Top Lawyers Debate on One Nation One Poll Proposal in India

Aakhir Tak – In Shorts:

1. The ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal seeks to synchronize elections across India.
2. Harish Salve and Abhishek Manu Singhvi offer contrasting views on the matter.
3. Salve dismisses concerns about federalism violations as superficial.
4. Singhvi argues the proposal undermines democracy and federal structure.
5. Both experts call for a thorough and constructive discussion before implementation.

Aakhir Tak – In Depth:

“One Nation, One Election” Proposal – Differing Perspectives

Legal Experts Weigh In
The ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) proposal has sparked intense discussions regarding its potential to reform election processes in India. Senior constitutional experts, Harish Salve and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, offered their perspectives in separate interviews, highlighting their contrasting concerns. The proposal aims at synchronizing all elections, thereby saving resources and reducing costs, but raises several constitutional and democratic concerns.

Impact on the Constitution
Harish Salve, a member of the committee led by Ram Nath Kovind on ONOE, rejected arguments that the proposal would violate federalism. Salve argued that Indian federalism naturally supports overlapping powers between the Union and state governments. On the other hand, Abhishek Manu Singhvi criticized the idea, claiming it could undermine electoral mandates, referring to it as a “reset button” for democracy, with potential risks for state autonomy.

Election Cost and Economic Concerns
On the economic front, Salve emphasized that frequent elections could lead to a substantial economic loss, citing an econometric estimate indicating a potential 1% GDP loss due to elections. He argued that while the cost of each election could range between ₹3,000-₹5,000 crore, the real cost lies in the disruptions caused by these elections. In contrast, Singhvi questioned the economic claims, suggesting that the logistics of synchronizing elections would not drastically reduce the costs.

Democratic Risks
Salve addressed claims that ONOE would affect the autonomy of state governments. He stated that no constitutional guarantee ensures that state assemblies must serve for a full five years. Conversely, Singhvi pointed out the lack of consultation with state assemblies, criticizing the proposal’s top-down approach.

Challenges and the Way Forward
While acknowledging the challenges, Salve recommended that the ONOE proposal be implemented with a structured and phased approach over three to five years. Singhvi, however, accused the government of centralizing power under the guise of efficiency. He criticized the proposal for potentially consolidating power within one party and raising concerns about its speed through the legislative process.

Aakhir Tak – Key Takeaways to Remember:

• Experts have raised significant concerns about the One Nation One Election proposal’s impact on democracy, federalism, and the economy.
• Harish Salve supports the proposal as consistent with the Constitution, while Abhishek Manu Singhvi sees it as a threat to democratic processes.
• The implementation of the proposal requires careful planning and a multi-year timeline.

Aakhir Tak Editor-in-Chief

See Full Bio