The "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) proposal stands as one of the most ambitious and contentious electoral reforms in India's post-independence history. At its core, ONOE seeks to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies, aiming to streamline India's vast and complex electoral machinery. The proposal, now embodied in the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, and related legislation, has ignited a vigorous debate touching every facet of constitutional law, federalism, governance, and democratic practice.
As the bill moves through parliamentary scrutiny and public discourse, it is vital to dissect its legal foundations, operational challenges, potential benefits, and the spectrum of objections it faces.
The Constitutional and Legal Landscape: What the Bill Proposes
The ONOE initiative is rooted in the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, which proposes to add Article 82A (1-6) to the Constitution. This article empowers the President to set an "appointed date" after a general election, aligning the terms of all State Assemblies elected thereafter with the Lok Sabha's term. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is mandated to conduct simultaneous general elections for both the Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies, with a provision for exceptions if necessary. The bill also includes amendments to the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, to synchronize the terms of Union Territory legislatures with the Lok Sabha.
Notably, the bill does not cover local body elections, focusing only on national and state legislatures. The government has signaled that, if passed, the first nationwide simultaneous elections would likely occur in 2034, with transitional arrangements shortening or extending the terms of some assemblies to achieve alignment.
"The legal architecture of ONOE is unprecedented, requiring multiple constitutional amendments and the approval of at least half the states a true test of India's federal consensus."
Justifications and Claimed Benefits: Cost, Governance, and Stability
Proponents argue that ONOE will drastically reduce the recurring costs and administrative burdens of frequent elections. According to government estimates, the 2019 Lok Sabha and assembly elections cost over ₹60,000 crore. Simultaneous polls, it is argued, would allow governments to focus on governance rather than perpetual campaigning, reduce policy paralysis caused by the Model Code of Conduct, and foster political stability.
Supporters also claim that a unified election cycle will enhance voter turnout, reduce the influence of money and muscle power, and create a more level playing field for national and regional parties.
"ONOE is hailed as a historic reform to curb election fatigue, save public money, and enable governments to deliver on their mandates without constant electoral distraction."
Major Issues and Objections: Federalism, Representation, and Practicality
The most strident objections center on federalism and the basic structure of the Constitution. Critics, including opposition parties and constitutional experts, argue that ONOE undermines the autonomy of states and the right of assemblies to a full five-year term. The principle of "cooperative federalism" is seen as threatened by the imposition of a uniform electoral calendar, especially if assemblies are dissolved early or extended beyond their natural term to achieve synchronization.
There are also concerns about the logistical feasibility of organizing simultaneous elections across the world's largest democracy, given the scale of deployment required for security, polling staff, and electronic voting machines. The risk of national issues overshadowing local concerns in assembly elections, and the potential marginalization of regional parties, are cited as threats to India's pluralistic democracy.
"The ONOE bill faces charges of being anti-federal, logistically daunting, and potentially detrimental to regional representation and diversity."
Legal and Constitutional Challenges: The Basic Structure Doctrine
Opponents have invoked the Supreme Court's "basic structure doctrine," arguing that the right of states to self-governance and the staggered nature of elections are integral to India's constitutional identity. Congress MP Manish Tewari, among others, has argued that ONOE exceeds the legislative competence of Parliament and constitutes an assault on the federal framework.
The bill's passage requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament and ratification by at least half of the state legislatures a formidable political hurdle, especially given the NDA's numbers in the Rajya Sabha and the diversity of state-level interests.
"ONOE's fate may ultimately hinge on whether the Supreme Court deems it compatible with the Constitution's basic structure and federal spirit."
Evidence from Other Countries: Global Comparisons and Lessons
Globally, simultaneous national and subnational elections are rare in federal systems. Countries like South Africa and Sweden conduct unified elections, but their federal structures are less complex than India's. The United States, for instance, conducts staggered elections for Congress and state legislatures, reflecting its strong federal tradition.
Comparative evidence suggests that while simultaneous elections can improve administrative efficiency and voter turnout, they may also centralize power and reduce the salience of local issues. The experience of Indonesia, which moved to simultaneous local elections in 2015, shows mixed results greater efficiency but also increased logistical complexity and occasional voter confusion.
"Comparative experience suggests that while ONOE's efficiency gains are real, its risks to federal balance and local democracy are non-trivial."
Correlation with Other Electoral Reforms: A Broader Context
ONOE is not an isolated reform. It intersects with other ongoing debates such as electoral funding transparency, anti-defection law reform, strengthening the ECI, and the introduction of technology in voting. Some experts argue that sequencing ONOE with robust reforms in campaign finance, party regulation, and voter education is essential to avoid unintended consequences.
"ONOE's success depends on a holistic approach to electoral reform, not just a change in the election calendar."
Societal and Political Acceptability: Consensus and Contestation
The government has sought to build consensus through a Joint Parliamentary Committee, consultations with state governments, and engagement with civil society. However, deep divisions remain especially among opposition-ruled states and regional parties who fear loss of influence.
Public opinion is mixed: some polls suggest support for the idea of "election once every five years," but others reveal skepticism about its impact on local democracy and governance.
"ONOE's legitimacy will rest on broad-based consensus, not just parliamentary arithmetic."
Likely Impact and Threats: What Could Change and What Could Go Wrong
If implemented, ONOE could fundamentally alter India's political and administrative landscape. It could reduce election-related disruptions and costs, but also risk centralizing power, weakening state autonomy, and complicating crisis response (e.g., if a government loses majority mid-term).
There is also the threat of constitutional litigation, political boycotts, and administrative overload especially in the first cycles of implementation.
"ONOE is a high-stakes gamble: its success could be transformative, but its failure could deepen divisions and undermine trust in democracy."
The Road Ahead - Reform, Restraint, and Realism
India's "One Nation, One Election" proposal is a bold response to the challenges of electoral fatigue, cost, and governance gridlock. Yet, its constitutional, federal, and practical complexities are profound. The debate is not just about efficiency, but about the soul of India's democracy how to balance unity with diversity, stability with representation, and reform with restraint. As Parliament, the judiciary, and the public deliberate, the ultimate test will be whether ONOE can deliver on its promises without sacrificing the federal, plural, and participatory character that defines the Indian Republic.
"The future of ONOE will depend not just on law and numbers, but on the wisdom to reconcile ambition with the enduring values of India's Constitution."
[Major General Dr Dilawar Singh, a Ph.D. with multiple postgraduate degrees, is a seasoned expert with over four decades of experience in military policy formulation and counter-terrorism. He has been the National Director General in the Government of India. With extensive multinational exposure at the policy level, he is the Senior Vice President of the Global Economist Forum, AO, ECOSOC, United Nations. He is serving on numerous corporate boards. He has been regularly contributing deep insights into geostrategy, global economics, military affairs, sports, emerging technologies, and corporate governance.]
