 |
|
The Indian Parliament witnessed significant debate and passage of two crucial bills aimed at achieving 'One Nation, One Election'. Introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 17th, 2024, 'The Constitution 129th Amendment Bill 2024' and 'The Union Territories Laws Amendment Bill 2024' sparked intense controversy, dividing the ruling party and the opposition. The bills, stemming from a recommendation by a high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, propose substantial changes to the Indian Constitution to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. The committee’s extensive 18,626-page report highlighted the substantial burden on various stakeholders, including the government, businesses, and political parties, caused by staggered election cycles. The proposed amendments aim to streamline the process by aligning election timelines, thereby reducing the strain on resources and the overall election process.
The core of the proposed amendment lies in introducing Article 82A, explicitly defining 'simultaneous elections' and outlining the mechanism for implementing this change. It stipulates that the President, upon the first sitting of the Lok Sabha following a general election, will bring this article into force. Crucially, the amendments propose adjusting Articles 83 and 172, altering the duration of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies to ensure their terms align. This potentially means that State Assembly terms could end prematurely if they don't coincide with the Lok Sabha's term, raising concerns among opposition parties. The amendments also address mid-term elections, proposing that if an assembly is dissolved before its full term, the ensuing election would only be for the unexpired portion of the term. This provision ensures that the new assembly doesn't receive a full five-year term if it's elected mid-term.
Opposition parties vehemently opposed the bills, arguing that they constitute a grave assault on the 'Basic Structure' of the Indian Constitution. Concerns were raised about the violation of federalism, where the autonomy of state legislatures could be compromised by aligning their terms with the Lok Sabha. Specific articles were highlighted as problematic, such as the proposed Article 82(5), which, according to critics, grants excessive power to the Election Commission of India (ECI). Concerns were expressed that this provision potentially undermines the balance of power between the ECI, the President, and the Council of Ministers. Leaders from various opposition parties, including the Congress, Trinamool Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT), and AIMIM, voiced strong objections, citing the potential for erosion of democratic self-governance and the infringement on the principle of equal representation between the states and central government. The argument centered around the potential for states to have significantly shorter terms in a unified election cycle, undermining their autonomy.
Responding to the opposition's concerns, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal defended the bills, asserting that the amendments don't violate the 'Basic Structure' doctrine. He argued that the Parliament possesses the legislative competence to enact these changes, referencing Article 327 and Schedule VII's Union List Entry 72. He emphasized that the bills wouldn't alter the fundamental division of powers between the center and the states as laid out in the Constitution. Meghwal's defense, however, did little to allay the opposition's anxieties. The debate highlights the deep-seated ideological differences surrounding the concept of 'One Nation, One Election' and its potential implications for India's federal structure and democratic process. The fact that the bills ultimately passed with a significant margin suggests that the ruling party has the political will to proceed despite the strong opposition, implying potential ramifications for India's political landscape in the future.
Despite the opposition's strong arguments, the bills were ultimately passed, but with the Law Minister agreeing to send them for scrutiny to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. This signals a willingness to engage in further discussion and potentially incorporate suggestions to address some of the concerns raised. However, the passage of the bills marks a significant step toward potentially altering India's established election system, ushering in an era of simultaneous elections. The implications for the political landscape, the balance of power between the Centre and states, and the broader democratic functioning of India remain to be seen. The Joint Parliamentary Committee's review will play a critical role in shaping the final form of the bills and addressing the concerns raised by the opposition. The outcome of this process will be eagerly awaited as it will determine the future of India's electoral system.