Abraham Lincoln once remarked, 'The ballot is stronger than the bullet.' In a democratic nation like India, this statement captures the very soul of our governance system. However, frequent elections across states and the Centre often dilute this democratic strength, diverting focus from governance to constant politicking. The concept of 'One Nation, One Election' emerges as a reformative step to consolidate the power of the ballot, ensuring both efficiency and integrity in the electoral process.

The "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) proposal seeks to synchronize Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly elections to occur simultaneously every five years, reducing election frequency and improving efficiency.  Synchronization of elections seeks to balance democratic integrity with administrative efficiency.

This reflects on the larger essence of democracy and can be linked to the importance of fair and inclusive elections, where the unity of a nation doesn't come at the expense of its diversity. The Parliament has taken steps toward this with the introduction of the Constitution 129th Amendment Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws Amendment Bill, 2024 in Lok Sabha.
 
The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024
The objective of the bill, which Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal introduced on December 17, 2024, is to coordinate state and national elections. The High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections, which was presided over by former President Ram Nath Kovind, made suggestions that are incorporated into it. A Joint Parliamentary Committee has been tasked with thoroughly reviewing the measure

1. Key Features of the Bill:
   • Insertion of Article 82A: Empowering the President to notify an "Appointed date" for simultaneous elections, starting from which elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies will occur together.
      
   • Amendments to Existing Constitutional Articles:
     • Article 83: This bill aims to amend this article to align the term of the Lok Sabha to five years from the Appointed Date.
     • Article 172: This bill aims to align state legislative assembly terms to five years from the appointed date.
     • Article 324: This article provides exclusive authority to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct both Parliamentary and State Assembly elections.
     • Article 327: Allows Parliament to legislate on election-related matters, facilitating ONOE implementation.
     • Article 356: Deals with premature dissolution and proposes that a new government only serves the "unexpired term" to maintain synchronization. The Supreme Court ruled that misuse of Article 356 undermines federalism and is subject to judicial review.
        
   • Amendments to the Representation of People's Act, 1951: There is a need of changes to harmonize election notifications, timetables, and Model Code of Conduct for simultaneous elections, as well as provisions for handling unexpired terms if assemblies are dissolved early. To enable ONOE in India, amendment to section 14, 15, 30, 126 and introduction of some new sections will be needed.
      
   • Handling Premature Dissolutions: If the Lok Sabha or a State Assembly is dissolved prematurely, elections will be held for the unexpired term, maintaining synchronization.
      
   • Provision for Deferred Elections: In exceptional cases, the Election Commission may recommend deferring elections in a state, with adjustments made to ensure synchronization with the national cycle.
      
2. Historical Evolution of ONOE:
   • In India, the idea of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) is not new. Initially, India followed this system after independence, with simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and most State Assemblies from 1951 to 1967. However, political instability and premature dissolutions, particularly due to Article 356, led to staggered election cycles from 1970 onward. As rightly said by Aesop, "United we stand, divided we fall", unity (through simultaneous elections) was the original idea post-independence and might still be desirable in today's time.
   • 1983: The Election Commission of India (ECI) recommended reverting to ONOE for better governance and cost-efficiency.
   • 1999: The 170th Law Commission Report, chaired by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, formally recommended reviving ONOE, highlighting benefits such as cost savings and reduced political instability but also acknowledging challenges related to state autonomy and constitutional amendments.
   • 2014–2016: Under Prime Minister Modi, ONOE gained renewed attention. In 2016, NITI Aayog, led by CEO Amitabh Kant, released a paper supporting ONOE, citing advantages like cost savings and reduced disruptions.
   • 2015: The 255th Law Commission Report revisited ONOE, advocating for phased implementation and constitutional amendments to synchronize electoral cycles.
   • 2018: The 21st Law Commission, led by Justice B.S. Chauhan, proposed constitutional and legal amendments to manage mid-term dissolutions and define "unexpired terms."
   • 2023: A High-Level Committee (HLC), chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, was formed to explore ONOE's feasibility. The committee recommended phased implementation, constitutional amendments, and alignment of election terms using the "unexpired term" model.

