Model Answer

Introduction (20–30 words)

‘One Nation One Election’ (ONOE) aims to synchronise Lok Sabha and State Assembly polls by adjusting assembly tenures and related laws. The 23rd Law Commission has held that the Bills do not violate the Constitution’s basic structure.

1. Brief Legal/Constitutional Framework

1. The basic structure doctrine protects core constitutional features such as federalism, separation of powers, and democratic governance. Challenges to ONOE focus on whether synchronisation alters these essentials.
2. The Bills propose synchronising elections by curtailing or aligning assembly terms and amending statutes governing elections and union territories.
3. According to the Law Commission, these changes modify election timing and tenure but do not remove voting rights or fundamentally disturb the federal structure.

2. Arguments Supporting the Law Commission’s Conclusion

1. No change to distribution of powers
   The Bills adjust the electoral calendar without altering legislative or executive powers between the Centre and States.
2. Right to vote retained
   Shortening an assembly term affects election timing, not the existence or exercise of the franchise.
3. Amendment procedure respected
   The proposed changes do not fall under Article 368(2)(a)–(e), meaning state ratification is not required and the constitutional procedure is followed.

3. Counter-Arguments and Constitutional Concerns

1. Federalism and State autonomy
   Curtailing assembly terms may undermine state mandates and allow central influence over electoral timing, affecting federal balance.
2. Precedent and principle
   Aligning terms with the Centre could set a precedent for politically motivated tenure alterations, weakening the spirit of federal democracy.
3. Practical constitutional risks
   Expanded roles for central bodies in synchronisation may blur boundaries of institutional independence unless tightly regulated.

4. Administrative and Operational Issues

1. Curtailment logistics
   Shortening assembly terms raises legal-political concerns, including compensation questions and legitimacy issues around truncated mandates.
2. Model Code of Conduct (MCC)
   The Law Commission avoids recommending statutory backing to the MCC, which raises concerns about enforceability during a complex transition.
3. Institutional overlaps (CEC/NGT and others)
   Ancillary reforms referred to the Law Commission involve evaluating overlaps among quasi-judicial or advisory bodies, affecting overall governance and implementation.

Conclusion

The Law Commission’s position that ONOE does not violate the basic structure is grounded in viewing synchronisation as a timing adjustment rather than a federal power shift. However, significant federal, democratic, and operational challenges persist. Robust transition safeguards and strong Centre-State coordination are essential to protect constitutional integrity.