Since its independence in 1947, India has held over 400 elections for the House of the People (Parliament) and State Legislative Assemblies. In April 2024, India conducted its national elections, recognized globally as the world’s largest democratic exercise. With over 900 million citizens registered to vote, the sheer scale and importance of this electoral process cannot be overstated. India’s democracy, often celebrated for its vibrancy, continues to serve as a beacon of representative governance. However, while the operational success of elections is commendable, it is equally important to continually scrutinize and reassess the underlying framework of the system. This ongoing evaluation is essential to address emerging challenges, adapt to societal and technological changes, and ensure that the democratic process remains robust, inclusive, and reflective of the evolving aspirations of the people.

One of the key reforms that has garnered considerable attention in recent times is the concept of ‘Simultaneous Elections’. This proposal envisions holding elections for the House of People (Parliament) and State legislative assemblies, and local bodies concurrently. After extensive deliberations, the union government formed a high-level committee (HLC) led by former President, Shri Ram Nath Kovind. The committee, comprising experts from various fields such as law, political science, administration, public finance, and economics, worked for 191 days. The Committee reviewed relevant legal literature from India and other countries and considered findings from expert bodies like the Law Commission, National Commission to Review the Constitution, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, Niti Aayog, and the Election Commission. All reports supported simultaneous elections, presenting various arguments in their favor.

The HLC has underscored several important advantages of holding simultaneous elections. Frequent elections often disrupt the flow of development and governance causing policy paralysis, largely because of the extended enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, which restricts governments from launching new initiatives or implementing major policy decisions during election periods. Moreover, the preparation for elections consumes a significant portion of government resources, such as manpower, finances, and time. These resources, which could otherwise be used to advance ongoing developmental projects or implement new policies, are diverted to election-related activities. Additionally, synchronized elections will enhance voter participation by addressing voter fatigue, as citizens would only need to vote once for all levels, fostering a collective sense of civic duty and national unity. Furthermore, during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the Election Commission of India mobilized around 70 lakh personnel to oversee 12,03,800 polling stations, diverting significant manpower from core responsibilities. Simultaneous elections would reduce the frequency of such resource diversion.

To facilitate the implementation of simultaneous elections, the first crucial step is to align the electoral timelines of the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies. This alignment will require the introduction of a Constitutional Amendment Bill to amend Article 83, which governs the duration of the Houses of Parliament, and Article 172, which pertains to the tenure of State Legislatures. Furthermore, to simplify this synchronization process, Article 82A will be inserted, without the requirement of ratification by the States. In the second step, elections for Municipalities and Panchayats will be aligned with those of the House of the People and State Legislative Assemblies, ensuring that they take place within a hundred days following the completion of the national and state elections. To implement this, a new Constitutional Amendment Bill will be introduced, which will involve the insertion of Article 324A and amendments to Article 325 of the Constitution. The Election Commission is responsible for preparing the electoral roll for national and state legislative elections. However, states often maintain separate rolls for Municipal and Panchayat elections. The committee recommends a unified single electoral roll and photo ID card, replacing those previously issued by either the Election Commission of India (under Article 325) or State Election Commissions (under Articles 243K and 243ZA). As these changes impact matters over which state has authority to make laws upon, ratification by at least half of the states will be required under Article 368(2) of the Constitution. Further amendments to the Constitution will include definitions for the terms: ‘Simultaneous elections,’ ‘Full-term,’ ‘Unexpired term,’ ‘Mid-term elections,’ and ‘General elections.’ To synchronize all elections, a one-time transitional measure would be needed. The government would determine when conditions are ready for simultaneous elections. After the next General Elections (tentatively to be held in 2029), the President would issue a notification on the same date as its first sitting to enforce the transition, designating this as the “Appointed date.” From this date onwards, the term of all State Legislative Assemblies elected thereafter would align with the House of the People’s full term, regardless of when they were/will be constituted. For instance, if Jharkhand holds elections post-2029, say in 2030, its assembly would be dissolved prematurely to align with the subsequent General Elections scheduled for 2034, thereby ensuring synchronized elections nationwide. If the House of the People or any state assembly is dissolved early, new elections will be held, but the new term would match the remaining duration of the prior term of the House of People, rather than for a full five years.

Out of 47 political parties that gave feedback to the HLC, 32 agreed and 15 disagreed with the idea of simultaneous elections. Among the 21,558 individual responses, 80% were in favor of holding elections simultaneously, reflecting broad public support for the proposal. Opponents of simultaneous elections have generally expressed certain concerns, which the HLC has attempted to address and counter. Critics argue that simultaneous elections would violate the basic structure of the Constitution and undermine democratic principles, as some state legislative assemblies would have their terms either cut short or extended to align with national elections. While the term for both the House of the People and state legislative assemblies is set at five years unless dissolved earlier, a one-time adjustment of the terms to facilitate simultaneous elections wouldn’t be undemocratic. Instead, it would be seen as part of a “reasonable process” for greater public interest. Parliament holds the authority to amend the Constitution to allow for synchronized elections. The first four general elections in India were held simultaneously. Moreover, there has been no judicial ruling declaring that holding separate elections is a basic feature of the Constitution. The claim that simultaneous elections violate federal principles is based on the assumption that the Constitution of India is purely federal. India’s Constitution is federal in structure but unitary in spirit, with the nation described as a “Union of States.” While the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India emphasized the distinct constitutional existence of states and their significant role, simultaneous elections would not diminish the value of states. The Constitution already provides distinct spheres of legislative and executive powers for both the Union and the states. Hence, holding simultaneous elections does not necessarily infringe upon federal principles. The notion that simultaneous elections would harm regional and smaller parties by overshadowing local issues is speculative. The opposite could also be argued: simultaneous elections may bring regional issues to the forefront, depending on the political climate in a particular area. India’s diversity ensures that both national and regional interests are represented, and simultaneous elections could strengthen the unity of the nation rather than weaken it. The fear that simultaneous elections would lead to a shift towards a presidential form of government is fictitious. India already operates under a system where the President is the supreme commander of the armed forces, but the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers hold the executive power, with the President bound by their advice. There are no proposed constitutional amendments that would alter this structure, and simultaneous elections would not change India’s parliamentary system of governance. In the event of a hung assembly or the premature dissolution of a legislative house, fresh elections could be held for the remaining term rather than for the full five years. The system of no-confidence motions is a fundamental aspect of India’s parliamentary democracy, allowing the legislative body to hold the government accountable. The committee firmly opposed any efforts to weaken or diminish this critical mechanism, recognizing its importance in maintaining the checks and balances within the political system.

The High-Level Committee (HLC), has reached the conclusion that conducting simultaneous elections across India will offer substantial benefits to the nation. By adopting best practices from various countries and tailoring them to the Indian context, the electoral process can be streamlined, frequent disruptions in governance can be reduced, and the cost of elections will be minimized. The committee has recommended necessary constitutional amendments, and the Election Commission of India is expected to prepare a plan and estimate in advance for logistical arrangements, including the procurement of EVMs and VVPATs, deployment of polling staff and security personnels, along with other required measures so as to ensure smooth implementation. Simultaneous elections will not only ensure a more stable and consistent governance environment but also allow for efficient use of resources, thereby strengthening democratic process.