 

Arguments in favor of One Nation, One Election

1. Increase in GDP: The Kovind Committee report suggests that frequent elections negatively impact the economy. Implementing simultaneous elections could boost India's GDP by 1-1.5%[iii]. Cost savings, political stability, and better governance could create a more conducive environment for sustained economic growth. It recommended directing savings into infrastructure, education, and healthcare could stimulate demand, investment, and productivity.
    
2. Reduction of Inflation: The increase in GDP might also result in the decrease of inflation by around 1.1% (as per HLC). During elections, government spending increases due to election-related activities, which can contribute to demand-pull inflation (when demand for goods and services exceeds supply). If One Nation, One Election reduces such expenditures, it could reduce demand-pull inflation, particularly in election years. If the policy results in fewer political disruptions, governments may be able to implement consistent economic policies, especially on monetary and fiscal measures. This could help reduce inflation, as market participants would have a clearer understanding of policy direction, preventing unexpected price increases.
    
3. Cost of Elections: Indian elections are extremely exorbitant. The 2019 Lok Sabha elections cost an estimated ₹55,000-60,000 crore, According to Dr. N. Bhaskara Rao, Chairman of the Centre for Media Studies (CMS), the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in India were the most costly in the nation's history, with an estimated ₹1.35 lakh crore spent overall. This amount exceeds the predicted ₹1.2 lakh crore spent on the 2020 U.S. presidential and congressional elections combined[iv].​ The constant rise in election-related expenses and inducement seizures highlight the financial burden. ONOE could significantly reduce these costs by consolidating elections, saving money, manpower, and logistics.
    
4. Issues Raised by the Ruling Party:
   1. Slowdown of Governance: The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a set of instructions and ethical standards issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to guarantee the conduct of free and fair elections throughout the nation. The MCC suspends new projects, delays financial grants, and halts development activities during elections. Therefore, the implementation of the MCC also affects the pace of the development programmes and related activities in states undergoing elections. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi rightly observed, 'Good governance is not fire-fighting or crisis management. Instead, it is an enduring process of planning and executing.' ONOE offers a mechanism to foster such uninterrupted and visionary governance by reducing the frequency of electoral disruptions. The ruling party also presented the analysis which indicated halt in the year 2014, governance and development activities due to the imposition of MCC remained largely suspended for about 7 months[v].
      1. months suspended- across the country
      2. months suspension- in Jharkhand and Jammu & Kashmir
      3. months suspension- in Maharashtra and Haryana
          
   2. Diversion of Political Focus: Frequent elections divert politicians' attention from governance. The Kovind Committee suggests that ONOE could save up to ₹4.5 lakh crore by preventing the governance loss caused by election distractions. As aptly observed, 'A government that is constantly on election mode is a government distracted from governance.' This statement reflects the reality in India, where electoral cycles often consume valuable time, energy, and resources, leaving limited scope for uninterrupted policy implementation and long-term planning.
       
   3. Premature Dissolutions: Simultaneous elections every five years would ensure governments complete their full term, fostering stable governance and long-term planning. ONOE would reduce the likelihood of unstable coalitions and ensure voters focus on national issues rather than regional or emotional concerns.
       
5. Reduced Administrative Burden: Conduct of separate elections requires significant security forces, civil servants, and government officials. With ONOE, resources can be concentrated on a single event, improving efficiency and reducing the strain on security arrangements and personnel. This would allow targeted deployment in sensitive regions and ensure better resource management.
    
6. Reduced Political Polarization and Populism: Elections spread across multiple years often result in polarizing rhetoric and populist promises. ONOE would consolidate election periods, reducing opportunities for politicians to engage in divisive tactics like caste-based or identity-based appeals. Elections, especially state elections, often prompt governments to announce populist measures to win votes, such as freebies, subsidies, or short-term benefits.
   
   These measures, although appealing to voters in the short term, can create long-term fiscal and economic challenges. By aligning national and state elections under the ONOE scheme, there will be fewer elections and thus less frequent opportunities for politicians to use populism as a tool to win votes. If elections are held less frequently, political leaders may focus more on long-term governance and policy development rather than trying to meet the immediate, populist demands of voters for quick gains.
    
