Daily Mains Question – GS 2 – 22nd July 2025

Welcome to your daily Mains Model Answer — crafted to unpack the constitutional, legal, and institutional dimensions surrounding the Election Commission’s role under the proposed One Nation, One Election (ONOE) framework. Today’s question critically examines the intersection of electoral reform and the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

In the context of the 129th Constitution Amendment Bill, which seeks to institutionalize simultaneous elections across the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, a key constitutional debate has emerged: Can the Election Commission of India (ECI) be entrusted with broad discretionary powers to determine the feasibility and timing of such polls without violating the principle of non-arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14? This discussion is especially relevant to GS Paper 2 (Polity and Governance), and engages with core themes such as institutional accountability, separation of powers, electoral integrity, and constitutional morality — all of which also have significant resonance in the Essay paper and interview discourse.

Click Here to read the Monthly Current Affairs Pointers (CAP).

QUESTION

“The proposal for simultaneous elections under the 129th Constitution Amendment Bill has raised concerns regarding the extent of discretionary powers granted to the Election Commission. Critically evaluate whether such discretion, in the absence of defined safeguards, aligns with the constitutional principle of equality under Article 14.”

Answer: The concept of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) seeks to synchronize elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. While the aim is administrative efficiency and reducing electoral expenditure, concerns have been raised regarding the discretionary powers proposed to be granted to the Election Commission of India (ECI) under the 129th Constitution Amendment Bill. These powers, particularly the authority to decide the feasibility and timing of simultaneous elections, raise constitutional questions, especially vis-à-vis Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws.

Constitutional Background

• Article 324: Empowers the ECI to conduct free and fair elections.

• Article 82 (Proposed Amendment): Empowers the ECI to recommend to the President that elections to a State Assembly may be held at a later date if simultaneous polls are not feasible.

• Article 14: Ensures that any state action must be non-arbitrary and based on reasonable classification backed by intelligible differentia.

The Nature of Discretionary Powers Under ONOE

• The 129th Amendment Bill proposes to allow the ECI to unilaterally assess whether a Legislative Assembly election can be held alongside Lok Sabha elections.

• If deemed infeasible, the ECI can recommend postponement — a power with no explicit temporal limit or statutory safeguards.

• This provision places significant discretion in the hands of a non-legislative, executive body, raising concerns of democratic accountability and judicial review.

Interaction with Article 14 – The Equality Clause

1. Arbitrariness as Antithesis of Equality

   • The Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) held that arbitrariness violates Article 14.

   • The lack of defined criteria in the proposed law allows unguided discretion, potentially resulting in unequal treatment of different States based on subjective judgments.

2. Absence of Procedural Safeguards

   • The current draft lacks provisions for parliamentary oversight, judicial review, or grounds of deferment.

   • Without these, ECI decisions could be inconsistent, lacking transparency, and susceptible to perceived bias, undermining equal protection under law.

3. Impact on Federal Structure

   • Uneven election schedules among States based solely on ECI’s discretion can be viewed as differential treatment of States, challenging the federal ethos upheld under the Constitution.

4. Violation of Democratic Rights

   • Delaying elections without clear grounds may affect timely representation, which is a facet of the right to equality and democratic participation, as upheld in PUCL v. Union of India (2003).

Suggestions by Former Chief Justices (Contextual Insights)

• Several former Chief Justices of India, while affirming the constitutionality of simultaneous elections, flagged that vesting such broad powers in the ECI without checks may be constitutionally infirm.

• Suggestions include:

  • Parliamentary oversight over ECI’s recommendations.

  • Limiting the grounds for postponement to exceptional cases like public order breakdown or national security.

  • Time-bound procedures to avoid excessive deferment.

Comparative Perspective

• In democracies like the UK and Germany, electoral schedules are largely fixed and any change must pass through Parliament or constitutional court oversight.

• India lacks such a mechanism under the proposed ONOE model, giving primacy to executive discretion without institutional checks.

Way Forward

1. Constitutional Safeguards: Embed objective criteria and time-bound provisions within the amendment to restrict ECI’s discretion.

2. Legislative Oversight: Ensure that all decisions on election deferment are placed before Parliament for approval.

3. Judicial Review Provision: Incorporate a clause for limited judicial scrutiny to uphold democratic accountability.

4. Strengthening Federalism: Ensure that states are consulted in decisions affecting their electoral timelines to maintain the spirit of cooperative federalism.

While the intent behind One Nation One Election is to promote electoral efficiency and reduce costs, the unchecked discretionary powers granted to the Election Commission under the current proposal may violate the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14. Ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in electoral processes is imperative for sustaining India's democratic and constitutional framework. Any legislation affecting fundamental rights and federal structure must be precise, guided, and accountable to avoid arbitrariness and uphold the rule of law.

Previous Daily UPSC Mains Question

• 21st July 2025 - GS 3 - how Atmanirbhar Bharat is evolv...

• 19th July 2025 - GS 2 - discretionary powers to ECI under...

• 18th July 2025 - GS 1 - glacier retreat and shifting mon...

• 17th July 2025 - GS 3 -  how the dark web poses an evolv...

• 16th July 2025 - GS 2 - how India’s engagement with Nami...

Click for Daily Current Affairs Summary

Click for Daily Prelims MCQs

Click for NCERTs Pdfs

Click for Daily Quotes

Stay updated with the latest news by joining our Telegram channel – The PRESS Pad , and follow us on Instagram and X.