It is instructive that the ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal approved in principle by the Union cabinet on September 18 based on the recommendation of the Ramnath Kovind Commission to that effect was never envisaged or proposed by India’s Constitution makers.
When the Constituent Assembly discussed Article 289 of the draft Constitution (corresponding Article 324 of the Constitution) dealing with the setting up of the Election Commission of India on June 15 and 16, 1949, such a proposal never came up.
Therefore, the said recommendation of the Kovind Commission and the in-principle acceptance of it by the Union cabinet headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a clear violation of the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly.
Ambedkar never envisaged ‘One Nation, One Election’ idea
It is worthwhile to go through the discussions that took place in the Constituent Assembly on June 15, 1949 after Dr B.R. Ambedkar moved Article 289 which, among others, provided that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections to the Parliament and to the legislature of every state would be vested in a body outside the Executive to be called the Election Commission.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar was deeply mindful of the situation when a bye-election might take place at any time.
He then stated that the Election Commission would be a permanent body with one man called the Chief Election Commissioner with a skeleton machinery at his disposal to conduct elections which he said “will generally take place at the end of five years”.
But he was deeply mindful of the situation when a bye-election might take place at any time, therefore he proceeded to add, “The assembly may be dissolved before its period of five years has expired. Consequently, the electoral rolls will have to be kept up to date all the time so that the new election may take place without any difficulty.
“It was, therefore, felt that having regard to these exigencies, it would be sufficient if there was permanently in session one officer to be called the Chief Election Commissioner, while when the elections are coming up, the President may further add to the machinery by appointing other members to the Election Commission.”
Quite clearly, Dr Ambedkar’s utterances in the Constituent Assembly that elections would generally take place at the end of five years and there would be the necessity of conducting another election within the five-year time frame in case an assembly got dissolved underlined his intent that in India simultaneous elections to assemblies could not be prescribed by the Constitution.
Shibbon Lala Saxena’s stand in the Constituent Assembly
Another distinguished member of the Constituent Assembly Shibbon Lal Saxena, while participating in the discussion on Article 289, referred to the point made by Dr Ambedkar that the Election Commission might not have adequate work after the conduct of elections and so it should have only Chief Election Commissioner and other commissioners would be appointed, if required, prior to the announcement of election schedules.
Saxena went on to say, “In our Constitution, all the elections will not synchronise but they will be at varying times in accordance with the vote of no-confidence passed in various legislatures and the consequent dissolution of the legislatures.”
Even before he articulated those thoughts he stated, “Our Constitution does not provide for a fixed four-year cycle like the one in the United States of America. The elections will probably be almost always going on in some province or the other.”
While noting that India would have about thirty provinces after the integration of states into the Indian Union he made it very clear that “our Constitution provides for the dissolution of the legislature when a non-confidence is passed” and presciently remarked, “So it is quite possible that the elections to the various legislatures in the province and the Centre will not be all concurrent.”
He forcefully observed, “Every time some election or other will be taking place somewhere.” Then he very prophetically said, “It may not be so in the very beginning or in the very first five or ten years. But after ten or twelve years, at every moment some elections in some province will be going on.”
“Therefore,” he said, “it will be far more economical and useful if a permanent Election Commission is appointed— not only the Chief Election Commissioner but three or five members of the commission who should be permanent and who should conduct the elections.”
He dispelled the notion that the Election Commission would be deficient in terms of work because, according to him, frequent elections would be conducted taking into account the exigencies of the situation that would arise following the premature dissolution of legislatures after the fall of the governments, among others, on the basis of passage of no-confidence motions against them.
Shibban Lal Saxena’s assertion in 1949 that “in our Constitution, all the elections will not synchronise” clearly reflected the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly for not conducting elections simultaneously.
Shibban Lal Saxena’s assertion in 1949 that “in our Constitution all the elections will not synchronise” clearly reflected the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly for not conducting elections, as accepted by Modi regime, simultaneously for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
It corresponded to the aforementioned statement of Dr Ambedkar who while stating that elections “will generally take place at the end of five years” was deeply conscious of the fact that a legislature might get dissolved before its mandated period of five years and it would necessitate an election.
R.K. Sidhwa’s stand
Another prominent member, R.K. Sidhwa, while speaking on the discussion on the Election Commission in the Constituent Assembly said, “We shall have now about 4,000 members in all the provinces and there will be bye-elections. Surely, every month there will be two or three elections— some will die, some will be promoted to high offices— some will go here and there.”
“In this Constituent Assembly,” he said, “during the short period we have had a number of bye-elections although we had nothing to do with them, but in the places from which they have come there have been a number of elections.”
He, therefore, stated that apart from necessity and fairness, the Election Commission should function to prepare a just electoral roll which often gets vitiated by those who put names in it in connivance with the Executive.
Describing the electoral roll as the principal thing in an election he appealed for establishing an impartial and independent Election Commission to deal with the situation necessitating the organisation of multiple elections.
The Election Commission should function to prepare a just electoral roll which often gets vitiated by those who put names in it in connivance with the Executive.
He did not pay heed to those who flagged that more expenses would be incurred for that purpose and pleaded for an Election Commission empowered to conduct elections with impartiality, fairness and integrity.
Culture of accountability getting eroded
Therefore, the Modi-led cabinet’s decision to accept in principle the recommendation of the Kovind Commission centered around the ‘One Nation, One Election’ scheme negates the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly and the vision of Dr B.R. Ambedkar.
Such a recommendation is contrary to the ethos of parliamentary democracy defined in terms of the accountability of the government to the legislature. The sooner that recommendation is abandoned, the better it would be for the cause of upholding the ideal of accountability which has been severely eroded during the last ten years.
The author was Press Secretary to President of India late KR Narayanan.
Courtesy: Newsclick