7. Strengthens Societal Unity and Brotherhood: A single election process would promote unity in diversity, as the entire country would participate in the electoral process together. This shared experience could enhance the sense of national democratic participation, with leaders addressing a broader national audience rather than focusing on narrow regional issues.

Arguments against One Nation, One Election (ONOE)

1. Animosity between Centre and States: Parties like INC, TMC, DMK, and AAP oppose ONOE, fearing that regional issues, like the Cauvery water dispute or NEET exam, could be overshadowed by national campaigns. They argue that ONOE could marginalize local concerns, disrupt federalism, and weaken state autonomy. Leaders from southern and northeastern states highlight concerns over losing focus on state-specific issues in a national election cycle. ONOE must be implemented in a way that does not disturb the basic structure, especially the federal balance between the Centre and the states. To maintain the spirit of federalism, it is essential that ONOE be rolled out through consensus, constitutional backing, and a strong commitment to preserving state autonomy.
    
2. Constitutional and Legal Hurdles: The opposition parties have argued that "states have their own constitutional identity and electoral cycles. Forcing a uniform election cycle may infringe on State autonomy, protected under federalism, which is a basic structure." Provisions like Article 356 and Article 352 could further politicize state interventions during national elections, exacerbating tensions between the Centre and states.
    
3. Amendments in the Constitution: To implement ONOE, amendments to Articles 82A, 83, 85, 172, 174, 324, and 356 would be necessary, requiring Special Majority requiring support from at least 50% of states. This constitutional hurdle, along with the legal reforms needed, would complicate and increase the cost of implementation, defeating the intended purpose of reducing election expenses.
    
4. Accountability and Transparency in Question: While Lok Sabha elections follow a fixed five-year cycle, state assembly elections often occur independently, resulting in staggered electoral schedules. This frequent election cycle, though expensive, ensures continued political accountability by allowing citizens to express their opinions more regularly. For instance, in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections, the ruling party led by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath secured a decisive victory, reflecting strong public support. However, in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the party's seat count in Uttar Pradesh dropped sharply from 62 seats (2019) to 33 seats, indicating voter dissatisfaction with governance during 2022–2024. Such electoral shifts serve as important feedback mechanisms, compelling both central and state governments to reassess their policies and remain answerable to the electorate.
    
5. Psychology of the Voters: Simultaneous elections could lead to cognitive biases in voters, such as the Halo Effect, where national leaders influence votes for local candidates, or the Coattail Effect, where voters align their state vote with the central government's narrative. This could undermine the distinction between national and local issues, distorting the electoral process and weakening federalism. Example: The phenomenon of the Halo Effect was evident in the 2014 Haryana elections, where the national popularity of the BJP under Narendra Modi significantly influenced voter behavior at the state level. Coincidentally in the year 2014, the elections of Haryana State Assembly and Lok Sabha elections happened almost at the same time. In Haryana, BJP won 47 out of 90 seats, forming the government independently for the first time. Voters, highly impressed by Modi's national leadership image, extended their support to BJP's state candidates, even though many of those local leaders had weaker individual profiles compared to the party's national branding. This exemplifies how simultaneous or proximate elections can blur the distinction between national and regional mandates, reinforcing concerns about the psychological biases among voters under the ONOE model.
    
6. Delay in Election Results: Conducting simultaneous elections for all 543 Lok Sabha constituencies and 4,120+ assembly segments would require more EVMs, counting centers, and data processing, potentially leading to delays in announcing results. The massive scale could slow down the counting process, despite better technology and planning.
    
7. Expensive Process: ONOE's initial rollout would involve significant costs for purchasing additional EVMs and VVPAT machines (approx. 30+ lakh units), storage, and training. The logistical expenses of implementing synchronized elections—such as new warehouses, security staff, and maintenance—could run into thousands of crores. This one-time investment could offset long-term savings in election costs.
    
8. Unified approach: When multiple elections are held at different times, media coverage tends to be fragmented, focusing heavily on regional issues that may amplify regional polarization. However, simultaneous elections could lead to a more unified media focus on national issues (like economic policy, foreign affairs, national security, etc.). This would encourage more comprehensive debates rather than focusing narrowly on populist promises for specific communities or regions.
    

