India's democracy is constantly shaped by elections, with over a billion voters and regular polls at both the national and state levels. However, the frequent nature of these elections has sparked discussions on improving efficiency. The concept of "One Nation, One Election", which proposes simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies every five years, has gained significant attention.

This proposal aims to reduce election-related costs, minimize administrative burden, and create a more streamlined governance system. The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, introduced in Parliament, seeks to align the election cycles, ensuring elections for both tiers of government occur together. Proponents argue it could boost India's GDP and improve administrative efficiency, while critics warn it may undermine India's federal structure by concentrating power at the national level.

In September 2024, the Union Cabinet accepted the recommendations of the High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections, taking a step toward this ambitious reform. While offering potential benefits, One Nation, One Election requires careful consideration to balance efficiency with federal autonomy.

What It Is One Nation One Election:

The idea of One Nation, One Election involves synchronizing elections for the Lok Sabha (House of the People), all State Legislative Assemblies, and local government bodies. This does not mean that voting will occur across the country on a single day, but rather that all elections will be held within a predetermined time frame. The goal is to enhance administrative efficiency, reduce the cost of frequent elections, and ensure a more stable governance structure. Conducting elections in a synchronized manner will allow governments to focus on long-term policy implementation without the disruption caused by frequent election cycles.

History:
Elections were a reality in India from the first general elections in 1951-52 until 1967. However, political instability led to the premature dissolution of some State Assemblies in 1968-69 and the Lok Sabha in 1970. This disrupted the synchronized election cycle, resulting in the current staggered election system. Since then, multiple governments have debated restoring simultaneous elections. The Election Commission first proposed the idea in 1983, followed by recommendations from the Law Commission in 1999. In 2017, Niti Aayog, a government think-tank, also supported the concept, emphasizing its potential advantages in terms of governance and cost efficiency.

Current status:
A High-Level Committee, led by former President Shri Ram Nath Kovind, submitted an extensive 18,626-page report in March 2024, recommending the reintroduction of simultaneous elections. The committee proposed that general and state elections be held together, with local body elections conducted within 100 days of the main elections. Additionally, if a government loses a mid-term election, fresh elections will be held, but the new government's tenure will only last until the next synchronized election. This recommendation aims to prevent instability while ensuring a structured election process.

Constitutional Basis:
The original constitutional framework of India envisioned simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Implementing this concept may require constitutional amendments to realign election cycles. The Constitution of India does not mandate a specific timing for elections. Article 83(2) and Article 172(1) specify the terms of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies respectively, setting maximum terms of 5 years. Simultaneous elections would require amendments to these articles to align election cycles. Amendments to Part XV (Elections) of the Constitution may be required to facilitate simultaneous elections. Such amendments would need to be passed by a special majority in Parliament and ratified by at least half of the state legislatures.

Committees and Commissions on One Nation, One Election

The idea of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) has been studied by several committees and commissions in India. Each of these reports has explored whether holding elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies at the same time is feasible and beneficial.

The Law Commission of India (2018) looked at the legal and constitutional changes needed for ONOE. It suggested amending important articles of the Constitution to align election cycles. The report also discussed what should happen if a government falls before its term ends, recommending that an alternative government be formed instead of holding immediate elections. If no alternative government is possible, President's Rule could be imposed until the next scheduled elections. The commission also acknowledged the difficulty of implementing ONOE in one go and suggested a phased approach.

The NITI Aayog Report (2017) focused more on the economic and administrative aspects. It recommended holding elections in two phases instead of all at once. The first phase would include the Lok Sabha and some State Assemblies, while the second phase would cover the remaining states after 2.5 years. The report highlighted that ONOE could reduce election costs, improve governance, and prevent frequent disruptions caused by the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which limits government decision-making during elections.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) Report (2015) supported the idea but pointed out practical challenges. A major concern was the huge number of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) needed to conduct elections nationwide at the same time. The ECI also mentioned the need for additional security forces and election staff. Instead of immediate nationwide implementation, the ECI suggested testing the idea in select states first.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee (2015) also studied ONOE and suggested that India should return to the system of simultaneous elections that existed from 1952 to 1967. It proposed adjusting the tenure of some State Assemblies to match the Lok Sabha's election cycle. However, it warned that regional parties might lose prominence if national issues dominated elections. The committee emphasized that ONOE should not be implemented without political consensus among all parties.

