Relevance: GS-2 (Constitution • Federalism • Electoral Reforms) • Source: The Hindu, Law Commission inputs
Context
The 23rd Law Commission has submitted its preliminary views to the Parliamentary Committee examining the One Nation One Election (ONOE) Bills. It concludes that the proposals do not violate the basic structure—especially federalism, democratic accountability, or the voter’s right.
23rd Law Commission
The 23rd Law Commission of India was established by the government for a three-year term from September 1, 2024, to August 31, 2027.
- Mandate: Reviewing obsolete laws, examining laws in light of DPSPs, improving judicial efficiency, simplifying procedures, and modernising legal frameworks.
- Chairperson: Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi (Retd.).
- Major recent view: ONOE Bills do not violate the basic structure; no State ratification needed; no statutory backing for MCC; rejects constructive no-confidence vote.
- Focus: Electoral reforms, UCC discussions, tech-law updates, criminal law processes.
Why the Bills Do Not Violate Basic Structure
- The Bills do not amend subjects requiring State ratification under Article 368(2)(a–e).
- Only the timing of elections is altered—federal autonomy, voter rights, and democratic periodicity remain intact.
- Synchronisation is treated as administrative alignment, not constitutional dilution.
Key Features of the ONOE Bills
- Synchronisation of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections by curtailing Assembly terms elected after a Lok Sabha term.
- Full simultaneous elections after cycles align.
- Commission rejects:
- Constructive vote of no-confidence — may distort parliamentary balances.
- Statutory backing for MCC — could hinder executive functioning.
Major Impacts
1. Federalism
- No alteration of legislative, administrative, or fiscal federal structure.
- Temporary curtailment of terms is seen as non-essential to federal identity.
2. Democracy and Free Elections
- Elections remain periodic; only synchronisation is proposed.
- Government accountability is unaffected.
3. Administrative Efficiency
- Reduced policy paralysis due to repeated MCC enforcement.
- Lower expenditure and security deployment.
- Greater governance stability.
Issues Raised vs Law Commission Reasoning
| Concern | Underlying Fear | Law Commission’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| Federalism | Curtails State Assembly terms | No change in power distribution → Basic structure unaffected |
| Democratic Rights | Reduced electoral frequency | Elections remain periodic, free, and fair → Rights protected |
| MCC Statutory Status | To enhance enforceability | Rejects codification → May hinder executive functioning |
| Constructive No-Confidence | Ensure stability | Unsuitable for India’s coalition nature → Rejected |
Way Forward
- Build wider political consensus with States.
- Create frameworks for mid-term breakdowns (e.g., President’s Rule contingencies).
- Strengthen Election Commission logistics and capacity.
- Establish coordinated fiscal and security planning systems for simultaneous polls.
Mains Question
“The proposal for ‘One Nation One Election’ seeks to address structural and administrative challenges in India’s electoral governance. Critically analyse whether it strengthens or weakens the federal democratic framework.”
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
Start Yours at Ajmal IAS – with Mentorship StrategyDisciplineClarityResults that Drives Success
Your dream deserves this moment — begin it here.
