Dipak Kurmi
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
The Union Government, despite opposition from political parties and civil society, decided on September 18 to proceed with the plan for simultaneous elections, endorsing the recommendations of a high-level committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind. The committee proposed holding Lok Sabha and Assembly elections concurrently, with municipal and panchayat elections to follow within 100 days. To execute this plan, the government will require constitutional amendments to be passed in both Parliament and the state assemblies.
The debate over simultaneous elections has been ongoing for decades. In 2013, before taking office as Prime Minister, Narendra Modi highlighted the importance of holding simultaneous elections, pointing to the high costs and disruptions to development caused by frequent elections. Since then, several committees have explored the matter, but none succeeded in finding a practical solution. Against this backdrop, the Kovind-led committee was established with a specific mandate: to develop concrete methods for implementing simultaneous elections, rather than revisiting the debate on its merits.
The committee successfully submitted a detailed report within the assigned timeline. Formed on September 2, 2023, the committee worked for 191 days, presenting an 18,626-page report on March 14, 2024. Its members comprised notable figures from various sectors. The committee gathered input from political parties and legal experts, including former chief justices, chief election commissioners, and state election commissioners. Public suggestions were also invited, with prominent organisations such as the Bar Council of India, the Confederation of Indian Industry, and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry contributing their perspectives.
The report revealed that 21,558 responses were collected, with 80 percent expressing support for simultaneous elections. However, critics noted that suggestions were only accepted in Hindi and English, limiting representation from all regions of India. Input was gathered from 47 political parties, with 32 (all part of the NDA) backing the proposal, while 15 opposed it, calling it undemocratic and anti-federal. Opponents voiced concerns that simultaneous elections could marginalise regional parties, strengthen the dominance of national parties, and push the country toward a presidential-style system. Taking these perspectives and extensive research into account, the committee carried out a comprehensive analysis.
Proponents of simultaneous elections claim that holding separate elections is a drain on resources and causes policy paralysis. Although most experts acknowledge that constitutional amendments are required, they argue that these modifications would neither be undemocratic nor anti-federal. They further assert that such changes would not threaten the Constitution’s core principles or result in a shift toward a presidential system of governance.
One of the key strengths of the report lies in its thoroughness, spanning 21 volumes of annexures and capturing both past and current viewpoints, making it an invaluable reference. The committee unanimously recommended implementing simultaneous elections across the country. To facilitate this, it proposed several constitutional and legal amendments, including the introduction of a new Article 82A. This article specifies that, “notwithstanding anything contained in Articles 83 and 172, all legislative assemblies formed after the appointed date in any general election shall conclude at the end of the House of the People’s full term.” The report also clarified that “simultaneous elections” would cover elections for both the Lok Sabha and all Vidhan Sabhas, while panchayat elections are to be held “within 100 days” of these polls.
Nevertheless, this approach does not achieve true simultaneous elections and might actually exacerbate the current issues. For one, it excludes over three million elected representatives from the process, whereas only 5,000 are included. Furthermore, an election scheduled three months later cannot be considered simultaneous; it amounts to an entirely new election, requiring extensive logistical efforts—such as setting up polling stations, recruiting and training polling staff, and redeploying security forces—all within a tight three-month window. This comes on top of what is already regarded as the world’s largest management operation, leaving the 15-million-strong workforce with minimal time to recover. Additionally, voters would be required to vote again, which poses a significant challenge for many, particularly low-income daily-wage workers who might find it difficult to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
The report also notes that if a state legislative assembly is dissolved due to a no-confidence motion, a hung House, or other reasons, new elections will be held to form a fresh assembly, with its term concluding alongside that of the Lok Sabha. However, this provision does not preclude midterm elections. Candidates might find themselves spending significant sums on campaigns for terms that could be as brief as one to two years. This situation clearly fails to achieve the goal of simultaneous elections.
The committee has rightly highlighted the importance of a unified electoral roll by proposing an amendment to Article 325, acknowledging that the voter base for all three levels of elections is the same. This shift effectively places the responsibility for managing the electoral rolls of local bodies on the Election Commission of India (ECI), in consultation with State Election Commissioners—a complex undertaking. The report also recognises the ECI’s extensive needs for equipment, including EVMs, VVPATs, polling staff, security forces, and other election materials, along with estimated costs. While the exact costs are not detailed, it is evident that the proposal will require at least three times the current quantity of EVMs and VVPATs. This implies a massive expenditure on nearly 40 lakh units of each, a financial detail that should have been clearly specified, given that cost reduction is a key rationale for the proposal.
The substantial concessions involved in the simultaneous poll proposal have eroded its moral authority. Modifying a well-established democratic system and the Constitution brings about significant concerns. If the proposal were genuinely intended to improve the electoral process, why have elections been staggered over the past decade? Why have the Himachal and Gujarat elections, once held together, been regularly separated, and why have pending elections not been consolidated as was previously standard? These inconsistencies cast doubt on the proposal’s authenticity. One might even question whether this approach is a stepping stone towards advocating for a single political party or leader for the entire nation.