Challenges and Solutions in implementing ONOE

The implementation of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) requires a phased approach, as recommended by the HLC headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind. The process is divided into three phases:

1. Phase 1: The first phase involved aligning the dates for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Subsequently, municipal and Panchayat elections will be synchronized with these, taking place within 100 days.
2. Phase 2: Include local body elections, pilot testing, and infrastructure enhancement. Kovind committee recommended the introduction of Article 324A to facilitate simultaneous elections for Panchayats and Municipalities and proposes an amendment to Article 325 to create a unified voter roll and photo ID cards for all elections.
3. Phase 3: Full-scale implementation ensuring smooth coordination between national and state elections.
    

Key Terms:

• Full Term: The complete 5-year tenure of a legislature. ONOE aims to align the full terms of all assemblies and the Lok Sabha. Adjustments (curtailing or extending tenures) may be necessary for synchronization.
• Unexpired Term: The remaining portion of a term after premature dissolution. Under ONOE, the unexpired term will be served by interim governments or through by-elections until the next full-term general election.
• General Election: Held at the end of a full term (5 years). Under ONOE, this would happen every 5 years for both the Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies simultaneously.
• Mid-Term Election: Held when a legislature is dissolved before completing its term. Under ONOE, any mid-term election would result in a legislature serving only the unexpired term to maintain synchronization.
   

Key Challenge:

The primary challenge is dealing with mid-term dissolutions. If a legislature is dissolved prematurely, the newly elected assembly will serve only the unexpired term, leading to a shorter tenure before the next general election. This could result in increased costs for elections and campaigns, without offering a full 5-year governance period, potentially causing political instability and financial strain. 

Comparative Global Analysis of ONOE

India is not the first to consider the One Nation, One Election (ONOE) system. Several countries, including South Africa, Sweden, Indonesia, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Philippines, The US and others, have implemented or adopted similar systems. Let's explore their experiences and challenges to understand whether India can successfully adopt this model.

• South Africa: South Africa holds simultaneous national and provincial elections every five years, using a Proportional Representation system. Benefits of this strategy include lower expenses and better planning. However, South Africa's unitary governance model and simpler coordination, due to its proportional system, make it easier to implement. In contrast, India's federal structure and diverse electoral cycles pose significant logistical and constitutional challenges. Additionally, India's first-past-the-post system differs from South Africa's, complicating direct replication of the model.
• Sweden: Sweden conducts synchronized national, regional, and municipal elections every four years. This system has resulted in high voter turnout, cost efficiency, and governance stability. However, Sweden is a smaller country with fewer administrative divisions. India, with its vast electorate and diverse geography, would face challenges in standardizing such a system, making direct adoption impractical.
• Indonesia: Since 2019, Indonesia has held simultaneous presidential and legislative elections, leading to cost savings and political alignment. However, Indonesia's vast archipelagic geography and logistical challenges resemble those faced by India, including voter fatigue and the strain on election workers. India, with its multilingual population and diverse geographical landscape, would likely encounter similar complexities, requiring tailored solutions.

Suggestions for Implementation of ONOE

Implementing One Nation, One Election is fraught with logistical, legal, and political challenges. However, as Thomas Macaulay aptly noted, 'Reform is not pleasant, but grievous; no nation reforms itself out of love for virtue but from necessity.' The growing electoral fatigue, spiraling expenditure, and the disruption to governance make reform not a matter of choice, but of urgent necessity. Although the transition towards synchronized elections may be complex, its long-term benefits for the democratic process and administrative efficiency cannot be overlooked. Therefore, here are following suggestions based on the various law commission reports, the HLC & Kovind Committee.

