Overview of the 'One Nation, One Election' Bill
Two Former Chief Justices of India presented their views on the 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) Bill to the Joint Committee of Parliament. They asserted that the Bill does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution but emphasized that the current form may face challenges concerning the powers granted to the Election Commission of India.
Discussion Highlights
- The Bill was examined provision by provision, discussing broader constitutional, moral, and political implications.
- Justice Khehar highlighted the opportunity for nation-building through this Bill, encouraging its adoption.
Key Concerns Raised
- Silence on scenarios such as state emergencies or premature elections.
- Potential dilution of local issues in simultaneous elections.
- Justice Chandrachud used the language issue as an example of a regional matter potentially gaining national significance in simultaneous polls.
- Legal challenges and redrafts were proposed, particularly concerning the powers of the Election Commission and no-confidence motions.
Constitutional Observations
- Justice Chandrachud noted that asynchronous elections are not a constitutional mandate for free and fair elections.
- Justice Khehar and Chandrachud both referenced the historical precedent of simultaneous elections in India.
- Article 82A (1) was discussed, indicating no constitutional violation as it only set the appointed date for new Lok Sabha sessions.
- The Bill proposes aligning state assembly terms with that of the Lok Sabha.
Terms and Tenure
- The Constitution provides a maximum term of five years for each government, with no minimum term guaranteed.
- Governments must maintain their mandate throughout their term, with checks like the no-confidence motion.
- Justice Khehar noted the importance of clearly informing the electorate about any reduced term during voting.
