 |
|
The core of the debate surrounding the “One Nation One Election” (ONOE) proposal lies in its potential impact on the fundamental structure and democratic principles of India. The recent testimony of former Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the ONOE Bill, provides crucial insights into the constitutional considerations at play. While Justice Khanna acknowledged that the Bill does not, in its entirety, violate the basic structure of the Constitution, he raised significant concerns regarding the vast powers granted to the Election Commission (EC) in the Bill, specifically concerning the postponement of elections. This nuanced perspective highlights the complexity of the ONOE proposal and underscores the need for careful scrutiny of its implications for Indian democracy.
Justice Khanna's primary concern revolves around Clause 5 of the proposed Article 82A, which, according to his submission, grants the EC unfettered discretion to determine whether elections to a Legislative Assembly can be held concurrently with the general elections for the House of People. This discretion, he argues, empowers the EC to recommend to the President that an Assembly election be postponed to a later date. Justice Khanna suggests that this provision could be deemed unconstitutional on the grounds of being arbitrary and violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The potential for such a provision to be interpreted as arbitrary stems from the lack of clear and objective criteria guiding the EC's decision-making process. Without well-defined parameters, the EC's decision to postpone an election could be perceived as politically motivated or biased, undermining the integrity of the electoral process.
The implication of the EC's power to postpone elections, as Justice Khanna pointed out, extends beyond the immediate postponement itself. He argues that such postponements could lead to an indirect imposition of President's rule in the affected state. In essence, if the EC postpones an Assembly election, the Union Government could effectively take over the reins of the state government. This scenario, according to Justice Khanna, raises serious questions about the federal structure of India, which is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution. The Constitution envisions a clear division of powers between the Union Government and the state governments, with each level of government exercising autonomy within its designated sphere. The EC's power to postpone elections, if not carefully circumscribed, could disrupt this balance of power and undermine the autonomy of state governments.
Justice Khanna's concerns are not isolated. Prior to his appearance before the JPC, four other former Chief Justices of India – U U Lalit, Ranjan Gogoi, J S Khehar, and D Y Chandrachud – had also raised concerns about potential legal challenges to the ONOE Bill. This collective expression of concern from such eminent legal figures underscores the significance of the constitutional questions raised by the ONOE proposal. Their concerns highlight the need for a thorough and impartial assessment of the Bill's potential impact on the structure and functioning of Indian democracy. The potential for legal challenges should not be dismissed lightly, as a successful challenge could significantly disrupt the implementation of the ONOE proposal and create further legal uncertainty.
Furthermore, Justice Khanna questioned whether the stated intent of the Bill – to reduce the frequency of elections – would always be realized in practice. He pointed out that premature dissolution of legislatures could undermine this objective. If a Legislative Assembly is dissolved before the end of its term, a fresh election would be required, potentially negating the benefits of synchronized elections. This observation highlights the importance of considering the practical challenges and potential unintended consequences of the ONOE proposal.
Despite these concerns, Justice Khanna expressed confidence in the maturity of India's democracy and political class. He noted that India has not witnessed any mid-term elections in the past few decades, which he attributed to growing political stability and institutional resilience. This observation provides a counterpoint to the concerns about the potential for premature dissolution of legislatures. It suggests that India's political system has become more stable and less prone to the kind of political instability that could necessitate mid-term elections. However, it is important to note that this trend does not guarantee that mid-term elections will not occur in the future, and it is therefore prudent to carefully consider the potential for such events when assessing the ONOE proposal.
To address the concerns regarding the EC's unfettered discretion in postponing elections, Justice Khanna proposed replacing the current notification-based process proposed in the Bill with a fixed date within the Bill itself for elections. This suggestion aims to provide greater clarity and predictability to the electoral process. By establishing a fixed date for elections, the EC's discretion would be limited, reducing the potential for arbitrary decision-making. This proposal could help to alleviate concerns about the EC's power to postpone elections and ensure that the electoral process is conducted in a fair and transparent manner.
In conclusion, Justice Khanna's testimony before the JPC provides valuable insights into the constitutional considerations surrounding the ONOE Bill. While he acknowledged that the Bill does not, in its entirety, violate the basic structure of the Constitution, he raised significant concerns regarding the vast powers granted to the EC in postponing elections. His concerns about the potential for arbitrary decision-making, the undermining of the federal structure, and the practical challenges of implementing synchronized elections highlight the need for a careful and thorough assessment of the ONOE proposal. Justice Khanna's suggestion of replacing the notification-based process with a fixed election date offers a potential solution to address some of these concerns. The debate surrounding the ONOE proposal is complex and multifaceted, and it is essential that all stakeholders carefully consider the potential implications for Indian democracy before proceeding with its implementation. The need for a national discussion on the matter before passing the bill is paramount. The issue of logistics, the expense of conducting the election at the same time for the whole nation, and other related issues should be discussed threadbare before any final decision is taken on the matter. The apprehensions of the opposition should be addressed and all possible remedies to their reservations should be considered, as in a democracy, the opposition also has a right to express their views and they should be respected. As far as the financial burden on the exchequer due to frequent elections is concerned, ways and means should be considered to reduce the expenditure. In any case, the election should be free and fair and no stone should be left unturned to achieve that objective. India is the world's biggest democracy and its democratic values should be maintained, protected and promoted at all costs. Any attempt to derail the democratic process should be strongly opposed. The Election Commission of India should be given all assistance to discharge its duties efficiently. Suggestions to make the process foolproof should be welcomed. A healthy debate on the matter is good for the nation. All political parties should be taken into confidence and a consensus should be arrived at before taking any final decision. The opinion of the public is of utmost importance and steps should be taken to elicit the opinion of the public at large. The opinion of the subject experts should also be taken into consideration. All the stakeholders should be given an opportunity to express their views. The entire process should be transparent and there should not be any hidden agenda. The views of the former Chief Justices of India, the Law Commission of India, and the legal fraternity should be taken into account. The ONOE is a complex and important issue and should be handled with utmost care. The future of Indian democracy depends on the decision that is taken on this issue. The decision should be taken in the best interests of the nation and its people. The decision should be fair, just, and equitable. The decision should be in accordance with the Constitution of India. The decision should be taken after careful consideration of all the relevant factors. The decision should be taken after a thorough and impartial assessment of all the available evidence. The decision should be taken in a timely manner. The decision should be implemented effectively. The decision should be monitored closely. The decision should be reviewed periodically. The decision should be modified as necessary. The decision should be communicated clearly to all stakeholders. The decision should be supported by all stakeholders. The decision should be successful. The decision should be sustainable. The decision should be beneficial to the nation and its people. The decision should be a source of pride for the nation and its people. The decision should be remembered for generations to come. The decision should be a testament to the wisdom and foresight of the leaders of the nation. The decision should be a beacon of hope for the future of the nation. The decision should be a symbol of the strength and resilience of the Indian democracy. The decision should be a celebration of the unity and diversity of the Indian people. The decision should be a contribution to the peace and prosperity of the world.
Source: Justice Khanna appears before joint poll panel, flags vast powers given to EC in Bill