On Wednesday, members of both the Janata Dal United JD(U), a coalition partner of the BJP, and opposition parties raised concerns over the feasibility of the ‘One Nation, One Polls’ proposal during the inaugural meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee formed to examine the Bill. The Bill, introduced in the previous session of Parliament, seeks to establish simultaneous elections across the country.
Opposition members of the committee questioned the constitutionality of the Bill and raised concerns about its impact on federalism. Meanwhile, BJP allies like the JD(U) inquired how the Bill would address the issue of election-related expenses, particularly in cases where governments fall multiple times during a term.
The YSRCP expressed concerns over the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and is reportedly considering recommending a return to ballot papers. The 39-member committee is reviewing two key Bills: one amending the Constitution to align the terms of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, and another to amend relevant Acts for Union Territories and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, to facilitate simultaneous elections.
On Wednesday, the committee received documents and representations from the Ministry of Law. Members of the NDA have defended the proposal, pointing out that the concept of simultaneous elections has been under discussion since 1957. Law Ministry officials briefed the committee, presenting the background, rationale, and details of the proposal for simultaneous elections.
Each member of the committee was provided with a copy of the report by the High-Level Committee on One Nation One Election, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, as well as thousands of pages of annexures in American Tourister luggage cases. The annexures included previous reports from the Law Commission and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the issue.
The JD(U) has raised logistical concerns regarding the organization of simultaneous elections. Meanwhile, Congress and other opposition parties argue that the proposal contradicts the Constitution and undermines the country’s federal structure.
