India’s Proposal for Simultaneous National and State Elections

India, recognized as the world’s largest democracy, experiences an almost continuous cycle of elections. With 28 states, eight union territories, and nearly a billion eligible voters, electoral events are a constant feature of the country’s political landscape. For several years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has championed the concept of “One Nation, One Election”—a plan to conduct state and federal elections concurrently every five years. On Tuesday, the Indian law minister introduced legislation in parliament to implement this system, initiating a debate concerning power dynamics. Advocates assert that this approach would significantly reduce campaign expenses, ease the burden on administrative resources, and enhance governance efficiency. Former President Ram Nath Kovind, who chaired a nine-member committee that recommended holding elections simultaneously last year, labeled it a “game changer,” citing economists who suggest it could boost India’s GDP by up to 1.5%. Critics, however, caution that it could undermine India’s federal structure, leading to a concentration of power at the center and weakening the autonomy of states. India’s democratic framework operates at multiple tiers, each with its own electoral cycle. General elections are held to elect parliament members, state elections to choose legislators, while rural and urban councils conduct separate polls for local governance. By-elections are conducted to fill vacancies arising from the resignation, death, or disqualification of representatives. These elections occur every five years, but at staggered intervals. The government now seeks to synchronize them. In March, a panel led by Kovind proposed holding state and general elections together in its extensive 18,626-page report. It also recommended that local body elections be held within 100 days. The committee suggested that if a government loses an election, new polls would be conducted, but its tenure would extend only until the subsequent synchronized election. While this might seem like a significant shift, simultaneous polls are not new to India. They were the standard practice from the first election in 1951 until 1967, when political instability and early dissolutions of state assemblies led to the adoption of staggered polls. Efforts to revive this system have been discussed for decades, with proposals from the Election Commission in 1983, the Law Commission in 1999, and Niti Aayog, a government think-tank, in 2017. The primary argument in favor of simultaneous elections is the reduction of electoral costs. According to the Delhi-based non-profit Centre for Media Studies, India spent over 600 billion rupees ($7.07 billion; £5.54 billion) on the 2019 general elections, making them the world’s most expensive at that time. Nevertheless, critics argue that the very goal of reducing costs could backfire. With 900 million eligible voters, ensuring a sufficient supply of electronic voting machines, security forces, and election officials would demand extensive planning and resources. A 2015 parliamentary committee report by the law and justice Department indicated that India already spends 45 billion rupees on general and state elections. The report mentioned that if simultaneous elections were held, a total of 92.84 billion rupees would be required to procure new voting and voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) machines, which dispense a slip of paper with the symbol of the party the voter selected. These machines would also need to be replaced every 15 years. Former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi has expressed concerns about the substantial costs. He stated that these should have been addressed in the Kovind committee report, especially since reducing election expenses was a key rationale behind the proposal. Implementing simultaneous elections necessitates formal changes or revisions to specific provisions (or articles) of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the country. Some of these changes would require ratification by at least half of India’s 28 state assemblies. While the BJP-led alliance holds a simple majority in parliament, it lacks the two-thirds majority required for such constitutional amendments. The Kovind committee examined models from countries such as South Africa, Sweden, and Indonesia, suggesting their best practices for India. In September, the cabinet approved the proposal to hold simultaneous elections and, on Thursday, endorsed two bills advocating for the system. Federal Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal has introduced these bills in parliament. One bill proposes a constitutional amendment to enable joint federal and state elections, while another aims to align assembly polls in Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu & Kashmir with the general election schedule. The government has stated its openness to referring the bills to a parliamentary committee and consulting political parties to build consensus. The Kovind committee contacted all Indian parties for feedback, with 47 responding—32 supported simultaneous elections, while 15 opposed them. Most supporters were BJP allies or friendly parties, citing benefits such as savings in time, cost, and resources. The BJP contended that the model code of conduct had cost India “800 days of governance” in the past five years by delaying welfare schemes. Prime Minister Modi has supported simultaneous elections, stating in August, “Frequent elections are obstructing the nation’s advancement.” He added, “With elections occurring every three to six months, every scheme is linked to polls.” Opposition parties, led by the Congress, have labeled simultaneous polls “undemocratic” and argued that they undermine the country’s parliamentary system of government. They claim that such a setup would give an unfair advantage to national parties over regional ones. The parties also recommended enhancing transparency in the funding process as a better solution to addressing concerns about election costs.