The Constitution (129th) Amendment Bill, 2024, is an ambitious legislative proposal that aims to fundamentally reshape India's electoral process by introducing simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state legislative Assemblies. Rooted in recommendations from a high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, the bill seeks to address the challenges posed by staggered elections, which often disrupt governance and incur significant financial and administrative costs. By aligning election cycles across the country, the bill promises to streamline the electoral process, reduce expenditure, and allow governments to focus more on policymaking and long-term governance rather than remaining in a constant state of campaign readiness.
The bill introduces significant amendments to key constitutional provisions, including Articles 83 and 172, which relate to the duration of Parliament and state legislatures, respectively. A new Article 82A is also proposed, which lays the groundwork for simultaneous elections by synchronising the terms of the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies. The mechanism proposed involves declaring an “appointed date,” which will serve as the starting point for aligning electoral terms. From this date, the tenure of both the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies will follow a fixed five-year cycle. In cases where a legislature is dissolved before completing its term, the fresh elections conducted will only fill the remainder of the original tenure, ensuring that the synchronised timeline remains intact.
This proposal marks a significant departure from India’s current staggered electoral system, where elections are held at different times for different states and the Lok Sabha. The government argues that the new system will alleviate electoral fatigue among voters, reduce the cost and complexity of conducting elections, and allow the Election Commission to streamline resources and planning. Frequent elections, as seen under the present system, also distract governments and the administrative machinery, as they are perpetually engaged in electoral processes. By addressing these issues, the bill aspires to create an environment conducive to uninterrupted governance and policymaking.
However, the proposed reforms have sparked a wide-ranging debate about their implications for India’s federal structure, democratic principles, and the basic structure of the Constitution. Critics argue that aligning state elections with the Lok Sabha may undermine the autonomy of state legislatures, centralising power in a manner that could disrupt the balance between the Union and the states. Concerns have also been raised about the operational feasibility of such a reform, given the diverse political, cultural, and logistical challenges inherent in a country as vast and varied as India. Legal experts are closely examining whether the proposed amendments alter essential features of the Constitution, such as federalism and democratic representation, which are considered inviolable under the basic structure doctrine.
The bill’s passage involves significant procedural requirements under Article 368 of the Constitution. As a constitutional amendment, it requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, meaning that two-thirds of the members present and voting must approve it, provided a quorum of at least half the total membership is met. Beyond this, there is an ongoing debate about whether the bill requires ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. Amendments that alter the federal structure of the Constitution or affect the legislative relations between the Centre and the states typically necessitate such ratification. Legal scholars and former parliamentary officials have weighed in with differing views on this matter. Some argue that the proposal’s impact on state legislatures’ terms and autonomy inherently requires state consent, while others contend that since no legislative entries in the Seventh Schedule are being amended, ratification may not be necessary.
The government has referred the bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which will conduct consultations with stakeholders and provide recommendations. This step reflects the contentious nature of the proposal and the need for broader discussions to address the concerns of various political parties, state governments, and civil society groups. The JPC is expected to examine the legal, constitutional, and administrative aspects of the bill, ensuring that its implications are fully understood and debated before any final decision is made.
Critics have been vocal about the potential risks posed by the reform to India’s federal structure. Altering the terms of state legislatures to align with the Lok Sabha’s tenure is seen as a move that could diminish states’ autonomy, a cornerstone of federalism. The inclusion of local body elections within this framework further complicates the matter, as it could disrupt grassroots governance. Moreover, the logistical and administrative challenges of conducting simultaneous elections across a country as large and diverse as India are significant, raising questions about the feasibility of implementing the proposal on the ground.
There are also concerns about the political motivations behind the bill. Some observers view it as an attempt to centralize power and strengthen the position of the ruling party at the national level. Others believe that the proposal, while well-intentioned, is premature, given the lack of a political consensus and the absence of robust mechanisms to address the complexities of its implementation.
Ultimately, the bill represents a bold vision for electoral reform, but its success depends on navigating the intricate legal, constitutional, and political challenges it faces. The debates surrounding the bill reflect broader questions about the nature of India’s democracy, the balance of power between the Centre and the states, and the principles that underpin the Constitution. Whether the proposal gains the necessary support in Parliament and among state legislatures—or faces judicial scrutiny in the Supreme Court—remains to be seen. Its outcome will have far-reaching implications for India’s electoral system and the functioning of its democracy.
