Former CJI DY Chandrachud supports ‘one nation, one election’, says it doesn't violate the Constitution

Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has supported the constitutional validity of the “one nation, one election” (ONOP) proposal ahead of his scheduled appearance before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on Friday. He is expected to appear along with another former CJI, JS Khehar, a TOI report stated.

As per the TOI report, the former CJI, in his written opinion, has said that the Constitution does not mandate separate timings for Lok Sabha and state assembly elections. “The Constitution never mandated holding national and state elections separately,” Chandrachud stated in his submission to the JPC, which is headed by BJP MP PP Chaudhary.

The ONOP proposal aims to synchronise elections for Parliament and state assemblies. It has faced criticism from opposition parties, who argue it violates the Constitution’s basic structure. Chandrachud responded to this, saying staggered elections are not part of the original Constitution and do not form an unchangeable feature.

Concerns over Election Commission’s powers

While supporting the idea, Chandrachud flagged concerns over the extensive powers proposed for the Election Commission of India (ECI) under the ONOP bill. He noted that such powers could allow the ECI to extend or shorten the tenure of a state assembly, which would go beyond the Constitutionally set five-year term.

“Such unbounded authority could enable the poll body to curtail or extend the tenure of a state assembly beyond the constitutionally mandated five years, under the pretext that simultaneous elections with the Lok Sabha are not feasible. The Constitution must define, delineate and structure the circumstances under which the ECI may invoke this power,” he said.

This concern was also raised earlier by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi. Chandrachud served as India’s 50th Chief Justice from November 2022 to 2024.

Voter rights and representation

Chandrachud said that holding simultaneous elections would not affect the voters’ rights. He argued that the bill provides for continued representation of electors through elected members in both Parliament and legislative assemblies.

“Arguments opposing simultaneous elections are based on the premise that the Indian electorate is naive and can be easily manipulated. The argument that staggered elections are a part of the Constitution’s basic structure (or form part of the principles of federalism or democracy) does not hold. Staggered timing of elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature,” he said.

Smaller parties may be marginalised

Chandrachud also pointed out that simultaneous elections could benefit national parties over smaller or regional ones. He said this concern must be addressed through legislative policy.

He highlighted that while the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 set spending limits for candidates, there is no limit on what political parties themselves can spend. This gap, he noted, gives an advantage to parties with higher financial resources.

Midterm polls and government stability

The bill proposes that any House elected through midterm polls will serve only the remainder of the original five-year term. Chandrachud said this could weaken a government’s ability to carry out significant policy actions if it is elected for a short term.

He said the Model Code of Conduct would kick in about six months before the next scheduled election, limiting government actions during that time. Several JPC members have also raised similar concerns.

Former CJIs UU Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have earlier presented their views before the JPC. Lalit has also supported the constitutional validity of the ONOP proposal.