NewKerala.com

Ex-CJI Gavai: One Nation, One Election Does Not Violate Constitution

Former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai has informed a Joint Parliamentary Committee that the proposed 'One Nation, One Election' constitutional amendment does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution. He argued that the bill, which seeks to synchronize Lok Sabha and state Assembly elections, leaves federalism, democracy, and governmental accountability untouched. Justice Gavai noted that Parliament is competent to enact such a law and pointed to India's history of simultaneous elections until 1967. His views align with the recent findings of the 23rd Law Commission, bolstering the government's push for this major electoral reform.

Key Points: Ex-CJI Gavai: ONOE Does Not Violate Constitution's Basic Structure

  • Ex-CJI says ONOE is constitutional
  • Bill does not alter federalism or democracy
  • Parliament competent to enact law
  • Accountability mechanisms remain intact
2 min read

One Nation, One Election does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution: ex-CJI Gavai

Former CJI B.R. Gavai tells parliamentary panel that the One Nation, One Election bill is constitutional and does not affect federalism or democracy.

"Through the enactment of this Bill, neither of these (federalism and democracy) will be changed or affected. - B.R. Gavai"

New Delhi, Feb 12

Former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Thursday told the Joint Parliamentary Committee on One Nation, One Election, headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, that the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill on simultaneous elections does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Making a detailed representation before the parliamentary panel, the ex-CJI argued that the Basic Structure doctrine encompasses the federal framework and the democratic form of governance, and neither of these features would be altered by the proposed legislation.

"Through the enactment of this Bill, neither of these (federalism and democracy) will be changed or affected. Hence, the amendment is in consonance with the Basic Structure," he told the JPC.

"The ONOE only brings about a change in the manner of conducting elections at one point. The structure of elections and voter rights remains the same. Thus, the amendment would be constitutional," he added.

On the competence of Parliament to bring such legislation, the ex-CJI said that the Constitution empowers the Parliament to carry out amendments necessary to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies.

Addressing concerns regarding governmental accountability under a simultaneous election framework, former CJI Gavai argued that since instruments like the no-confidence motion remain intact, there will be no impact on the accountability of either the Union or the state governments.

On the constitutional viability of ONOE, he pointed out that India had successfully conducted simultaneous elections until 1967.

Justice Gavai's views come amid ongoing deliberations by the JPC examining the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024.

Since its constitution in December 2024, the panel has held extensive consultations with constitutional experts, economists, and the 23rd Law Commission Chairman, among others.

The two Bills, introduced by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal in December 2024 and subsequently referred to the parliamentary panel, seek to align Lok Sabha and Assembly elections by curtailing the terms of certain state legislatures elected after a particular Lok Sabha, so that their tenures conclude together. Once the election cycles are synchronised, future Lok Sabha and state Assembly polls would be conducted simultaneously.

The 23rd Law Commission has also recently affirmed that the proposed legislation does not violate the Constitution's Basic Structure, including principles relating to federalism and voter rights, lending further weight to the government's push for electoral reform.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
While the legal opinion is important, I'm still worried about the practical impact on regional parties and state-specific issues. National narratives might overshadow local concerns. Hope the JPC also listens to voices who have reservations about this. 🤔
R
Rohit P
Finally! This is a much-needed reform. The country is always in election season somewhere, which halts development work. One Nation, One Election will bring stability and allow governments to focus on their full term. Kudos to the ex-CJI for clarifying the constitutional position.
S
Sarah B
As someone who has observed Indian politics for years, this seems like a monumental administrative challenge. The constitutional aspect might be sound, but the implementation logistics—especially for a country as vast and diverse as India—are daunting. I hope they have a very detailed roadmap.
V
Vikram M
The argument about no-confidence motions remaining intact is crucial. That maintains the check on government accountability. If it worked before and doesn't break the basic structure, we should definitely give it a serious try. Jai Hind! 🇮🇳
K
Kavya N
Respectfully, I disagree with the ex-CJI's blanket assurance. The basic structure doctrine is dynamic. Concentrating such immense electoral power at one point in time could subtly alter the federal balance, regardless of what the text of the law says. The spirit of democracy matters too.
M

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50