the Report is that it is exhaustive (with annexures in 21 volumes), and has faithfully reproduced all opinions, past and present, making it an extremely useful document. The committee gave a unanimous opinion that there should be simultaneous elections in the country. It proposed necessary amendments to the Constitution and relevant laws. It suggested a new article in the Constitution, namely 82A, which says, “notwithstanding anything contained in Articles 83 and 172, all the legislative assemblies constituted in any general election held after the appointed date shall come to an end on the expiry of the full term of the house of the people”. In an explanation, the committee clarified that the expression “simultaneous elections” shall mean general election comprising Lok Sabha and all Vidhan Sabha elections together — leaving out Panchayat elections. For the latter, it proposes elections “within hundred days”.
With due respect, that does not amount to simultaneous elections. In fact, the proposed remedy is worse than the disease. First, you are leaving out over three million elected representatives against the 5,000 included. Then, an election three months later is a new election, with all the required “bandobast”. Polling stations will have to be set up again, polling parties will have to be selected and trained and security deployed all over again. All within three months, when the 15 million staff would have hardly recovered from the fatigue of what is officially described as the largest management exercise in the world. More importantly, the voters would have to come to the booth again. Many of them cannot come from outside so quickly again.
The report also says, “where any state legislative assembly is dissolved on account of no confidence motion, a hung house, or any other event, fresh elections will be held for such new house with tenure ending with that of the house of the people.” This doesn’t obviate a midterm poll. Imagine candidates spending crores of rupees on an election for a truncated term — as low as one to two years. This is certainly not a simultaneous election.
The committee has, however, done well to re-emphasise the need for a single electoral roll, through amendment to Article 325, since the voters for all three tiers are the same. This virtually transfers the local bodies’ electoral rolls to the ECI “in consultation with State Election Commissioners” — certainly not an uncomplicated task.
The committee has noted the EC’s “detailed requirements of equipment such as EVM, VVPAT, polling personnel, security forces, election materials etc” along with expenditure estimates. Although I couldn’t find the amount, it’s obvious that we will need at least three times the number of current EVMs and VVPATs. Their cost would be tremendous and should have been spelt out and commented upon, since cutting costs was basically one of the main reasons for the proposal.
With such dilution, the proposal for simultaneous elections has lost its moral authority. Playing with an established democratic system and the Constitution is a questionable exercise. If the proposal was sincere, why have all the elections been prolonged in the last 10 years? Why have Himachal and Gujarat elections, which were always held simultaneously, been repeatedly segregated and why have the pending elections not been clubbed, as was always the practice? It puts a question mark on the sincerity of the proposal put forward in the name of national interest. The next logical demand could be, why not one nation one political party, or one nation one leader.
On a side note, many people have questioned dragging the former President of India into what is obviously a sarkari committee. They consider it disrespect to the highest constitutional post. I had also repeatedly expressed my concern that dragging the former Rashtrapati into a government committee was inappropriate. Everyone knows that all government committee reports are subject to clerical scrutiny by a section officer and judicial scrutiny, if challenged. But that is besides the point.
The writer is former Chief Election Commissioner of India and author of India’s Experiment with Democracy — the Life of a Nation Through its Elections
