After a brief debate on December 17, 2024, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal introduced the 129th Constitution Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha. The bill, which seeks to hold simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, was put to a division of votes at the insistence of opposition members, which was eventually passed with 269 votes in favor and 198 against. Now it has been sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee for close scrutiny.
Many opposition MPs argued that holding concurrent elections would violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The Indian National Congress, in a submission to the High-level Committee (HLC) on simultaneous elections, claimed that such a reform would lead to a “substantial change in the basic structure of the Constitution”. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) similarly argued that simultaneous elections would weaken democracy, which is a core constitutional value. Echoing these sentiments, several opposition leaders called the bill “anti-union”.
Yet, despite these allegations, the Bill does not violate the basic structure principle. In fact, there are 10 compelling reasons why it is in line with the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
The Constitution allows flexibility
OneIn the early years of the Republic (1951–52, 1957, 1962 and 1967) simultaneous elections were a norm without any adverse impact on the constitutional framework or democratic ethos. Continuation of a constitutionally sanctioned practice cannot be considered a violation of the basic structure. No judicial pronouncement has held that the former practice of simultaneous elections was unconstitutional or detrimental to the basic features of the Constitution.
TwoIt is often argued that simultaneous elections are contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution as it may require the early dissolution of state legislative assemblies – bodies composed of elected representatives – thereby, in effect, going against the express mandate of the people. It is possible
However, as argued in the HLC report, the Constitution itself contemplates that the term of both the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly “shall be five years unless sooner dissolved”. This formulation highlights that the framers intentionally introduced flexibility into legislative tenure. Since premature dissolution is already constitutionally sanctioned, its calibrated use to achieve synchronous election cycles does not introduce any fundamentally new or prohibited element into the constitutional scheme.
No threat to infrastructure
ThreeThe essential features of the basic structure – such as the trinity of rights (Articles 14, 19, and 21), fundamental freedoms, the balance between Parts III and IV, secularism, and independence of the judiciary – remain untouched. The HLC report clearly states that the criticism of simultaneous elections “does not violate the rights of citizens under Part III or any other feature such as the rule of law or an independent and independent judiciary”. Therefore, no core constitutional values were recognized Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) is bad.
FourDemocracy, recognized as part of the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharathi vs State of KeralaAIR 1973 SC 1461; Kihoto Holohan v. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412), is not endangered by holding simultaneous elections. From time to time, free and fair elections will be maintained. The proposed amendment does not curtail citizens’ right to vote or their ability to elect representatives. It simply synchronizes the timing of elections, ensuring that the democratic principle of periodic electoral support is fully preserved.
fiveThe Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that free and fair elections are an integral part of democracy and hence the basic structure (Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj NarayanAIR 1975 SC 2299; Union of India vs Association for Democratic ReformsAIR 2002 SC 2112). The proposed amendment does not amend the powers, functions or independence of the Election Commission of India, nor does it weaken the judicial review mechanism. Therefore, the fairness and integrity of the electoral process remains unaffected.
SixWhile democracy is fundamental, the right to vote and the right to contest elections are not fundamental rights; They are constitutional and statutory rights (NP Ponnuswamy vs Returning OfficerAIR 1952 SC 64; Kuldeep Nayyar vs Union of IndiaAIR 2006 SC 3127). Aligning elections does not restrict or remove these rights; It just adjusts their timing. No provision of the proposed amendment renders these rights constitutionally unacceptable, nor does it interfere with their statutory framework.
Constitution is still supreme
SevenFederalism, though part of the basic structure, is not absolute in the Indian context. Indian federalism is sui generis-“Semi-federal” or “cooperative federalism” (SR Bommai vs Union of IndiaAIR 1994 SC 1918; Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vs Union of India(2018) 8 scale 72). The proposed amendment does not alter the distribution of legislative or executive powers. It does not affect the competence of the states, their legislative autonomy or the constitutional status of Union-State relations. Rather, it maintains federal balance while increasing administrative efficiency.
EightSupremacy and Judicial Review of the Constitution – Salient Features of the Basic Structure (Minerva Mills Limited vs Union of IndiaAIR 1980 SC 1789) – is neither suspended nor weakened by the proposed amendment. The courts retain their full authority to strike down unconstitutional acts. The amendment merely reorganizes the electoral timetable and does not exempt any measure from judicial scrutiny.
nineSecularism, rule of law, and separation of powers – the hallmarks of the basic structure – remain intact (SR Bommai vs Union of IndiaAIR 1994 SC 1918; M. Nagaraj vs. Union of IndiaAIR 2007 SC 71). This amendment does not interfere with the authority of Parliament, State Legislatures or the Judiciary. It does not alter the constitutional scheme of governance but merely standardizes the electoral calendar.
TenFor there to be a violation of the basic structure, the constitutional identity itself must be threatened or altered (IR Coelho vs State of Tamil NaduAIR 2007 SC 861). Synchronization of elections neither changes the identity of the Constitution as a democratic, republican and federal polity nor introduces any new constitutional element which is inconsistent with the existing constitutional ethos.
ElevenThe purpose behind holding simultaneous elections is a matter of electoral management rather than constitutional restructuring. Such efficiency measures do not destroy the fundamental pillars of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that what is prohibited is the destruction or dilution of the basic features of the Constitution and not procedural or administrative reforms consistent with its principles.Sajjan Singh vs State of RajasthanAIR 1965 SC 845).
“False” criticisms
The proposal to synchronize electoral cycles with the aim of reducing the frequency of elections, reducing administrative costs and frequent imposition of Model Code of Conduct has received support from eminent jurists, giving credence to its constitutional justification. Is. Notably, former Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra, in his letter to the HLC dated February 28, 2024, said that the criticism of holding simultaneous elections as contrary to the basic structure or federal principles is “mistaken”. He called for constitutional flexibility to extend or reduce legislative tenure in exceptional circumstances, as well as the “principle of extension” and the “principle of reduction”, emphasizing that “India, being quasi-federal, There are simultaneous elections for the House and the State Assemblies are not anti-federal.”
Elucidating the benefits further, Justice Mishra emphasized that “synchronizing elections at the national and state levels can achieve greater administrative efficiency by reducing the frequency of elections and the associated costs”. He observed that the measure “could benefit both the Central Government and the State Governments” and would enhance governance by enabling representatives to focus more on legislative and executive functions, free from the constraints of separate elections. He clearly concluded that “the adoption of One Nation, One Election in India is likely to mesh well with the spirit of the Constitution and the principles of cooperative federalism”.
politics on reforms
While the opposition’s objections to simultaneous elections appear to be motivated more by political expediency than constitutional merit, the arguments they present fail to withstand legal scrutiny. The framers of the Constitution envisaged a flexible framework for legislative conditions, and the proposed amendment merely harmonizes this flexibility to achieve stability and efficiency in governance.
As Justice Dipak Misra rightly observed, simultaneous elections neither weaken federalism nor violate the basic structure of the Constitution; Rather, they “well understand the spirit of the Constitution” and embrace the principles of cooperative federalism. If anything, the opposition’s insistence on periodic elections reflects a false reluctance to embrace reforms that prioritize governance over sustainable politics.
(Aditya Sinha is a public policy professional and author.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
