The proposal to have simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha, Assembly and Panchayats, was passed onto a committee tasked with “examining the issue” for feasibility of implementation and making recommendations. The committee is headed by the former president Ramnath Kovind and includes the Home Minister and the law department. Cost benefits are listed as the leading justification for the concept of “one nation one election”.
The Election Commission, responding to a questionnaire on simultaneous polls sent by the Law Ministry stated “we need Rs 10,000 crore every 15 years for “One Nation, One Election”. Elections to the Lok Sabha and legislative assemblies required Rs 4500 crores in 2014, and Rs 9000 crores in 2019. This does not include expenses by political parties and candidates officially (Rs 2994 crores in 2019) or “undeclared” expenses and “gifts” for buying votes. The Commission noted that the shelf life of EVMs was 15 years and one set of machines could be used to conduct three cycles of elections in their life span if simultaneous polls were held. A total of 11.8 lakh polling stations would be required to be set up across India for Lok Sabha polls this year.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
For simultaneous polls, two sets of EVMs would be needed per polling station; one for the Lok Sabha seat and another for assembly constituency. Thus, bearing in mind production of new machines, increasing warehousing facilities and other logistical issues, such as additional polling and security personnel, enhanced storage facilities for EVMs and more vehicles, the first simultaneous elections can only be held in 2029.
Each EVM will require one Control Unit (CUs), Ballot Unit (BUs) and Voter-Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines as reserves to replace defective units at different stages, including on election day. The minimum machines required for simultaneous polls would be: 46,75,100 BUs, 33,63,300 CUs and 36,62,600 VVPATs. In early 2023, the tentative cost of EVM stood at Rs 7,900 per BU, Rs 9,800 per CU and Rs 16,000 per unit of VVPAT; hardly qualifying as “cost saving”.
“Unofficial” costs of freebies in the guise of social welfare schemes (free travel, LPG subsidies etc.) will certainly be reduced, with “two birds” being killed with one stone. Given the opaque system, the quantum remains unknown. In any case the SC has now shot down the whole concept of the “electoral bonds”, and ruled that the citizen’s right to know under Article 19 (1) (a) applies to electoral funding and supersedes privacy rights of donors in this case. Quite significantly, RTI under Article 19(1)(a) has now been extended to political parties, and not just candidates.
The second argument made, is that the Model Code of Conduct mandated by frequent elections, disrupts government work by preventing bureaucrats and elected officials from “focusing on governance”. The MCC does not curtail ongoing projects, schemes, routine government expenditure, or any emergency expenditure. It only limits new projects so as to deny the ruling dispensation any unfair advantage. A third argument is that elections require election officers and security personnel. Such requirements differ in case of state and central elections and there are no studies which analyse the difference in requirements for government staff on election duties. As for the security forces, surely this comes under the purview of their normal duties.
The Parliamentary Committee in its draft report recommended three alternatives to synchronise elections in India; all so complex that they are hardly likely to get State approvals. They all involve rescheduling elections, extending the life of some assemblies, and curtailing others. Such changes will require specific constitutional amendments, of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Committee noted that a no-confidence motion, if passed, may curtail the term of Lok Sabha/ State assembly, and recommended replacing the ‘no-confidence motion’ with a ‘constructive vote of no-confidence’, through appropriate amendments. In a constructive vote of no confidence, the government may only be removed if there is confidence in an alternate government. It further suggested the option of limiting the number of such motions during the term of the House/ Assembly.
To avoid a hung House/ Assembly, the Committee recommended that the President/ Governor should give an opportunity to the largest party along with their pre- or post-poll alliance to form the government. If this fails, an all-party meeting may be called to resolve the stalemate. If mid-term elections are necessitated, any resultant new government formed, will have a life only for the remainder of the previous term, and not an entire five years. Appropriate amendments are suggested to anti-defection laws to ensure that all disqualification issues (arising from defection) are decided by the presiding officer within six months. None of this factors in voter fatigue and infringement of democratic rights in all these situations.
Voters approach the electoral process at state and central elections with different lenses. Elections at state levels largely involve local issues whose emphasis differs from the issues at central level; the focus being more on infrastructure, electricity and water supply rates, roads and transport. He would be scarcely bothered by foreign policy or defence purchases. Surely if the issues are unconnected and separate, it suggests separate elections so that the parties and the electoral process can focus on and fight for the relevant matters. At least five Articles of the Constitution will need amendment; – 83, (duration of the Houses of Parliament); 85, (dissolution of the Lok Sabha by the President,); 172, (duration of the state legislatures); 174 (dissolution of the state legislatures); and 356, imposition of President’s Rule in the states. And finally, ratification by state governments will be required. The Commission has recommended that at least 50% of the States should ratify the changes.
To sum up, the proposal cannot be justified. On the contrary, it will have a detrimental effect on the federal system, by introducing greater central control.
(The Writer is a founder member of the Voluntary Health Association of Goa, and the past Goa State IMA President.)
