The debate on One Nation One Election, also known as Simultaneous Elections, has become one of the most pressing conversations in India’s democratic framework. The concept advocates holding elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies at the same time. Recently, “The Lawyer’s Voice”, a High Court forum, hosted an in-depth discussion on this subject under the theme “One Nation One Election – Need of the Hour.” The program brought together distinguished leaders and legal experts, including Bhupendra Yadav (Union Minister of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change), Arjun Ram Meghwal (Minister of State for Law and Justice), Justice Rajendra Menon (Chairperson, Armed Force Tribunal), Chetan Sharma (Additional Solicitor General of India), and Hitesh Jain (Member, Law Commission of India). Their insights revealed the economic, legal, and political dimensions of this ambitious reform.
Historical and Political Context
The practice of simultaneous elections is not new to India. The country’s first general election in 1952 witnessed both Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections being held together, a trend that continued until 1967. However, political instability, premature dissolution of assemblies, and constitutional amendments disrupted this cycle, leading to staggered elections across states and the Centre. Over time, this shift resulted in India becoming a nation in a perpetual election mode, where one part of the country or another is always voting.
The Election Commission of India recognized the drawbacks of such a system as early as 1982, recommending a return to synchronized elections. The Law Commission of India has also repeatedly underlined the need for reforms to streamline the electoral process. The 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2024, which introduces Article 82-A, is the latest attempt to provide a legal foundation for simultaneous elections.
India’s current electoral schedule imposes significant strains on governance and public resources. The cost of conducting elections repeatedly is staggering. In 2019 alone, as Justice Rajendra Menon highlighted, nearly ₹55,000 crores were spent solely on the electoral process. These funds, critics argue, could have been redirected to social welfare programs, infrastructure, and economic development.
Another challenge lies in the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which is imposed during every election cycle. While designed to ensure fairness, the MCC temporarily halts the government from introducing new policies or projects. With elections taking place frequently in different states, governance suffers from repeated disruptions, slowing down the pace of reforms and delaying public services. Moreover, frequent elections demand constant deployment of security forces and government officials. Instead of focusing on their core duties—such as law enforcement, administration, and public welfare—they are diverted to election duties. This creates inefficiency, exhaustion, and sometimes compromises the delivery of essential services.
At a political level, continuous campaigning fosters short-term populist policies instead of long-term planning. Governments often prioritize electoral gains over sustainable development, creating a climate of political instability and uncertainty that discourages both domestic and international investments.
Advantages of One Nation One Election
Proponents of One Nation One Election argue that the reform would bring significant relief to India’s democratic and administrative machinery. First, it would drastically reduce electoral expenditure. Instead of mobilizing vast sums of money and manpower multiple times, a single synchronized election would create efficiencies, enabling the redirection of funds toward pressing developmental needs.
Second, simultaneous elections would improve voter participation. Currently, voter fatigue is common, as citizens are repeatedly called to the polls within short intervals. By consolidating elections into a single cycle, turnout is expected to rise, strengthening democratic participation and ensuring a more representative mandate.
The reform also promises greater political stability. With fixed five-year cycles for both state and central governments, policy continuity would be assured, enabling long-term planning and reform implementation. Such stability would boost investor confidence and drive sustained economic growth.
Bhupendra Yadav emphasized the role of simultaneous elections in reinforcing transparency and accountability in governance. With fewer election cycles, the chances of misuse of resources or manipulation would reduce. The judiciary, security forces, and administrative bodies, which currently carry an immense burden during elections, would also be relieved, enabling them to return to their primary roles.
Perspectives from Eminent Voices
The forum saw a range of powerful statements from the dignitaries. Bhupendra Yadav described democracy as both the “honor and power of India,” stressing that simultaneous elections would promote transparency, growth, and national unity. Arjun Ram Meghwal explained the constitutional pathway, pointing to the Election Commission’s 1982 recommendation and highlighting the 129th Amendment Bill. He argued that synchronized polls could contribute as much as 3% to India’s GDP.
Justice Rajendra Menon offered a judicial perspective, citing landmark cases such as SR Bomai, Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narayan, and Keshavananda Bharati as providing guiding principles for reform. He warned of the wastefulness of current practices, stressing that One Nation One Election was an urgent necessity.
Chetan Sharma, with passionate conviction, remarked that India is “not preparing for elections, but living in them.” He likened the reform to a sacred offering in a national yajna, calling it a moral and ethical imperative for India’s democratic survival. Meanwhile, Hitesh Jain of the Law Commission reminded the gathering of the constitutional disruptions of 1959 and the abuse of electoral processes since. He asserted that One Nation One Election would fortify, not weaken, the basic structure of the Constitution, ensuring accountability and serving the national interest.
Despite its appeal, the implementation of One Nation One Election is fraught with challenges. A major hurdle lies in the requirement for constitutional amendments across multiple provisions. Political consensus is another critical obstacle, as regional parties fear that national issues may overshadow local concerns during synchronized elections.
Logistical and infrastructural readiness is also a concern. Conducting elections simultaneously across India’s vast geography requires massive technological preparation, advanced voting mechanisms, and seamless coordination between state and central election bodies. Additionally, critics argue that such a reform may undermine the principles of federalism by reducing the autonomy of states to hold elections independently.
Yet, many experts argue these challenges can be addressed with phased implementation, robust planning, and consensus-building among stakeholders. With political will and cooperation, the vision of simultaneous elections is not unattainable.
The renewed focus on One Nation One Election represents India’s desire to modernize and strengthen its democratic institutions. With increasing support from political leaders, the judiciary, and constitutional experts, the proposal is moving from theory toward actionable reform. If executed with care, it could transform India’s democratic process into one that is not only more efficient but also more participatory and transparent.
The recent discussion organized by The Lawyer’s Voice showcased how critical this reform is to India’s growth story. The consensus was clear: the time has come to make India’s democracy leaner, more effective, and future-ready.
The push for One Nation One Election is no longer a distant idea but an urgent necessity. Simultaneous elections offer a pathway to reducing costs, ensuring policy stability, enhancing voter engagement, and strengthening the integrity of India’s democratic institutions. While challenges remain, the collective voices of political leaders, legal experts, and policymakers indicate that this reform is both possible and imperative. If implemented, One Nation One Election will not just be an electoral reform—it will be a landmark shift that defines India’s democratic and economic future.