• Constitutional Amendments: Amend Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, 324, and 356 of the Constitution, and the Representation of the People Act to harmonize election procedures. "The strength of the nation lies not in its uniformity, but in its ability to dance together, despite the difference in rhythm." Amendments should respect state autonomy and include safeguards to prevent regional voices from being overshadowed. A neutral election schedule body could ensure fairness and avoid altering the basic structure of federalism and democracy.
• Financial Planning and Infrastructure: Coordinating elections centrally will reduce overlapping responsibilities for law enforcement and the Election Commission, streamlining security and logistics.
• Standardized Protocols: A unified election schedule will allow standardized security protocols across the country, improving coordination among security forces (e.g., paramilitary forces, state police, etc.) and ensuring more effective training and response.
• Efficient Use of Technology: Advanced technologies like drones, surveillance systems, introduction of almost 15 lakhs new EVMs and VVPATs can be optimized for national monitoring, while upgraded infrastructure will minimize delays in result processing, as recommended by the Kovind Committee.
• Execution Stage: The formation of policies can be attained but the stage of execution is the crucial factor which will determine the success or failure of the mission. Therefore, to supervise and guarantee the effective execution of these measures, the Kovind committee recommended the creation of an "Implementation group", which will help in the effective execution of the measures suggested by the HLC.
• Legislative Safeguards Against Mid-Term Collapse: Encourage constructive votes of no-confidence (as in Germany). Under Article 67 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz), a government can only be removed through a no-confidence motion if a new Chancellor is elected by the Bundestag in the same vote. This prevents frequent dissolutions and encourages coalition stability, aligning with ONOE's goal to maintain electoral timelines. India should also introduce legal provisions for coalition stability, preventing frequent dissolutions. If a house is dissolved, new government will only serve the remainder of the term.
• Public and Political Consensus: Engage political parties, civil society, and media through consultations and awareness campaigns to ensure broad-based support for constitutional amendments and prevent voter confusion during simultaneous elections. ONOE must not reduce voter awareness or clarity between state and national issues. If simultaneous voting confuses or misleads voters, it could violate the spirit of this ruling.

 
Conclusion
The proposal for One Nation, One Election offers both benefits and challenges. While ONOE promises efficiency, cost savings, and stable governance, it must be pursued without compromising India's federal spirit. Reforms must protect regional voices while strengthening national unity. Successful implementation will depend on careful constitutional balancing, administrative planning, and political consensus.

The key issue lies in balancing national efficiency with preserving state autonomy, particularly in diverse regions like Southern states, which fear a uniform approach might overshadow regional cultural and linguistic concerns. As one opposing leader noted, "A one-size-fits-all campaign doesn't suit a country as diverse as India."

To address this, the Parliament should form implementation groups and consider constitutional amendments to protect federalism. The core of this debate is to ensure that reforms do not compromise democratic values, such as the representation of regional voices and local issues, but rather enhance India's diverse political landscape. The representation, electoral equality, and the importance of diverse political voices in a democracy is very crucial. If One Nation, One Election ends up silencing regional voices or weakening representation of local issues, it might go against the democratic values upheld[xiv].

End Notes:

1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 1 (India).
2. Law Commission of India, 170th Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999).
3. Press Information Bureau, Report Summary of the High-Level Committee on One Nation, One Election (2024).
4. 2024 Lok Sabha Elections Pegged as Costliest Ever, Says Expert, National Herald (Apr. 2, 2024, 12:30 PM), https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/2024-lok-sabha-elections-pegged-as-costliest-ever-says-expert.
5. NITI Aayog, Discussion Paper on Simultaneous Elections: A Possible Way Forward (Jan. 2017), https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/simultaneous_elections/NITI_AYOG_REPORT_2017.pdf.
6. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, [1973] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 1 (India).
7. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1918 (India).
8. Election Commission of India, Uttar Pradesh Assembly Election Results 2022, https://eci.gov.in.
9. Election Commission of India, General Election to Lok Sabha Trends & Results 2024, https://results.eci.gov.in.
10. Election Commission of India, Statistical Report on General Election to the Legislative Assembly of Haryana, 2014, https://eci.gov.in/files/file/3370-haryana-2014/ (last visited Apr. 26, 2025).
11. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), SIPRI Yearbook 1995: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/1995/03.
12. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, The Federal Elections in Germany 2002: Report, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf.
13. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 2 S.C.R. 1136 (India).
14. R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, (1993) 1 S.C.R. 891 (India).

Written By: Shelly Rohilla, A Fresh Graduate Of Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla