Skip to main content

Simultaneous Parliament and State Assembly elections are not possible, are against federalism

Rajindar Sachar*
Prime Minister Modi has for last six months kept a continuous refrain for holding simultaneously Lok Sabha and State Assembly polls and the supposed advantages that would flow from it. As was to be expected number of newspapers and persons are picking up this matter.

It is unfortunate that Election Commission of India and Niti Aayog should have gone along with this suggestion without even the minimum constitutional requirement of a public debate and seminars – and more unforgivably without discussions of the matter with other major political parties and the State governments. In order to have a worthwhile debate, it is necessary to know the legal and factual situation at present.
The present life of Lok Sabha expires in May 2019.   Modis repeated emphasis on simultaneous poll is actuated by the realization that the mood of exhilaration that he was able to create in 2014 Parliamentary poll is diminishing very fast. The background situation from 2004 – 2014 of UPA regime had exposed so much scandals both financial and administrative that people were sick of goody but not visible prime Minister Manmohan Singh because of the domination of Indira Gandhi family.
The exposure by the Supreme Court of telecom and Coal scandals had made BJP task easier. By itself BJP under leadership of other than Modi (helpd fully by RSS) may not have done that well. But Modi had created an illusion of strong and honest government in Gujarat that people were willing to ignore or even forget one of the worst period under Modi, namely the state supported mass slaughter of Muslims in 2001.
Such was the communal passion aroused by RSS that country which was already disgusted with the corruption and inefficiency of UPA government and also heightened by the split amongst the various political parties that Modi romped home with overwhelming majority of seat in Lok Sabha but with just 31% of votes – of course greatly helped and boosted by corporate funding.
That illusion has now been exposed. Even ardent supporters of Modi now do not place hundred percent bet on Modi winning Lok Sabha polls in 2019 - that is why the effort of Modi to work out a strategy so as to keep his rivals also caught up with State Assembly polls so as not to put combined pressure on him in Lok Sabha Polls.
But this strategy of Modi is not constitutionally possible. After Emergency, Constitution (44th Amendment) has provided in Article 83 and Article 172, of the Constitution that Lok Sabha and State Legislatures of the State shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. Thus the factual situation at present will show that it is constitutionally not possible to hold simultaneous polls in May 2019.
This is because it would require to extend the term of Sates Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan (by 5 months), Mizoram (by 6 months) and Karnataka (by 12 months) which is not constitutionally possible. Of course the terms of Haryana and Maharashtra (by 5 months), Jharkhand (by 7 month) excepting NCT f Delhi (by 8 months) could be curtailed as these states are BJP government, but Delhi would not agree.
Punjab, U.P. must go to polls in the next 2 months - obviously no one can expect Tamil Nadu, Bihar, J & K, West Bengal and Kerala all opposition parties to agree whose terms are upto 2021.  Assam can go to polls in 2019 though due in 2021 as they are BJP - will Modi agree to curtail its term where BJP has for the first time come to power.
Non-BJP states like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, whose terms expires by 2021, will never agree to curtail their period terms. The Central government whose terms would expire by 2019 cannot continue thereafter without holding fresh elections due in May 2019.
If however Modi is so keen on holding simultaneous polls even with some States he can hold it along by dissolving Parliament in 2017 and then hold simultaneous polls by dissolving also at same time BJP Sate Assemblies whose terms are not yet over as mentioned above. If Modi is not willing why is he trying cover his government failure by conjuring up these illusory undemocratic solutions.
But a greater principle of democracy is involved in simultaneous polls of parliament and state assemblies unless by fortuitous circumstances the five year period of parliament and State Assemblies happen to coincide on its own. This contrived situation trying to be brought up by Modi has very dangerous implication and against the basic structure of our constitution which is impermissible. According to Supreme Court of India Article 1(1) India is a Union of States which means a federation of States.
Our constitution specifically provides exclusive list – I empowering the Central government which alone can legislate on certain subjects in list-I in Seventh Schedule. The States alone can legislate List - II  - Parliament can not. Both Centre and State can legislate in List - III. State List - II includes very important subjects like Agriculture, law and order ......on which only state can legislate and Centre has no jurisdiction. Obviously voters have different aspects, priorities when voting for State Assemblies or Parliament.
The Supreme Court of India (1951) specifically held: “The State legislature under our Constitution is not a delegate of the union parliament. Both legislatures derive powers from the same Constitution. Within its appointed sphere, the State Legislature has plenary powers”.
Modi wants to deny this strategic advantage of States and weaken decentralization which is the core of our constitutional jurisprudence.
Examples of other countries like USA and Europe would also show that it is constitutionally recognized that the priorities and interests of State in day to day governance are emphasized differently.
Thus in USA a rather extreme position prevails that law and Medical degrees of one state are not even recognized in the rest of States. As far elections they have different laws in each state. They have separate laws for poll for Presidents election and separate for Senate and House of representatives and also separate for various states. Of course this is an extreme example borne possibly of history of USA which had Civil War.
We wisely did not go so far. Also the distinction between the priorities of Centre and the states are different. The sooner Modi relinquishes this idea of simultaneous poll it is better. This gives unfair advantage to national parties as against state parties and distorts the sentiment of voters that government be close to the people of area concerned. 
---
*Former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, chaired Sachar Committee, which submitted a report on the social, economic and educational status of Muslims in India

Comments

Post a Comment

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.
59 comments
»

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.
Post a Comment
»

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”
Post a Comment
»

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.
Post a Comment
»

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?
Post a Comment
»

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.
Post a Comment
»

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.
Post a Comment
»

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava   Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.
1 comment
»

Michael Parenti: Scholar known for critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy

By Harsh Thakor*  Michael Parenti, an American political scientist, historian, and author known for his Marxist and anti-imperialist perspectives, died on January 24 at the age of 92. Over several decades, Parenti wrote and lectured extensively on issues of capitalism, imperialism, democracy, media, and U.S. foreign policy. His work consistently challenged dominant political and economic narratives, particularly those associated with Western liberal democracies and global capitalism.
Post a Comment
»