The 170th Law Commission Report (1999) had earlier pointed out that frequent elections weaken governance by distracting the government from development work. It suggested a reform in the no-confidence motion, requiring opposition parties to propose an alternative government instead of dissolving the legislature.

Who Support And Who Oppose It:

The Kovind committee reached out to all Indian political parties for their opinions, receiving responses from 47. Of these, 32 favoured simultaneous elections, while 15 opposed them. Most of the supporters were either BJP allies or parties with a friendly stance toward the ruling party, emphasizing that holding elections together would save time, costs, and resources.

The Modi government introduced the One Nation, One Election Bill in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, following a division vote in which 269 lawmakers supported the proposal and 198 opposed it. The proposed legislation intends to synchronize Lok Sabha and state assembly elections, a key step toward electoral reform.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies strongly support ONOE. They believe that frequent elections disrupt governance because of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which restricts the government from announcing policies or welfare schemes during election periods. The BJP claims that India has lost 800 days in five years due to this restriction. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey argued in Lok Sabha that elections happening every few months prevent the government from taking key decisions, delaying crucial projects. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also defended ONOE, stating that frequent elections hinder national progress and waste taxpayer money. Supporters also argue that simultaneous elections could lead to higher voter turnout, as people would only need to vote once every five years.

On the other hand, the Congress party and most opposition parties, including DMK, TMC, SP, AAP, CPI(M), and RJD, oppose the idea. They argue that ONOE would hurt democracy, weaken state governments, and favor national parties over regional ones. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor pointed out that India is a union of states, and elections should reflect the unique needs of each region.

Opposition leaders fear that if national and state elections happen together, state-level issues such as local jobs, farmers' concerns, and education policies might be ignored, as national topics like defense and foreign policy would dominate election campaigns. TMC leader Derek O'Brien criticized ONOE, calling it a backdoor attempt to weaken regional parties, while Samajwadi Party's Akhilesh Yadav raised concerns about what happens if a government falls before completing its term—would the entire country vote again or would President's Rule be imposed?

During the Lok Sabha debate on ONOE, the division was clear. 269 MPs supported the bill, while 198 opposed it. Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury called ONOE an attack on democracy, arguing that elections should be based on public needs, not government convenience. In response, Home Minister Amit Shah defended the proposal, questioning why elections for panchayats and municipal bodies can be held simultaneously, but not Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Many opposition leaders also pointed out that rather than changing the election system, the government should focus on improving transparency in political funding, which they believe is a bigger issue. CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury argued that corporate money in elections is the real problem, not election timing.

Does India Really Need It:

Does India Really Need One Nation, One Election?
India is the world's largest democracy, and elections are a fundamental part of its political process. However, with multiple elections happening almost every year, there is growing debate over whether One Nation, One Election (ONOE) is necessary for better governance and efficiency. While ONOE promises several advantages, including cost reduction, administrative efficiency, and improved voter participation, its implementation is a complex challenge.

1. Cost Reduction
   One of the biggest reasons India may need ONOE is the huge financial cost of holding frequent elections. Every election requires significant expenditure on security forces, election staff, electronic voting machines (EVMs), and voter awareness programs. Additionally, political parties spend billions on campaign activities, advertisements, rallies, and logistics. Take an example that, according to estimates, the 2019 Lok Sabha elections cost around ₹60,000 crore , making it the world's most expensive election. This cost increases when we include State Assembly elections, which are conducted separately. By implementing ONOE, a large part of this cost could be saved, as resources would be utilized for one single election event instead of multiple elections across different years.
    
