One Nation One Election Bill Not Unconstitutional But Needs Tweaks: Ex-CJI Chandrachud Tells JPC
The former CJI pointed out that simultaneous elections were historically practiced in India from 1950 to 1960, and there is no constitutional provision mandating that elections to Parliament and state legislatures be held separately;
In a significant development, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud told the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the One Nation One Election (ONOE) Bill that the proposed legislation does not violate the Constitution or its basic structure. However, he flagged key gaps that need to be addressed and called for important revisions to limit the powers conferred on the Election Commission of India (ECI), sources present in the meeting said.
Justice Chandrachud, who appeared before the JPC, emphasised that while the idea of holding simultaneous elections is constitutionally permissible, the Bill must avoid granting the ECI unchecked authority. According to sources, he was categorical that empowering the Commission to alter substantive constitutional timelines such as shortening the tenure of elected assemblies by issuing unilateral reports to the President would not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
“This was my first appearance before the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The depth of the learning and knowledge of the respected Members of Parliament has left a lasting impression on my mind. The dialogue which spanned nearly three hours was constructive, cutting across party lines. The meeting today has reaffirmed my faith in India’s Parliamentary democracy and in the future of our democratic institutions,” Justice Chandrachud said.
Justice Chandrachud is the third former CJI to offer his views before the panel, following appearances by Justices U.U. Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi. Sources said his submission was structured under three main themes:
1. The concept of simultaneous elections does not breach the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. The powers proposed to be given to the ECI in the Bill must be significantly revised and restrained.
3. The Bill must address constitutional ambiguities, especially concerning emergencies and early dissolutions of legislatures.
The former CJI pointed out that simultaneous elections were historically practiced in India from 1950 to 1960, and there is no constitutional provision mandating that elections to Parliament and state legislatures be held separately.
He cited the 1957 general elections, during which several state assemblies were prematurely dissolved to align with the national electoral schedule. He argued that federalism and democracy, both part of the Constitution’s basic structure, do not inherently require asynchronous elections.
To address the shortcomings in the Bill, Justice Chandrachud recommended that the Election Commission should be permitted to postpone elections only under exceptional circumstances involving national security or public order.
Even then, any such recommendation should be ratified by both Houses of Parliament, and the delay should be limited to a clearly defined, fixed period.
Among the major legislative gaps identified by the former CJI was the lack of clarity around Article 352, which allows Parliament and state legislatures to extend their terms during a national emergency. He cautioned that the Bill does not explain how such extensions would affect the synchronised election cycle. Once the Emergency ends, there would be a constitutional dilemma, whether to truncate Parliament’s extended term or to prolong the assemblies’ tenures to bring them back into alignment.
Another critical scenario he raised relates to premature dissolution of a state assembly, particularly six or seven months before the natural end of its term due to a loss of majority.
According to Justice Chandrachud, such a case does not fall under Article 356 (President’s Rule), and the Bill offers no clear guidance on whether polls can be deferred to maintain synchronisation with Lok Sabha elections. He warned that unless these situations are explicitly addressed, they could lead to confusion or even abuse of constitutional provisions.
The detailed engagement between the JPC and former CJIs reflects the complexity and far-reaching implications of the ONOE proposal. With a wide range of constitutional, federal, and electoral issues at play, the Committee is expected to continue its consultations before finalising recommendations.