2. Reducing Administrative and Security Burden
   Conducting elections requires massive deployment of police, paramilitary forces, and civil administration to ensure free and fair voting. Frequent elections mean these resources are continuously engaged in electoral duties, diverting them from law enforcement, national security, and governance activities. For instance, during elections, a significant portion of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) is moved across states for security. This reduces their availability for regular duties like border security, counter-terrorism, and disaster management. If elections were held simultaneously, the security burden would be reduced, and forces could be better utilized for national security and public safety.
    
3. Increasing Voter Turnout
   In India, voter participation varies depending on election schedules. Many people, especially in urban areas, do not vote in every election due to work commitments, travel, or election fatigue. When elections happen frequently, people tend to lose interest in the electoral process. Take an example that, in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, voter turnout was around 67%, while some state elections saw much lower participation. If ONOE is implemented, citizens will only need to vote once in five years, making it easier to participate and increasing overall voter turnout. Countries like South Africa and Sweden, where all elections are held on a single day, see higher voter participation and engagement in the democratic process.
    
4. Stability in Governance and Policy-Making
   Currently, governments at the state and central levels are in constant election mode, affecting long-term policymaking. Each time elections are held, the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is enforced, which prevents governments from announcing new policies, projects, or welfare schemes. This disrupts governance and delays important decisions. For example, during elections in major states like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, governments were unable to announce key infrastructure projects because of the MCC restrictions. If ONOE is adopted, governments will have a clear five-year period to focus on development, economy, and public welfare without worrying about frequent elections.

 

Hardles In Implementation:

Despite its advantages, implementing One Nation, One Election presents significant challenges. Several challenges—legal, political, logistical, and governance-related—must be addressed before this system can be adopted nationwide.

Constitutional and Legal Challenges

The biggest challenge in implementing ONOE is that India's Constitution does not currently allow simultaneous elections. Several constitutional provisions would need to be amended to align the terms of the Lok Sabha (Parliament) and State Assemblies. Key articles that require changes include:

• Article 83 & Article 172 – Define the five-year term of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. If one government falls before completing its term, ONOE could become difficult.
• Article 85 & Article 174 – Deal with the dissolution and summoning of Parliament and State Assemblies. To synchronize elections, the government must ensure that all terms end at the same time.
• Article 356 – Allows the President's Rule in a state if its government collapses. Under ONOE, if a state government falls, would elections be held nationwide again or only in that state?

Making these changes requires a constitutional amendment, which must be approved by two-thirds of both Houses of Parliament and ratified by at least half of the state legislatures. This is a difficult and time-consuming process.

Political Challenges

ONOE would require the support of all political parties, but different parties have different views on the issue.

• National parties (like BJP, Congress) may support ONOE as it gives them a unified strategy for elections.
• Regional parties (like TMC, DMK, SP, AAP, etc.) are opposed to ONOE because they fear that state-level issues will be overshadowed by national politics.

For example, in a national election, issues like defense, foreign policy, and national security dominate the discussions. However, in a state election, people may focus more on local issues like jobs, education, healthcare, and infrastructure. If elections are held together, state-level concerns might not get enough attention, affecting the representation of regional parties.

Logistical and Operational Challenges

Organizing elections for over 900 million voters across 28 states and 8 union territories at the same time is an enormous task. Several logistical challenges need to be addressed:

• Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) & Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) – India would need twice the number of EVMs to conduct elections at one time. Managing and storing millions of EVMs across the country would be a huge challenge.
• Manpower & Security – Elections require millions of election officers, polling staff, and security personnel. Conducting elections at different times helps distribute the workload, but ONOE would require a massive deployment of resources at the same time.
• Counting and Announcement of Results – Managing vote counting for both Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies at once would be a huge administrative task. Errors or delays could lead to confusion and disputes.

Impact on State Governance and Representation

A major concern with ONOE is that state-level elections might become secondary to national elections. Voters might focus only on national parties and national leaders, reducing the influence of state parties that play an important role in regional governance. For instance, in states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh, local parties play a crucial role in governance. If ONOE is implemented, state elections may become more about national leaders like the Prime Minister rather than local issues. Smaller states with specific concerns (like North-Eastern states or Southern states) might find it harder to get attention in a national-level election.

What Happens if a Government Falls Before Completing Its Term?

Currently, if a state government collapses before completing five years, fresh elections are held in that state alone. But under ONOE, what would happen if a government loses its majority?

• Should elections be held again for the entire country? That would be impractical and expensive.
• Should the state remain under President's Rule until the next scheduled election? That would reduce democratic representation in the state.

Finding a solution to mid-term dissolutions is a major challenge before implementing ONOE. Although ONOE promises cost savings, governance stability, and higher voter participation, its implementation faces legal, political, and logistical challenges. India's diverse political system, federal structure, and administrative setup make simultaneous elections difficult to execute without a well-planned strategy. Instead of implementing ONOE all at once, a gradual approach—such as grouping elections into two phases—could be a more practical way forward.

Phased Approach to Implementing One Nation, One Election (ONOE)
The Committee studying One Nation, One Election (ONOE) has proposed a two-phase implementation plan to gradually bring all elections—national, state, municipal, and panchayat—into a synchronized cycle. This approach ensures a smooth transition without disrupting governance.

Phase 1: Synchronizing Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly Elections
The first step in implementing ONOE is aligning the elections of the Lok Sabha (Parliament) and State Legislative Assemblies so that they happen at the same time.

How It Will Work: Currently, different states have elections at different times. This leads to elections almost every year, disrupting governance. Under ONOE, elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies will be conducted together, once every five years. Some states whose elections are not aligned with Lok Sabha elections will have their terms adjusted slightly (either extended or shortened) to match the national election cycle.

Example: Suppose the Lok Sabha elections are held in 2029, but a state's assembly term ends in 2030. In this case, the state election will either be advanced or postponed so that both elections happen together in 2029.
This phase ensures that national and state-level elections are conducted in a single electoral process, reducing election costs and administrative burdens.

Phase 2: Synchronizing Local Elections (Municipalities and Panchayats) with Lok Sabha & State Elections
After successfully aligning Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections, the next step is to bring Municipal (urban local bodies) and Panchayat (rural local bodies) elections into the same cycle.
How It Will Work: Within 100 days of completing Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections, Municipal and Panchayat elections will also be conducted across the country. This will ensure that all elections in India—from national to local level—are held together in one major electoral event every five years.

Example: If Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections are conducted in April-May 2029, then Municipal and Panchayat elections will take place within 100 days, by August 2029. This phase ensures that every level of government in India follows a fixed five-year election cycle, improving stability and reducing the need for continuous election preparations.

Benefits of the Phased Approach
It Smooth Transition Without Disruptions. Instead of making sudden changes, elections will be synchronized step by step, ensuring a stable shift. It make Less Frequent Elections, More Governance. The Governments will not be in constant election mode, allowing them to focus on policymaking. The main benefit is it is Cost and Resource Savings. Holding elections together reduces expenses on security, logistics, and administration. It Increased Voter Participation, A single, well-planned election cycle makes it easier for people to vote.

Possible Solutions to Overcome Challenges in Implementing One Nation, One Election (ONOE)
Implementing One Nation, One Election (ONOE) comes with several challenges, but a structured and gradual approach can help address these issues effectively. Below are some practical solutions that can ensure a smooth transition while maintaining democratic integrity.

• Gradual Implementation Instead of Immediate Nationwide Rollout One of the biggest challenges is the immediate nationwide rollout of simultaneous elections, which can be overwhelming. Instead of implementing it all at once, the government can introduce ONOE in phases.
  • Phase 1: Lok Sabha elections can be synchronized with State Assembly elections where terms are naturally ending.
  • Phase 2: The remaining State Assemblies can be aligned, followed by Municipal and Panchayat elections within 100 days of national elections.
  This step-by-step approach ensures that states do not experience sudden disruptions and allows for smoother governance. For example, if Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka were due for elections in different years, their terms could be slightly adjusted to match the Lok Sabha elections, gradually bringing all states into alignment.
   
• Addressing the Issue of a Government Falling Mid-Term A major issue arises when a government collapses mid-term due to political instability. If a state or central government loses its majority before completing five years, fresh elections would break the synchronized cycle. To address this, a structured replacement system can be adopted:
  • If a government collapses, the opposition should be given a chance to form an alternative government (as done in Germany).
  • If no alternative government is possible, President's Rule can be imposed temporarily, but only until the next scheduled election.
  • Introduce a fixed-term election system, where only by-elections for vacant seats are held instead of conducting full state-wide elections.
  This approach would have helped in cases like Madhya Pradesh (2020) and Maharashtra (2022), where governments collapsed due to shifting political alliances.
   
• Constitutional and Legal Amendments One of the major hurdles in implementing ONOE is the requirement for constitutional amendments. Key articles of the Indian Constitution (Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356) must be modified to facilitate synchronized elections. A step-by-step legal reform process can be adopted:
  • Step 1: Strengthen anti-defection laws to prevent governments from collapsing due to party switching.
  • Step 2: Conduct pilot ONOE elections in Union Territories (where the central government has more control) to test its feasibility.
  • Step 3: Amend constitutional provisions gradually to ensure a smooth transition without disrupting democratic processes.
  A similar approach was taken with the 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992), which synchronized elections for Panchayats and Municipalities across India.
   
• Political Consensus and Ensuring Fair Representation Many regional parties oppose ONOE because they fear that state-level issues will be overshadowed by national campaigns. To address this, it is crucial to strengthen federalism and ensure that regional concerns receive equal attention. Possible solutions include:
  • Holding separate voting days for national and state elections, even if they are conducted in the same month.
  • Providing regional parties equal airtime on national media platforms like Doordarshan to ensure fair visibility.
  • Ensuring that state-specific debates and manifestos receive as much focus as national issues.
  Countries like South Africa and Sweden hold elections for different levels of government on the same day while maintaining separate debates for national and regional issues, ensuring balanced political discourse.
   
• Logistical and Security Challenges Conducting ONOE presents logistical and security challenges, as organizing elections for 28 states and 8 Union Territories simultaneously would require massive resources.

A phased voting approach can help manage these challenges, Increase the availability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) to handle simultaneous elections. Deploy security forces in phases, ensuring law and order without overstretching resources. Use technology and remote voting to facilitate smooth electoral processes. For example, Indonesia, which has a large population, conducts national and regional elections together but with staggered voting over different days, making it a good model for India to consider.

Conclusion
The idea of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) signifies a substantial change in India's electoral framework, intending to improve governance efficiency, lower election expenses, and decrease interruptions from regular elections. By aligning elections for the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, Municipalities, and Panchayats, the government aims to establish an organized and efficient democratic framework, enabling policymakers to concentrate on long-term development instead of perpetually being in election mode.

Nonetheless, the execution of ONOE comes with its own difficulties. Addressing constitutional amendments, achieving political consensus, ensuring logistical readiness, and protecting regional representation are vital elements that require careful consideration. A gradual strategy—beginning with synchronizing Lok Sabha and certain State Assembly elections, and then progressively adding Municipal and Panchayat elections—provides a feasible method to shift to this new system while minimizing disruptions to governance and administration. Moreover, different methods for addressing mid-term government failures and guaranteeing equitable representation for regional parties will be essential to uphold the democratic equilibrium.

Although ONOE offers considerable benefits, including savings on costs, enhanced voter engagement, and effective policy execution, its effectiveness hinges on careful planning, open dialogues with all stakeholders, and a flexible approach that honors India's varied political environment. A systematic method, supported by constitutional changes and logistical enhancements, can transform ONOE into a reality while maintaining India's federal framework.

In conclusion, if executed carefully and inclusively, One Nation, One Election has the potential to represent a transformative electoral reform, enhancing political stability, alleviating administrative challenges, and reinforcing India's democratic foundations moving forward.

Reference:

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly7vjp73zvo
• https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/one-nation-one-election-and-representative-democracy/article69040593.ece
• https://legalaffairs.gov.in/one-nation-one-election
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2085082
• https://www.epw.in/tags/one-nation-one-election